NPS Policy

[Pokagon Nature Center]

The NPS property I have been working recently sent me the new official policy for GPS related activities. I have put the link below. They have given the ok for a geocache by applying for a special use permit.

 

Here's the whole policy for those that are interested.

 

http://www.nps.gov/policy/GPSguidance.pdf

[+Cardinal Red]

More proof that Letterboxers are smarter than Geocachers. You don't see this kind of language in the Letterboxing section.

 

"Park managers who wish to allow GPS activities will be most likely to find virtual caching an appropriate form of enjoyment."

[+Isonzo Karst]

Thank you for posting that. Pity it's so negative re geocaching - the assumption that caches are buried for instance. And it closes with a list of NPS management policies that can be used to prohibit caching.

 

Interesting that letterboxing in remote areas may be okay.

 

it is entirely possible that some parks, particularly those with a vast expanse of backcountry, will have locations where a letterbox could be concealed and sought out without causing unacceptable impacts.

 

while geocaching:

...the “hunters” will be placing caches in unapproved areas, digging up park resources and damaging the park environment. Obviously, much as we want park visitors to enjoy their experience, we cannot allow a GPS activity....

Edited November 2, 2007 by Isonzo Karst

[+elmuyloco5]

GPS frisbee golf?????? How the heck do you play that?? I have a hard enough time just getting the frisbee where it needs to go, much less adding coordinates into the whole thing!

[+briansnat]

Thank you for posting that. Pity it's so negative re geocaching - the assumption that caches are buried for instance. And it closes with a list of NPS management policies that can be used to prohibit caching.

 

Interesting that letterboxing in remote areas may be okay.

 

it is entirely possible that some parks, particularly those with a vast expanse of backcountry, will have locations where a letterbox could be concealed and sought out without causing unacceptable impacts.

 

while geocaching:

...the “hunters” will be placing caches in unapproved areas, digging up park resources and damaging the park environment. Obviously, much as we want park visitors to enjoy their experience, we cannot allow a GPS activity....

 

Full of misconceptions, but at least it's a start. Odd how letterboxing and geocaching appear to be treated differently, even though they are very similar.

 

It would be nice to find out who issued this and try to set him straight.

[+Jeep_Dog]

Interesting that letterboxing in remote areas may be okay.

 

(someone could try to explain to them if backcountry is good enough for a letterbox, then it is good enough for a geocache)

 

Who in the heck mentioned "treasure hunt" to the biased author?

 

-OR-

 

No sweat. Just get it approved as a Letterbox by the NPS, list it here as a Letterbox Hybrid. Voila! Problem solved!

Edited November 2, 2007 by Jeep_Dog

[+Mopar]

Full of misconceptions, but at least it's a start. Odd how letterboxing and geocaching appear to be treated differently, even though they are very similar.

 

It would be nice to find out who issued this and try to set him straight.

From the document:

 

F. Further Information

Contacts. Evaluating new activities and requests to conduct them on park lands can be very

complex. If you have questions or need assistance, please contact one of the following people:

• Law enforcement: Lane Baker, Division of Law Enforcement, Security and Emergency

Services, lane_baker@nps.gov, 202-513-7128.

• Permitting: Lee Dickinson, Special Park Uses Coordinator, lee_dickinson@nps.gov, 202-

513-7092.

• Policy questions: Marcia Keener, Program Analyst, Office of Policy,

marcia_keener@nps.gov, 202-208-4298.

• Technical questions: Tim Smith, NPS GPS Program Coordinator, GISD,

tim_smith@nps.gov, 303-969-2086

On-line Forum. An on-line forum will be set up to exchange information and constructive

ideas. When it becomes available, it will be accessible through the “GPS-based recreational

activities” topic in the scroll-down menu on www.nps.gov/policy.

 

Perhaps TPTB at Groundspeak should be the ones doing the contacting?

Edited November 2, 2007 by Mopar

[+MissJenn]

Perhaps TPTB at Groundspeak should be the ones doing the contacting?

Indeed.

[+elmuyloco5]

Seems to me, actions speak louder than words. The best thing anyone can do is to work with a park and place a cache. Then they need to maintain that cache, keep the area CITOed, maybe even hold events (with the permission of the park) that have to do with park preservation and repair. If one person each took a park in their area and did this, NPS would have a totally different view of caching.

 

We're doing the same thing at a privately owned area that people have been wanting to cache at forever. It took us months to convince them to allow us special permission to place one. In order to do so, we have to go with a staff member who will work with us to decide on a placement that will work for them and us. Then, if we maintain it, and keep the place clean, they might change their mind in the future to allow others. If we want people to allow cachers in, we have to show them just how great cachers can be.

[+mtn-man]

A fantastic opportunity to shine. What a great step forward this is.

 

Very exciting.

[+CacheDrone]

Very surprised to hear about this since Canada just set a new National Park policy on Geocaching Parks Canada Geocaching policy

 

During the discussions that were held with representatives from across the country including Parks Canada staff and representatives from many geocaching clubs, there was an indication from the parks staff that they had been talking to the US NPS. This would seem to be contrary to what I was told by attendees of that policy creation meeting.

 

Hopefully you guys can turn this around like we did. Our first policy was a totally ban on geocaching too but with work we can enjoy it again. It would be great if the same was true for NPS in the US.

[+CSpenceFLY]

Hate to rain on the parade but if they got it in their minds that they don't want it they will run you around in circles preventing it. The BASE jumping community has been fighting this battle for years. Someone came to the conclusion that parachuting is not an appropriate use of park resources and a whole list of half truths like in the geocaching policy. Now, you can free climb a 1000 ft cliff if you want but you can't jump off of that same cliff with a parachute. Does that make sense?

[+mtn-man]

Well, considering we have pretty much had a flat out ban, I see this as a ray of sunshine. At least there is a policy set now beyond "No abandoned property in NPS areas".

[+Seasoned Warrior]

Very surprised to hear about this since Canada just set a new National Park policy on Geocaching Parks Canada Geocaching policy

 

During the discussions that were held with representatives from across the country including Parks Canada staff and representatives from many geocaching clubs, there was an indication from the parks staff that they had been talking to the US NPS. This would seem to be contrary to what I was told by attendees of that policy creation meeting.

 

Hopefully you guys can turn this around like we did. Our first policy was a totally ban on geocaching too but with work we can enjoy it again. It would be great if the same was true for NPS in the US.

 

Exactly! The aparatchiks need to be reminded who they are supposed to serve. One of the best ways of doing that is to make sure that they see the geocaching commuity as an ally instead of the enemy. It can be done, it just needs everyone's involvment!

[+Snoogans]

Well, considering we have pretty much had a flat out ban, I see this as a ray of sunshine. At least there is a policy set now beyond "No abandoned property in NPS areas".

 

A teeny ray. The misconceptions in that document gave me a headache. I couldn't finish it.

[magellan315]

• Policy questions: Marcia Keener, Program Analyst, Office of Policy,

marcia_keener@nps.gov, 202-208-4298.

 

Most likely the policy memo was written by Marcia Keener, she's been the spokes person on NPS policy regarding Geocaching since the NPS found out about it, about 6 years ago. Not to to thrilled about the way it was written sounds like nothing has changed since 2001 about Geocaching or how they perceive it. In this section:

cause serious adverse impacts to park resources (such as threatened

and endangered species, cryptobiotic soils, and paleo and archeological resources); and

otherwise violate NPS regulations.

The NPS ignores the fact that GC.com has guidelines to prevent this from happening or that GC.com has worked with the NPS for 6 years to prevent caches from being laced on their land.

 

My suggestion would be to act locally, think globally. It took the NPS 6 years to write this policy memo that appears to be filled with incomplete information it will take another 6 years for an accurate memo. Instead since the final decision rests with the local park staff offer to hold a CITO or a Geocaching class in exchange for permission to hide a cache. I've done both for a county park system and now they ask for annual Geocaching classes, we are one of the few activities advertised for their Earth Day Festival. The relationship is very different today, originally they thought Geocaching would have the same sort of impact the NPS thinks it will.

Edited November 3, 2007 by magellan315

[tttedzeins]

Now, you can free climb a 1000 ft cliff if you want but you can't jump off of that same cliff with a parachute. Does that make sense?

 

Er....Ummm A tad confused here. Does this mean that you can jump off said 1000ft cliff without said parachute ?

 

And they allow this ? Or is there just no ruling on it at present ?

Edited November 3, 2007 by tttedzeins

[+CSpenceFLY]

Now, you can free climb a 1000 ft cliff if you want but you can't jump off of that same cliff with a parachute. Does that make sense?

 

Er....Ummm A tad confused here. Does this mean that you can jump off said 1000ft cliff without said parachute ?

 

And they allow this ? Or is there just no ruling on it at present ?

 

One of their reasons to not allow parachuting is danger to persons or property on the ground. Do you think that someone free climbing(climbing without a rope) poses that same danger if they fall?

[+CSpenceFLY]

• Policy questions: Marcia Keener, Program Analyst, Office of Policy,

marcia_keener@nps.gov, 202-208-4298.

 

Most likely the policy memo was written by Marcia Keener, she's been the spokes person on NPS policy regarding Geocaching since the NPS found out about it, about 6 years ago. Not to to thrilled about the way it was written sounds like nothing has changed since 2001 about Geocaching or how they perceive it. In this section:

cause serious adverse impacts to park resources (such as threatened

and endangered species, cryptobiotic soils, and paleo and archeological resources); and

otherwise violate NPS regulations.

The NPS ignores the fact that GC.com has guidelines to prevent this from happening or that GC.com has worked with the NPS for 6 years to prevent caches from being laced on their land.

 

My suggestion would be to act locally, think globally. It took the NPS 6 years to write this policy memo that appears to be filled with incomplete information it will take another 6 years for an accurate memo. Instead since the final decision rests with the local park staff offer to hold a CITO or a Geocaching class in exchange for permission to hide a cache. I've done both for a county park system and now they ask for annual Geocaching classes, we are one of the few activities advertised for their Earth Day Festival. The relationship is very different today, originally they thought Geocaching would have the same sort of impact the NPS thinks it will.

 

And responsibility. That is why you can not have policys that allow individuals at a lower level to make the decision as to allow something or not. They will almost always decide to cover their you know what before allowing something that could possibly cause a problem.

[+DocDiTTo]

I definitely see this as a step in the right direction. Hopefully it will allow Groundspeak to open a dialog with the NPS to further geocaching in these parks. I for one sincerely urge Groundspeak to move on this opportunity. Geocachers need a united voice, and I think those in charge of this web site are in the best position to be that voice. Let's clear up the misconceptions and work to create an approval process that is easily understood and benefits the NPS and geocachers alike!

 

Things are looking up!

[groundhog123]

Now, you can free climb a 1000 ft cliff if you want but you can't jump off of that same cliff with a parachute. Does that make sense?

 

Er....Ummm A tad confused here. Does this mean that you can jump off said 1000ft cliff without said parachute ?

 

And they allow this ? Or is there just no ruling on it at present ?

 

One of their reasons to not allow parachuting is danger to persons or property on the ground. Do you think that someone free climbing(climbing without a rope) poses that same danger if they fall?

 

Absolutely! Either case is a single object falling from the sky!

[+Seasoned Warrior]

A special interest user group in the Boundary Waters Wilderness and Quetico Provincial Park set up a forum topic covering the parks. Unfortunately only the Canadian Park participates but it has provided an great medium to exchange information. Ranger HQ posts local conditions and any new developments such as fire bans, proposed regulations etc and allows for a discussion on the topics by all concerned. At times it seems as though the NPS forgets that they are there to provide equal access. Sometimes it appears that the NPS can not figure out the difference between stewardship that includes users versus outright ban. Resources can be conserved and used, after all the parks are renewable resources and belong to all the people of a country, sometimes the stewards need to be reminded.

[Pokagon Nature Center]

Well, considering we have pretty much had a flat out ban, I see this as a ray of sunshine. At least there is a policy set now beyond "No abandoned property in NPS areas".

 

That's how I read it. While I agree there are some misconceptions, but it does reflect a much different view than the previous, "No caches allowed!" standpoint. They seem to be recognizing the potential for education and recreation in appropriate areas. A policy set forth by them lets them protect sensitive areas like cyrptobiotic soils and endangered species that geocachers may not know about. Many of these types of areas are not released to the public for the species protection.

 

What I do know from my conversations with them is they have approved my desire to place a geocache by using a special use permit, and they have asked me to help coordinate a geocache/earthcache program for school groups between the NPS and my govt agency. Comes off as positive in my eyes.

 

I'm for DocDitto's suggestion for having Groundspeak take it from here, and work with them on clearing misconceptions and coming to a nationwide agreement with them.

[+Isonzo Karst]

Yes, I realize that my initial post here emphasized the negative, but this represents a huge improvement. From zero to something.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Great accomplishment PNC...let's hope they get a better understanding of geocaching and you have even more freedoms in the future!

[+new_dharma]

A special interest user group in the Boundary Waters Wilderness and Quetico Provincial Park set up a forum topic covering the parks. Unfortunately only the Canadian Park participates but it has provided an great medium to exchange information. Ranger HQ posts local conditions and any new developments such as fire bans, proposed regulations etc and allows for a discussion on the topics by all concerned. At times it seems as though the NPS forgets that they are there to provide equal access. Sometimes it appears that the NPS can not figure out the difference between stewardship that includes users versus outright ban. Resources can be conserved and used, after all the parks are renewable resources and belong to all the people of a country, sometimes the stewards need to be reminded.

 

The BWCAW isn't managed by the NPS...it's managed by the USDA Forest Service (just an FYI)

[+paleolith]

Almost all the misconceptions (Snoogans' word) I see are here in this forum, often backed by partial quoting of the NPS document which skews or even reverses its meaning. To me, the document is very positive to geocaching: it allows local superintendents to set their own policy and encourages them to allow geocaching as long as they meet the other goals set out for them.

 

Cardinal Red quotes the sentence Park managers who wish to allow GPS activities will be most likely to find virtual caching an appropriate form of enjoyment. This is the only sentence in the document where I see a misconception, specifically the misconception that virtual caching is a general substitute for physical caching.

 

Isonzo Karst says Pity it's so negative re geocaching. I don't see that at all.

 

the assumption that caches are buried for instance. No, the document does not make any such assumption. The relevant sentence in the document is The notion of a 'treasure hunt' immediately sets off an alarm for NPS managers because it implies that the 'hunters' will be placing caches in unapproved areas, digging up park resources and damaging the park environment. This is simply explaining why NPS managers may react negatively to the idea. Since the document goes on to explain how managers can allow geocaching while also protecting the resources, this should be seen as addressing the fears rather than provoking fears. With these fears made explicit and open, we are able to show where the geocaching community is already addressing these issues, for example by the ban on burying caches.

 

And it closes with a list of NPS management policies that can be used to prohibit caching. I see the list as a list of resources to help managers allow and manage caching. Note that the document provides names, phone numbers, and email addresses of several NPS personnel who can help managers with any issues which arise, and gives links to the most important geocaching web sites.

 

briansnat says Odd how letterboxing and geocaching appear to be treated differently. While the wording varies, I don't read any intent to treat them differently. In fact, it appears to me that the authors in some cases write "letterbox" to mean any cache container. This actually makes sense. Geocachers often (perhaps almost always) use the word "cache" to mean a container or a place, but this is a very geocaching-jargon-laden usage. In ordinary English, a cache is a storage place. In the outdoors, it's usually a place where provisions are laid up for future use -- for example, backpackers in Death Valley and other desert areas establish water caches before starting a trek. So using the word "letterbox" actually conveys the concept to park managers better than does "cache" -- and perhaps we need to learn from this so that we know better how to approach park managers. (I also noticed the mention that letterboxes within peak registers might be appropriate; obviously there's no reason to treat geocaches any differently.)

 

Jeep_Dog says Who in the heck mentioned "treasure hunt". Well, could have been lots of people. That term is very frequently used in popular descriptions. I agree that it can lead to misunderstandings. Those of us who grew up with treasure hunts -- a series of clues to follow to a final point -- understand the meanings. Possibly today that game has faded in popularity and the "pirate's treasure" meaning is more widely understood. If so, this is something to be taken up with the press and within the geocaching community. (I recently ran into someone who had the impression that geocaches contained money, and asked me how much I had made doing it. I didn't figure out where he got the idea, but perhaps it was from the "pirates' treasure" concept.)

 

Mopar says Perhaps TPTB at Groundspeak should be the ones doing the contacting? Yes, and note that the document mentions that WASO (Washington Office) staff had been in contact with the geocaching.com web site management and found them very cooperative, and go on to say that "NPS staff should work with web site managers" etc.

 

magellan315 quotes the passage from the document about adverse impacts, but omits a critical word: potential. The passage in question actually reads these activities have the potential to cause injuries [...]; cause serious adverse impacts to park resources [...]; and otherwise violate NPS regulations. Is there anyone here who honestly does not believe there is any such POTENTIAL? To me, this is a great passage to have in the document, because we can pull out the cache placement guidelines to show that geocaching.com and the geocaching community have rejected damaging variants. The guidelines might perhaps be expanded a little to make the applicability to this section even clearer, but the off-limit part is already pretty clear, especially the part about no caches in areas which are highly sensitive to extra traffic -- an example of which is cryptobiotic soil. So it is not true, as magellan315 says, that "The NPS ignores the fact that GC.com has guidelines to prevent this from happening". This is a document to educate and inform park managers, so it is appropriate to itemize POTENTIAL impacts. Managers are responsible for addressing impacts.

 

Here are my own comments on the document:

 

The statement discussed above about potential adverse impact is immediately followed by other park staff have provided information showing how GPS activities can be properly managed to offer significant recreational and educational value to visitors, including opportunities for a growing number of families to experience appropriate outdoor adventures in parks. Providing recreational and education opportunities is important to NPS managers! This document is telling them that (with proper limits), geocaching promotes their goals.

 

The Service does not have a policy explicitly allowing or prohibiting any of these activities. Instead, park managers must make determinations on a case-by-case basis. So the park managers are being told explicitly to make a determination based on their park. Given the wide variety of parks, I for one would not find a blanket policy reasonable. I think that physical caches in Yosemite Valley would be a Bad Idea -- too much chance for resource damage. If the NPS made a blanket policy of allowing caches, within five minutes one would be published on top of Half Dome. So the direction is appropriate, and the document is giving the managers numerous reasons to allow geocaching.

 

A couple of sentences later, the document notes the "authorized cache activities" in Acadia National Park. That's all. It doesn't say that the authorized cache activities consist of a single Earthcache. It actually leaves the impression that the Acadia cache program is far more extensive than it really is, and thus encourages managers to consider caches beyond the actual precedent.

 

It is in our interest to establish ongoing and personal communication with the GPS user community, as we have with other park visitors. This statement, in section C, is just part of three paragraphs strongly encouraging outreach to and communication with geocachers (and other GPS users).

 

if a posting that has not been previously approved by the park seems to have potential as an appropriate recreational or educational activity, park staff may advise the cache developer on steps to be taken to gain the park’s support for the activity. In other words, managers are encouraged NOT to take a hard line on caches placed without prior approval, but rather to treat them as an application to place a cache.

 

Park managers should monitor park sponsored and approved GPS activities in the same way they would any other recreational or educational activity in the park. WOW!!! Park managers are EXPLICITLY directed to treat GPS activities on an equal footing with other activities! Hey, remember that NOTHING is unconditionally allowed in national parks. Many prohibit off-trail hiking. Not all allow horseback riding. Most prohibit bicycling on trails. Virtually all prohibit removal of natural materials with a fervor which makes me think I'd better scrape the mud off my boots before I leave. Etc. There's no reason to treat geocaching specially. On the contrary, what we want is to make geocaching mainstream.

 

There's a list of steps to take in case unapproved caches are noted. Yeah, four of those steps deal with how to get it removed. But the first two steps are 1) check to see if another division or representative approved it, and 2) evaluate whether it's appropriate and if so work with the "cache developer" to "fine tune" it.

 

Section E explicitly states that a superintendent has the authority to prohibit geocaching. But it also explicitly states that the superintendent has the authority to allow and manage geocaching. No longer need superintendents fear that allowing geocaches might get them overruled above and left with a mess of trying to remove existing caches. If they follow the procedures and make the decision to allow caches, they are on firm ground.

 

And yes, there's a list of relevant policies -- a pretty short list in the world of government red tape. As mentioned above, I read this as help to park managers in determining what policies they need to follow with respect to geocaching -- and it's a pretty short, easy, familiar list to the park managers.

 

Well, I've run off at the fingers for quite a while here. If there are any here who believe that geocaching should be totally unregulated and allowed everywhere in US national parks, then you and I have a fundamental disagreement, and you won't be happy with this document. Personally I think it's pretty good, and in the world of government it came out pretty fast -- six years is quick!

 

And no, I'm not an NPS insider, never have been. Don't think I even know any NPS people except in their official capacities. I do read Thunderbear, self-described as the oldest alternative newsletter in the federal government, and always a great read: http://www.workingnet.com/thunderbear/.

 

Edward

[Dinoprophet]

Now, you can free climb a 1000 ft cliff if you want but you can't jump off of that same cliff with a parachute. Does that make sense?

 

Er....Ummm A tad confused here. Does this mean that you can jump off said 1000ft cliff without said parachute ?

 

And they allow this ? Or is there just no ruling on it at present ?

 

One of their reasons to not allow parachuting is danger to persons or property on the ground. Do you think that someone free climbing(climbing without a rope) poses that same danger if they fall?

 

Absolutely! Either case is a single object falling from the sky!

While I agree the ban silly, the argument could be made that in climbing, the falling object is a catastrophic failure of the activity and is most often avoided, while in jumping, it's a success and guaranteed result.

[+elmuyloco5]

I have to agree with Paleolith (sorry didn't want to quote all that). When I read the letter, it appeared positive to me. The first thing I did was tell my husband that NPS is now allowing caches! They have to put out guidelines. The parks weren't formed for us to have a grown up playground, they were formed to preserve some of our natural resources. Their first priority is to preservation, not us having fun. But, it's clear that they are willing to work with the community to find ways of for the public to enjoy themselves and still protect our wilderness.

 

The NPS has some fabulous programs currently running for a vast array of personalities and needs. I know it's human nature to not like restrictions put upon us, but most of you don't realize just how bad these parks could get. We have a few national monuments near us, and the first national preserve to be owned and run by a board of trustees (the Valle Grande). This is a new program set up because the NPS is losing so much money. Our park is so restrictive, we have only 2 trails that are free. One day a year, the park is opened up to the public. We went last year, along with over 20,000 people. It took us 5 hours to drive 2 miles into the park. We didn't even get to see it! If you want to hike in the park, it's $15 a DAY for ONE person! Try that with a family of 5. The pass doesn't cover this park either. There's a lottery to hunt, to fish, and although they offer some really cool excursions, they're outrageously priced.

 

While I know my mention of the Valle is off topic, my point is that NPS may be restrictive, but they're willing. The situation could be so much worse, it's just nice to see that they heard the geocacher's voice, and they're trying to work with us. I think what we need to do, is what I said above, prove to them that cachers care; show them that we are also willing to compromise with them and to improve our park system by doing so. We just might find that some of the restrictions will then open up.

[+edscott]

Having worked with the NPS on approvals for Orienteering activities on Federal land, I see this document as a giant leap toward opening huge areas for geocaching. We should be celebrating not nit picking.

[Keystone]

My suggestion would be to act locally, think globally. It took the NPS 6 years to write this policy memo that appears to be filled with incomplete information it will take another 6 years for an accurate memo. Instead since the final decision rests with the local park staff offer to hold a CITO or a Geocaching class in exchange for permission to hide a cache.

 

And responsibility. That is why you can not have policys that allow individuals at a lower level to make the decision as to allow something or not. They will almost always decide to cover their you know what before allowing something that could possibly cause a problem.

My experience has been quite the opposite. I can immediately think of three different NPS-managed properties where the local level, on-site management was perfectly fine with having geocaches placed with their permission. But once the upper level bureaucrats got wind of that, the permission was revoked. The examples I'm thinking of involved the Appalachian Trail corridor, the Delaware Water Gap NRA, and the New River Gorge National Scenic River in West Virginia.

 

There are probably other examples like the ones with which I'm personally familiar. My suggestion would be for geocachers to reach out at the local level and offer to place a geocache on a test basis in a spot agreed to by the NPS ranger. A good "starter" cache might involve collecting virtual clues from interpretive trail signs, which provide the combination to a locked cache box kept behind the ranger station.

[Pacific NW]

This is an interesting and positive development. I can see both sides of the fence -- the NPS doesn't want any group of people (geocachers, horseback riders, mountain bikers, hikers, trail runners, et al) heading into sensitive areas and trampling resources, creating new trails, etc.

 

At the same time it would be nice to have some geocaches on NPS managed lands. Without a doubt they would need to be approved by and permission given from the NPS. A 35mm micro cache placed randomly behind every tree and bush would not be a good idea.

 

Better yet would be the NPS placing and endorsing their own caches at interesting locations. I believe I read a while back about some state parks doing this somewhere (Utah?).

 

Good news.

[outta here]

I think that physical caches in Yosemite Valley would be a Bad Idea -- too much chance for resource damage. If the NPS made a blanket policy of allowing caches, within five minutes one would be published on top of Half Dome.

 

OK. To start with, I agree with most of what you said, but found the above quote interesting.

 

The top of half dome is neither pristine nor secluded. It is a pretty tough environment (mostly granite with some vegitation) that is _way_, _way_ _way_ overtaxed by the traffic it gets. There is a well defined trail the whole way which is tough and not disneyland-safe. But, hoards of folks make it to the top every year.

 

A Geocache on the top would not increase traffic in any significant way, as this would be a 4+ terrain (most cachers would self select out at this point) A trip to Yosemite valley requires significant advanced planning (just to gett a campsite) And the trail/cables are already running pretty much at capacity (or over capacity) for much of the summer.

 

Anyone who would summit half dome for a cache would summit half dome without a cache.

 

Once on top, there are plenty of places where a single cache would have zero impact on the environment. (or at least no discernible impact above that of the crowds that are there already)

 

The biggest problem a top-of-half-dome cache would cause is that in the middle of the summer there would be virtually no way to retrieve it without getting muggled by all the folks milling around.

 

A bigger problem with caching in Yosemite Valley would be that someone would place a cache off trail. I'm not always against off trail caches, but in an environment that is already stressed to the limit (like most popular national parks are), it would be a disaster.

 

I wouldn't be afraid of the half dome cache. I would be afraid of the cache in the middle of mirror meadow.

[+prontopup]

The NPS property I have been working ...

 

Social Comment: My favorite (and the closest) national park is the Great Smoky Mountains. There are plenty of ways to enjoy the park and plenty of ways to hurt yourself - none of these require a GPS.

 

Question: Has anyone started placing (or tried to place) a physical cache in a national park with the permission of the NPS? If so, was the effort successful? I would really like to know the GC number so that I can read the cache page.

[+Renegade Knight]

The NPS property I have been working recently sent me the new official policy for GPS related activities. I have put the link below. They have given the ok for a geocache by applying for a special use permit.

 

Here's the whole policy for those that are interested.

 

http://www.nps.gov/policy/GPSguidance.pdf

Reading through the policy it's clear they are confused by a few concepts as they relate to the GPS and caching variations in general.

 

They do understand the concept that GPSs have enabled a much larger pool of location based activites. Then they forget that those activites are viariations on walking and hiking that they already regulate. The only thing special about the various GPS activies is the box. If they want to regulat caching, that's the focus.

 

Regulating GPS activies is impossible. There are GPSs in Phones, Cars, Handheld units, Survey equipmetn, Emergency beacons, Animal tracking collars etc. They can't regulare GPS usage without impacting more than they intend. If they instead focused on the larger park...things will fall into place. If they are restoring vegitation because of a cut off trail. Ban everone from the cut off. No need to single out anyone.

 

They also fell into the standard trap of pointing out all the specific rules that GPS users may break, but forgot that they already have rules on that. No need to rehash all the other rules we are supposed to follow. That's bad rule making anyway. They need to focus on that box, not duplicate all the other rules.

 

This policy though is a guide for people not familair with caching and GPS games in general. So while some have slammed it for pointing out all the existing regulations they should keep in mind it's really intended to be an internal guidance document. Every park will come up with it's own spin on implementation. Some of them will understand the broader use of GPS and understand that all they need to worry about is the box. Some wont'.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Better yet would be the NPS placing and endorsing their own caches at interesting locations. I believe I read a while back about some state parks doing this somewhere (Utah?).

 

This would be an excellent way for the NPS to dip their toe into caching and see what it's about. By them owning and maintaining a few caches they would be able to dispell what they have wrong in that policy pape and confirm what they have right.

[+LDove]

Will gc.com or Jeremy do anything to help with making their understanding of this better? Just curious - I really have no idea.

[+Renegade Knight]

...A bigger problem with caching in Yosemite Valley would be that someone would place a cache off trail. I'm not always against off trail caches, but in an environment that is already stressed to the limit (like most popular national parks are), it would be a disaster....

 

Since all the usal and customary rules apply a cache in the back country would require the people seeking it to have the usual permits etc. that are already required. If the NPS allows off trail hiking (and they do in some parks but maybe not all) then you need do nothing special at all with a cache other than follow park rules when placing and seeking. The permit system, and park rules take care of the rest.

 

There is nothing special about the cache except the box.

[Pokagon Nature Center]

 

Question: Has anyone started placing (or tried to place) a physical cache in a national park with the permission of the NPS? If so, was the effort successful? I would really like to know the GC number so that I can read the cache page.

 

I originally asked for physical geocaches at NPS properties here, and found old ones. That discussion was a month ago here:

Original NPS Thread

 

I have been given the ok to get a cache in place on an NPS property. I will be working with them shortly on getting the special use permit. I will post the GC number as soon as it's up.

 

In the meantime, from the original discussion, here are two that are physical containers:

Wolf Trap National Park

 

Grand Canyon National Park Apparently put out by NPS staff.

 

Regulating GPS activies is impossible. There are GPSs in Phones, Cars, Handheld units, Survey equipmetn, Emergency beacons, Animal tracking collars etc. They can't regulare GPS usage without impacting more than they intend. If they instead focused on the larger park...things will fall into place. If they are restoring vegitation because of a cut off trail. Ban everone from the cut off. No need to single out anyone.

 

This policy though is a guide for people not familair with caching and GPS games in general. So while some have slammed it for pointing out all the existing regulations they should keep in mind it's really intended to be an internal guidance document. Every park will come up with it's own spin on implementation. Some of them will understand the broader use of GPS and understand that all they need to worry about is the box. Some wont'.

 

I don't think they write it out to regulate all GPS activities. Yeah, that would be impossible. The top of the document says recreational activities using GPS units, then goes on to define which activities this document covers.

 

I agree it reads like an internal guidance document. The NPS is too varied to be applied straight forward, without deviations, and adaptations for each individual property.

 

P.S. Thanks for the note RK.

[+WeightMan]

 

Grand Canyon National Park Apparently put out by NPS staff.

 

I suspect that one is like this one, that I have done. The log book is actually the visitor sign in book. The one I referenced is also on NPS land.

[+paleolith]

I wouldn't be afraid of the half dome cache. I would be afraid of the cache in the middle of mirror meadow.

Your example is much better than mine -- thanks. I picked Half Dome mostly due to its iconic status.

they forget that those activites are viariations on walking and hiking that they already regulate. [...] They also fell into the standard trap of pointing out all the specific rules that GPS users may break, but forgot that they already have rules on that. No need to rehash all the other rules we are supposed to follow.

I don't think they forgot. They know very well from experience that repetition works. People remember things better which they hear more than once -- probably especially true of regulations, which almost all of us would rather tune out.

 

Also, some people are likely to ask "what are the rules on geocaching" without first reviewing all the other rules. The NPS could tell people "get anal and read all the other regs first" or they could provide a summary of the points they feel are most likely to be issues. It seems to me they have chosen the more practical course.

There are GPSs in Phones, Cars, Handheld units, Survey equipmetn, Emergency beacons, Animal tracking collars etc.

The document is very explicit in only addressing recreational use, and even explains that it does not attempt to cover all recreational uses.

from the original discussion, here are two that are physical containers:

Wolf Trap National Park

 

Grand Canyon National Park Apparently put out by NPS staff.

I haven't visited either, but neither looks to me like a physical cache container was placed on NPS property.

 

Grand Canyon sounds like an equipment locker or shed in which the "cache developer" placed a log book. IOW, I interpret the statment "was originally constructed BY the NPS and is maintained BY the NPS" to mean not that the NPS placed a cache container but rather that an existing and continuing NPS structure was used to house the cache log. Good method, seems to me, when applicable, but not a precedent for a physical cache.

 

Wolf Trap is a multi, and from reading the logs it appears that the final, physical cache is on the other side of the Dulles Freeway, not in the park. I've seen a few like this (such as one or two in the San Gorgonio Wilderness), and I imagine there are a lot more. Again, seems like a good method to me but not a precedent.

 

Edward

[+JimmyEv]

It is kind of odd that NPS chose to issue a memo (or is it a directive?) on gps activities rather than go through the congressionally-mandated procedure of rulemaking (i.e., publishing the proposed rule in the Federal Register, open comment period, publishing Final Rule in the Federal Register). Seems like the policy-wonks in DC are trying to take a short-cut.

[+Renegade Knight]

I don't think they forgot. They know very well from experience that repetition works. People remember things better which they hear more than once -- probably especially true of regulations, which almost all of us would rather tune out.

 

Also, some people are likely to ask "what are the rules on geocaching" without first reviewing all the other rules. The NPS could tell people "get anal and read all the other regs first" or they could provide a summary of the points they feel are most likely to be issues. It seems to me they have chosen the more practical course....

 

The problem is that you create a complicated set of rules for caching. The gist of the NPS rules is this. "Caching is ok so long as the box doesn't cause a problem, the park director makes that determination".

 

When you regurgitate in cache rules the other bazillion park rules you create problems. Chiefly if another rule changes that change doesn't trickle down. T hen someone read the cache rule, follow the other rule and gets in trouble because the version in the cache rules is outdated. It also creates more work for the park to chase down all the regurgitated rules. The solution is to refrence the other rules.

 

Then the cache rules would look like this:

 

"Caching is ok so long as the box doesn't cause a problem, the park director makes that determination". Follow the other park rules in CFR XXX.XXX.XX these rules are also posted on nps.gov/rules.

[+Renegade Knight]

It is kind of odd that NPS chose to issue a memo (or is it a directive?) on gps activities rather than go through the congressionally-mandated procedure of rulemaking (i.e., publishing the proposed rule in the Federal Register, open comment period, publishing Final Rule in the Federal Register). Seems like the policy-wonks in DC are trying to take a short-cut.

That's why I think this is really a guidance document that uses existing rules to allow caches provided they don't get in the way of other rules the NPS has to live by.

 

My own agency sees new guidance documents come along every time congress tweaks the rules, or someone loses a related court case and the judge says "the rules mean this" and that's different from existing interpretations.

 

Think about the debate in theese forums over what buried really is and magnify that to a branch of government trying to figure out the congressional laws, executive orders, rules made by others via the process you mentioned and all of that modified by the department of justice.

[+3doxies]

It is kind of odd that NPS chose to issue a memo (or is it a directive?) on gps activities rather than go through the congressionally-mandated procedure of rulemaking (i.e., publishing the proposed rule in the Federal Register, open comment period, publishing Final Rule in the Federal Register). Seems like the policy-wonks in DC are trying to take a short-cut.

 

Looks like this is issued as a "guidance document" - an alternative form of promulgating regulation that has been extensively utilized by the US Food and Drug Administration. At least in FDA's use, a guidance document indicates "the Agency's latest thnking" on a topic. The policies described within are technically not binding on either the Agency nor the regulated industry - however, when industry utilizes the policies and procedures described within the guidance, the Agency does make best-faith efforts to do likewise unless specific circumstances unique to the situation dictate otherwise. It is not a perfect solution to rulemaking, but at least it does allow regulation to bear some semblance of timeliness (ie, policies can be updated at least once in a decade).

[+litngbug]

Very well stated Paleolith........

 

I think this is great information. A guideline maybe, but it is better than nothing. I do see the concerns by the NPS of cache placement since I have seen caches placed in suspect areas where permission seems shaky at best. So working with the park is certainly the way to go.

chippie ho !!!!

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Just be careful what you state in relation to perceived misconceptions -

 

Examples:

 

"Caches are not buried" Not true - some are, on beaches and on private property and caches listed by other sites.

 

"Caches are not litter" Some certainly are, cachers drop out or caches are abandoned all the time.

 

"Geocachers practice CITO" Actually it has been my experience that far more talk about CITO than practice it!

 

"Cachers are environmentalists and treat the land with respect" You might, many others don't.

 

If you are going to try to work with land managers try to avoid categorizing or describing cachers and caches in ways they KNOW aren't true for everyone, and try to see their side and where / why they got the misconception (if it actually is one!).

[+geowizerd]

 

Better yet would be the NPS placing and endorsing their own caches at interesting locations. I believe I read a while back about some state parks doing this somewhere (Utah?).

 

 

The Pennsylvania Game Commission has done an about face on caches. A couple years ago, my brother asked them for permission to place a cache on state game lands, and was told NO!, that is litter. However, now they are not only endorsing caches, they are participating. They now see them as a way of having these public lands utilized more by the public in the off (non-hunting) seasons. They are even providing cache owners with cards to be placed in caches, with special prizes awarded to those who complete 15 state game lands caches. SGL26 and SGL279 are examples of these caches, and below is the card I got from SGL26. Now THIS is a step in the right direction!

 

[+Glenn]

Interesting that letterboxing in remote areas may be okay.

 

(someone could try to explain to them if backcountry is good enough for a letterbox, then it is good enough for a geocache)

 

Who in the heck mentioned "treasure hunt" to the biased author?

 

-OR-

 

No sweat. Just get it approved as a Letterbox by the NPS, list it here as a Letterbox Hybrid. Voila! Problem solved!

 

I would be careful not to misinterpret the lack of knowledge about Geocaching as a bias for Letterboxing. As far as I know this is the first time that the NPS has released any kind of guidance about Geocachings on NPS lands. It shows a willingness on the NPS part to work with Geocachers so that we can enjoy our hobby on NPS land. Yes there are a few factual errors in the Policy Review. But you shouldn't let your own biases get in the way.

[+Glenn]

Just be careful what you state in relation to perceived misconceptions -

 

Examples:

 

"Caches are not buried" Not true - some are, on beaches and on private property and caches listed by other sites.

 

"Caches are not litter" Some certainly are, cachers drop out or caches are abandoned all the time.

 

"Geocachers practice CITO" Actually it has been my experience that far more talk about CITO than practice it!

 

"Cachers are environmentalists and treat the land with respect" You might, many others don't.

 

If you are going to try to work with land managers try to avoid categorizing or describing cachers and caches in ways they KNOW aren't true for everyone, and try to see their side and where / why they got the misconception (if it actually is one!).

 

There appears to be misconceptions on both sides.

The impression that Geocachers get from the NPS is that the NPS thinks that caches will bring so many visitors that it will cause uncontrolled erosion the extinction of many species of plants and animals in the area of the cache. While it's the NPSes impression is that Geocachers think they leave absolutely no trace. The truth is somewhere in the middle. Geocaching is no more harmful than some of the other more popular park activities like hiking and camping. I think that some of the misconception on the part of Geocachers comes from the fact that we do not see what happens behind the scenes at the NPS. Hiking and camping isn't left unmonitored on NPS land. Camping is usually only permitted in designated camping areas and/or with special permits and hiking trails are constantly monitored. I don't see why caches on NPS land shouldn't also be subject to similar monitoring.

 

I do find some misconceptions a bit odd. But this is most likely do to the authors lack of understand of the hobbies. In section B. Geocaching, Virtual Caching and Letterboxing is described. It seems to me from reading just those few paragraphs that the author feels that Letterboxing is more environmentally friendly. Although anyone who has geocached or letterboxed knows that they only significant difference between the two hobbies is the use of a GPS. As far as I know there are no special environmental considerations that need to be taken in to account when using a GPS device anywhere.

 

GPS Frisbee Golf really has me stumped. I have no idea how someone would combine Freisbee Golf and using a GPS. I've asked a couple of my friends that play Frisbee Gold and they have no clue either.

Edited December 29, 2007 by Glenn