Jump to content

Physical geocaches prohibited in ABDSP?


M2

Recommended Posts

Great stuff Russ! I couldn't agree more. :rolleyes:

 

 

I too, agree. Unfortunately, Mr. Jorgensen seems to have forgotten that his position is not simply one of protecting a public trust, but of allowing the true owners of the land, the public, to use it responsibly. There must be some balance between these two duties, and I fear he has forgotten this.

 

 

Perhaps Captain Ramius should also mention, in yet another attempt at constructive dialog, that there are NOT 5,000 caches in the park, and give a more reasonable estimate? Maybe if he realizes that his "problem" isn't as big as he imagines it to be, he may be more open to a reasonable discussion?

Link to comment
Great stuff Russ! I couldn't agree more.

 

I also agree. Well said :rolleyes:

 

I just wanted to post my support for our friends in Southern CA, and if Marko needs anything in my official capacity or otherwise, that I'm at the Communities disposal if any help is needed.

Link to comment

Bob Dylan perhaps but more like his mentor Woody Guthrie "This Land is Your Land."

 

Main question is, where and why is a citizen restricted from access to any point within ABDSP?

 

I'll just bet that there's a new junior-ranger in town, as in, why all of a sudden are caches outlawed?

 

Simple rule is, go to the next organizational level and question authority. Seek compromise; for

example, at least grandfather the caches that they have allowed up to this point in time.

 

Point out that they have acted in haste without opportunity for consideration and discussion. At

some level up their organizational ladder that issue will resonate.

 

What we should ask for is a set of reasonable guidlines we can follow rather than their dictatorial

demand. We aim to please but won't be ignored in matters that affect our outdoor interests, activities,

and rights for public-acess.

 

If in the end those caches really have to go away then, quick everybody, convert your ABDSP hides

to puzzle caches.

Edited by SD Rowdies
Link to comment

It looks like the caches in the lower part of Coyote Canyon may be goners. From a log today on Dhsundance's 4WD Parking Garage:

 

"On my way out (past the Staircase) I ran into a park ranger who told me she was getting ready to pull all caches in the area."

 

Sounds like great use of the resources that the taxpayers, including geocachers have paid for.

 

Edit: Fixed Link.

 

Edited by RocketMan
Link to comment

We know for a fact the some of the Park Rangers are in fact part of the Geo-Caching community themselves. We also have heard that Mark is against it because he deems it as littering, and feels as if they should all be taken out. But from "what a bird told me" if their not in plain view theirs a good chance they wont be touched

Link to comment
It looks like the caches in the lower part of Coyote Canyon may be goners. From a log today on Dhsundance's 4WD Parking Garage:

 

"On my way out (past the Staircase) I ran into a park ranger who told me she was getting ready to pull all caches in the area."

 

Sounds like great use of the resources that the taxpayers, including geocachers have paid for.

 

I'm still wondering what triggered this knee-jerk reaction. :sad: I agree with Harmon that they should grandfather all caches hidden prior to a TBD date. Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

It's time to dispel the false information that is floating around. I just did a count of every active and disabled cache in Anza Borrego Desert State Park and the total is only:

 

358

 

How did I count you ask? I ran 4 Pocket Queries to be sure to capture all the caches in the park. Then I melded all the PQ's in GSAK and opened them in Mapsource. In Mapsource, I eliminated all the caches that were not in the park. The remaining total caches was 358. This includes all cache types including earth caches and virtuals.

Link to comment
It's time to dispel the false information that is floating around. I just did a count of every active and disabled cache in Anza Borrego Desert State Park and the total is only:

 

358

 

How did I count you ask? I ran 4 Pocket Queries to be sure to capture all the caches in the park. Then I melded all the PQ's in GSAK and opened them in Mapsource. In Mapsource, I eliminated all the caches that were not in the park. The remaining total caches was 358. This includes all cache types including earth caches and virtuals.

Thanks RM. I knew it was way less than 5000. I wish that person hadn't said that... :sad:
Link to comment

I hope you don't mind me posting in this area being that I'm not living out that way anymore.

 

When I read what has happened in ABSP It really irratated me to say the least. And when I read the newsletter about Geocaches being litter that didn't go well with me either.

 

I grew up out in the San Diego Area ( North County) and can remember going to ABSP as a youngester with the family and can still remember the beauty of that place.

And I was planning on doing some of the ABSP caches on my next visit out there.

 

What are these people thinking ? That cachers are litter-bugs and have no regard for the land and environment ?

 

We had almost the same problem out here on the east coast when some of the geocaches were banned from being placed in certian places. I do believe it was at Duke University, ( But not to sure of the place).

I can't remember if the situation was resloved or not.

Link to comment

Thanks for posting this! I had no idea that this was going on. I just lost a cache in what I thought was ABDSP territory, but turns out, wasn't, at least, as best I can tell with Google Earth and Yahoo Maps. I also just placed a new cache while I was replacing the other, and it to is just outside the park boundaries. Hopefully, they'll stay where they are.

 

I'm not sure a thousand emails to the park superintendent is going to do any good, it may just piss him off, finding his inbox full of emails about caches.

 

I also don't understand where he's getting the money and people to hunt down the caches, most of the state parks, and federal parks for that matter, are strapped for money. Having employees out looking for caches, when there's so much else to do, is counter-productive.

Link to comment
I'm not sure a thousand emails to the park superintendent is going to do any good, it may just piss him off, finding his inbox full of emails about caches.
I agree. It would annoy me. I think it's much better to let Marco talk to him for us. Maybe he can invite him to our next CITO event. I know we do far more good than harm in that park. :sad: Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

We talked to a park ranger that is also a Geo-Cacher and we where told that he does believe their litter BUT the main reason is that people have been placing them in sites that are sensitive in and around archaeological sites also places where the protected Big Horn Sheep roam and off the designated trails.

 

I know your all gonna come back with well we can hike to wherever we want true I believe that and you can but whats happening that he doesn't like is that all the caches hidden in the hills are making trails over otherwise pristine ground now one or two people maybe a year headed on that path are not hurting it but group after group is making new trails and maybe not going as far as they can on the trail but rather as the crow flies.

 

We were suggested to get a liaison to speak for the group of us that are concerned show some organization, maturity and dedication to come up with maybe guidelines on where we can place them to make sure they are clear of protected sites. Maybe the use of way points from the main trails so people aren't making crazy trails. I know Mark and hes the honorary Mayor of Borrego the state park super among other things he is also is in charge of the Big Horned sheep and their kinda his babies.

 

So lets get together nominate a liaison, and look at both sides concerns, address each issue and come up with a solution that works out for both parties... and well if all else fails the guns get drawn! :)

Edited by TeamPirateIke
Link to comment

Great stuff Russ! I couldn't agree more. :)

I just heard about all the turmoil from Waterlassie. Homie and I are going out to camp at Anza Borrego Campground tomorrow. Of course we were planning to do some jeeping and caching. I can't express how disappointed I was about the ban on geocaches in Anza Borrego. While jeeping and caching we have discovered some awesome places that without geocaching we would have never discovered.

 

I have told everyone one I know about how great Anza Borrego is to offroad and cache. My friends listen with envy about all the places we have discovered while searching for Geocaches.

 

We camp at the campground at least once a month during the winter months to play outside with our favorite activities...jeeping and geocaching. I am so sad that this is going to come to an end.

 

So....I guess we will continue our passion in Ocotillo Wells. Thanks to Skillet and all who have hidden caches there.

 

Has Ocotillo Wells been affected????? There is a whole lotta area there to play! Go on and conquer! To Ocotillo and the Salton Sea and beyond!

Link to comment

We talked to a park ranger that is also a Geo-Cacher and we where told that he does believe their litter BUT the main reason is that people have been placing them in sites that are sensitive in and around archaeological sites also places where the protected Big Horn Sheep roam and off the designated trails.

 

I know your all gonna come back with well we can hike to wherever we want true I believe that and you can but whats happening that he doesn't like is that all the caches hidden in the hills are making trails over otherwise pristine ground now one or two people maybe a year headed on that path are not hurting it but group after group is making new trails and maybe not going as far as they can on the trail but rather as the crow flies.

 

We were suggested to get a liaison to speak for the group of us that are concerned show some organization, maturity and dedication to come up with maybe guidelines on where we can place them to make sure they are clear of protected sites. Maybe the use of way points from the main trails so people aren't making crazy trails. I know Mark and hes the honorary Mayor of Borrego the state park super among other things he is also is in charge of the Big Horned sheep and their kinda his babies.

 

So lets get together nominate a liaison, and look at both sides concerns, address each issue and come up with a solution that works out for both parties... and well if all else fails the guns get drawn! :anibad:

Marko Ramius sent two letters asking for such a meeting. Based on MJ's response, it does not appear he is interested in what we have to say. (See post #45 on previous page.)

 

Caches do not appear to meet the legal definition of littering in California,

 

Penal Code 374.

( a ) Littering means the willful or negligent throwing, dropping, placing, depositing, or sweeping, or causing any such acts, of any waste matter on land or water in other than appropriate storage containers or areas designated for such purposes.

( b ) Waste matter means discarded, used, or leftover substance including, but not limited to, a lighted or nonlighted cigarette, cigar, match, or any flaming or glowing material, or any garbage, trash, refuse, paper, container, packaging or construction material, carcass of a dead animal, any nauseous or offensive matter of any kind, or any object likely to injure any person or create a traffic hazard.

Edited by Chuy!
Link to comment

We talked to a park ranger that is also a Geo-Cacher and we where told that he does believe their litter BUT the main reason is that people have been placing them in sites that are sensitive in and around archaeological sites also places where the protected Big Horn Sheep roam and off the designated trails.

 

I know your all gonna come back with well we can hike to wherever we want true I believe that and you can but whats happening that he doesn't like is that all the caches hidden in the hills are making trails over otherwise pristine ground now one or two people maybe a year headed on that path are not hurting it but group after group is making new trails and maybe not going as far as they can on the trail but rather as the crow flies.

 

We were suggested to get a liaison to speak for the group of us that are concerned show some organization, maturity and dedication to come up with maybe guidelines on where we can place them to make sure they are clear of protected sites. Maybe the use of way points from the main trails so people aren't making crazy trails. I know Mark and hes the honorary Mayor of Borrego the state park super among other things he is also is in charge of the Big Horned sheep and their kinda his babies.

 

So lets get together nominate a liaison, and look at both sides concerns, address each issue and come up with a solution that works out for both parties... and well if all else fails the guns get drawn! :o

Marko Ramius sent two letters asking for such a meeting. Based on MJ's response, it does not appear he is interested in what we have to say. (See post #45 on previous page.)

 

Caches do not appear to meet the legal definition of littering in California,

 

Penal Code 374.

(a) Littering means the willful or negligent throwing, dropping, placing, depositing, or sweeping, or causing any such acts, of any waste matter on land or water in other than appropriate storage containers or areas designated for such purposes.

( :o Waste matter means discarded, used, or leftover substance including, but not limited to, a lighted or nonlighted cigarette, cigar, match, or any flaming or glowing material, or any garbage, trash, refuse, paper, container, packaging or construction material, carcass of a dead animal, any nauseous or offensive matter of any kind, or any object likely to injure any person or create a traffic hazard.

My understanding of the law (Tom please correct me if I'm wrong) is that the law ultimately hinges on intention and common sense. I don't think the law intended caches to be considered litter nor would anyone with common sense think that they were litter. :anibad: Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

I'm also saddened by this. I was looking forward to future trips to AB to camp and cache. Marko, let us know if we can do anything to help your efforts.

 

My only suggestion would be to get a manager of a park such as MTRP to contact Mr. Jorgenson and let him know how the policy implemented in MTRP is working out. Allowing caches to be placed only just off trails and away from sensitive areas seems like a very reasonable policy for a state park. They should cause minimal impact while encouraging use of the park. In contrast, caches that require bushwacking to get to can cause a lot of damage to sensitive land, especially in desert areas. I've been guilty of blindly "following the arrow" myself even though I know I shouldn't do it.

Link to comment

We talked to a park ranger that is also a Geo-Cacher and we where told that he does believe their litter BUT the main reason is that people have been placing them in sites that are sensitive in and around archaeological sites also places where the protected Big Horn Sheep roam and off the designated trails.

 

I know your all gonna come back with well we can hike to wherever we want true I believe that and you can but whats happening that he doesn't like is that all the caches hidden in the hills are making trails over otherwise pristine ground now one or two people maybe a year headed on that path are not hurting it but group after group is making new trails and maybe not going as far as they can on the trail but rather as the crow flies.

 

<snip>

I just wanted to address this comment. Last Saturday we went up a canyon to find a cache that has been found by fewer than nine people in the last two years.

 

On our way back down, we passed a group of nine or ten hikers going up the canyon, at one time. There are probably groups like this hiking every weekend during the cooler months.

 

Also, a few weeks ago, we went to a cache hidden in the mud caves area. That cache has been found by fewer than 20 people in the last two years. As we walked through the cave, we asked each other, "Where was the Greyhound bus parked in the wash?" because there were more than sixty people walking up and down the cave as we tried to make our way through it.

 

When compared to the impact made by all the other people who are enjoying the Park, impact by the few Geocachers who get out there is negligible.

Link to comment

My dad and I cached in this park in the fall. It's a great park.

 

My dad suggests that instead of contacting this superintendent directly, that someone from Groundspeak should contact the Director of California State Parks, Ruth Coleman: (http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=22217)

 

Ruth Coleman, Director

California State Parks

P.O. Box 942896

Sacramento, CA 94296-000I

 

Based on this interview: (http://www.calparks.org/inside-parks/dont-ignore-the-call-of-the.html), my dad thinks she'd be interested in keeping geocaching in the parks as a way to get kids involved in more outdoor activities, and that might be the way to approach any contact with her. She's also big on volunteer cleanups, so dad says you might want to mention the CITO angle.

 

Now if you'll excuse me, my dad says it's nap time. Mom's backing him up too.

 

-Skyler.

Link to comment
My dad and I cached in this park in the fall. It's a great park.

 

My dad suggests that instead of contacting this superintendent directly, that someone from Groundspeak should contact the Director of California State Parks, Ruth Coleman: (http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=22217)

 

Ruth Coleman, Director

California State Parks

P.O. Box 942896

Sacramento, CA 94296-000I

 

Based on this interview: (http://www.calparks.org/inside-parks/dont-ignore-the-call-of-the.html), my dad thinks she'd be interested in keeping geocaching in the parks as a way to get kids involved in more outdoor activities, and that might be the way to approach any contact with her. She's also big on volunteer cleanups, so dad says you might want to mention the CITO angle.

 

Now if you'll excuse me, my dad says it's nap time. Mom's backing him up too.

 

-Skyler.

Thanks Skyler! That's a great suggestion! Maybe we could get a bunch of the geocaching kids to write some letters to Ruth! :blink:
Link to comment

I just got off the phone with Jenn at GC.com and she has a call into Sup. Jorgensen. She will (hopefully) be speaking with him on Jan 2. I will try to update everyone then. Best approach is to exhaust all options with him before seeking higher authority. We'll keep everyone posted on how things progress. The comments on this thread have all been considered and are greatly appreciated. -MR

Link to comment

Another thing we could offer is to let the Rangers approve all new caches, before they're published. I know the San Diego County Parks Ranger in charge of William Heise County Park and the Santa Ysabel Preserve areas. He allows caches, if he can approve their location first, although many are put in without his approval. He requires them to be very close to trails and in areas of low sensitivity. It does delay the posting of a new cache, but at least it won't be pulled by the rangers. All it takes is giving him the coordinates and a couple of pictures of the cache and the surrounding area. I think it would be another way of getting them to be on our side.

Link to comment

Another thing we could offer is to let the Rangers approve all new caches, before they're published. I know the San Diego County Parks Ranger in charge of William Heise County Park and the Santa Ysabel Preserve areas. He allows caches, if he can approve their location first, although many are put in without his approval. He requires them to be very close to trails and in areas of low sensitivity. It does delay the posting of a new cache, but at least it won't be pulled by the rangers. All it takes is giving him the coordinates and a couple of pictures of the cache and the surrounding area. I think it would be another way of getting them to be on our side.

This is the first I've heard of the need for pre-approval of caches in Santa Isabel Preserve (or William Heise, for that matter). None of my caches were submitted for approval before they were listed. Can you post the contact info for the Ranger so I can get my caches approved?

 

Thanks, -FlagMan

Link to comment

 

...Anza-Borrego, with its 600,000 acres of Park and 460,000 acres of State Wilderness within the Park, operates under much of the same philosophy and guidelines as a National Park. ...

 

Mark Jorgensen

Superintendent

Anza-Borrego Desert State Park

 

Actually not true. Federal is Federal and State is State. CA has its' own policies and guidelines and laws for state parks.

 

Are the ABDSP rangers also removing all peak registers in the park?

 

Are not the two somewhat similar? Each are a container at a place where one logs a visit.

Perhaps this similarity could be pointed out.

 

How can they ban Earth or Virtual (Waymarks) caches? Are these not just directions to a place?

If public access is allowed to the spot, then why prohibit a guidebook publishing it?

Will they now ban all geology books and tourist books for ABDSP?

Link to comment

This is the first I've heard of the need for pre-approval of caches in Santa Isabel Preserve (or William Heise, for that matter). None of my caches were submitted for approval before they were listed. Can you post the contact info for the Ranger so I can get my caches approved?

 

Thanks, -FlagMan

 

Flagman,

I've sent the ranger an email, asking if it's OK to post his contact info, I don't want him deluged with emails about caches in is jurisdiction. My wife, who is the Executive Director of the Volcan Mountain Preserve Foundation, heard that San Diego County Parks is against geocaches. Here's what my wife said "When the head of open space division for Park & Rec (Trish Boaz) was at our Advisory Board meeting in Nov., she said they are against geocaches, letter boxes and the like, as it’s a liability on public land (they have no control over what’s put in them, age-appropriateness, trash, splinters, snakes, etc) They also don’t want people going off trail to find them. I’m sure that Rangers would have to follow the guidelines set down by the Dept."

 

As soon as I get word back from the Ranger, I'll post it here.

Link to comment
I'm not sure a thousand emails to the park superintendent is going to do any good, it may just piss him off, finding his inbox full of emails about caches.
I agree. It would annoy me. I think it's much better to let Marco talk to him for us. Maybe he can invite him to our next CITO event. I know we do far more good than harm in that park. :blink:

That depends on if he actually cares about his public. If he doesn't want the feedback, then it should be given to someone who actually does care about the public.

 

If the guys is so shallow that getting feedback on his policy makes him clamp down worse, I'm not sure that it really is going to hurt anything worse than it is.

Link to comment
I'm not sure a thousand emails to the park superintendent is going to do any good, it may just piss him off, finding his inbox full of emails about caches.
I agree. It would annoy me. I think it's much better to let Marco talk to him for us. Maybe he can invite him to our next CITO event. I know we do far more good than harm in that park. :blink:

That depends on if he actually cares about his public. If he doesn't want the feedback, then it should be given to someone who actually does care about the public.

 

If the guys is so shallow that getting feedback on his policy makes him clamp down worse, I'm not sure that it really is going to hurt anything worse than it is.

I think a phased approach is better as Marco basically suggested above. Jenn is going to talk to this guy on Wednesday. If that's a dead end then I think it would be more effective to bypass this guy and have all the geocaching kids send letters to Ruth. They can even include photos or cute crayon drawings showing them and their family having fun camping and geocaching in the desert. B) Anyhow, that's just my opinion... Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
Cuyamaca Rancho SP I think has a model policy of how caches should be regulated in sensitive areas, and talking with the park and its volunteers has been very rewarding. People there seem to want to help.
One thing that also really helps is to post the park geocaching rules (or a link) on cache pages for each cache in that park. It helps to raise awareness so that when cachers find those caches and hide new ones in the same park are aware of that park's rules.
Link to comment
Cuyamaca Rancho SP I think has a model policy of how caches should be regulated in sensitive areas, and talking with the park and its volunteers has been very rewarding. People there seem to want to help.
One thing that also really helps is to post the park geocaching rules (or a link) on cache pages for each cache in that park. It helps to raise awareness so that when cachers find those caches and hide new ones in the same park are aware of that park's rules.

 

I'm working on that. I put a disclaimer saying there are strict guidelines for the caches and authorization must be granted prior. Hopefully someone who finds my cache in CRSP will read the cache page and know they can't plop down a new cache on a whim.

 

I just realized that about 2/3 of my watch list is composed of caches in ABDSP <_<

Link to comment

I've been trying to determine whether two of my caches, one that's been around for a year or so, and one I just placed, are inside of park boundaries. If I use Yahoo Maps, or Google Maps, they say one is, one isn't, but when I compare them to the park boundaries in Google Earth, they're both out. So I decided to try and find a better map of the park boundaries, and located one in an EOP report done by State Parks. It's pretty coarse, but I was able to judge the boundaries, in relation to my caches and the closest road, and determine that they are both inside the boundaries. I've placed a copy of the map in a folder on my web page, for anyone that wants to take a look at it. DON'T TRUST YAHOO or GOOGLE MAPS, for accurate boundaries.

 

http://www.mountainhighbnb.com/images/abdsp_boundaries.jpg

Link to comment
I've been trying to determine whether two of my caches, one that's been around for a year or so, and one I just placed, are inside of park boundaries. If I use Yahoo Maps, or Google Maps, they say one is, one isn't, but when I compare them to the park boundaries in Google Earth, they're both out. So I decided to try and find a better map of the park boundaries, and located one in an EOP report done by State Parks. It's pretty coarse, but I was able to judge the boundaries, in relation to my caches and the closest road, and determine that they are both inside the boundaries. I've placed a copy of the map in a folder on my web page, for anyone that wants to take a look at it. DON'T TRUST YAHOO or GOOGLE MAPS, for accurate boundaries.

 

http://www.mountainhighbnb.com/images/abdsp_boundaries.jpg

Have you checked Mapsource? Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

This is the first I've heard of the need for pre-approval of caches in Santa Isabel Preserve (or William Heise, for that matter). None of my caches were submitted for approval before they were listed. Can you post the contact info for the Ranger so I can get my caches approved?

 

Thanks, -FlagMan

 

Flagman,

I've sent the ranger an email, asking if it's OK to post his contact info, I don't want him deluged with emails about caches in is jurisdiction. My wife, who is the Executive Director of the Volcan Mountain Preserve Foundation, heard that San Diego County Parks is against geocaches. Here's what my wife said "When the head of open space division for Park & Rec (Trish Boaz) was at our Advisory Board meeting in Nov., she said they are against geocaches, letter boxes and the like, as it's a liability on public land (they have no control over what's put in them, age-appropriateness, trash, splinters, snakes, etc) They also don't want people going off trail to find them. I'm sure that Rangers would have to follow the guidelines set down by the Dept."

 

As soon as I get word back from the Ranger, I'll post it here.

 

They may have de facto authorization. After the fires, I received an email from a ranger there saying the caches survived. They obviously know about them now and have not asked that they be removed. I too did not know that permission needed to be granted on those caches, as two others already existed there.

Link to comment

Happy New Year!

 

We just returned from our 5 day camping trip in the desert. We were in Truckhaven with our 4x4 group. We met up with a ranger there who was informing us that the park had recently acquired a new area there and that the park boundaries are extended. They didn't have signs up yet and were letting people know verbally. They are closing access to some of the existing roads back there. The bummer for us is that they are moving a geocache that has been there for many years that has become known far and wide in the Truckhaven off roading community. If you have wheeled out there you know what IT is. I will not reveal what it is as it has been agreed that the park is willing to work with getting it moved as it is an attraction. And not just because it's a geocache. So, sad about less wheeling space, but glad that this cache wont be thrown away. We were really surprised that they would want to take this out.

 

So there appear to be a lot of changes afoot in the park.

 

This ranger spoke to us for quite a while and he was really cool. He said there are mixed feelings about the geocache issue, but that it is one that Marc feels very strongly about and has for many years. He said that if something could be proposed where they have the say and control of where these are placed that MAYBE something could be worked out. That they don't want to leave it up to a reviewer who does not know the land. Plastic containers that get brittle and break apart does look like trash to them. So maybe getting them to approve the type of container can be suggested. And as far as the number of caches, he said numbers and data talk. That if something could be produced showing the number of caches, the number in areas, the number of visitors to these locations since posting that it would be helpful. Maybe someone with a cool program could get this data together?

When he first approached us we were outside of our jeeps checking out the sparkling gypsum fields around us and he asked us what we were looking for. We told him we were just looking around. Thus began our initial exchange. He said that we were in an area that was near an old indian village and that we would have no way of knowing this because we are not privy to this information. So if we had placed a geocache here that it would be approved because neither we nor the reviewer would know this. Point taken. So he said a proposed solution could be one where all geocaches go through them and that they would be the final authority.

So it does seem like there could be a glimmer of hope here.

The ranger we spoke to said that they understood the geocache count to be 3-400. They found that alone to be an alarming amount and it does seem that for sure they don't want any more placed. But perhaps the existing ones could be weeded out through them. He also said that they were working with an archaeologist who has been checking on these regularly on the geocaching site. So I do believe that they are far more aware of the accuracy of the count than what is exaggeratively portrayed.

A suggestion he made was that perhaps we could produce interpretive panels of some sort explaining unique features a geocache is near. Something that could perhaps give more value back than just a cache. My guess is that there has been some talk about this as he had a lot of ideas.

I understand that they are quite upset over the recent dismantling of an old indian rock cairn. But I question how they know for sure that a geocacher did this. Is there any proof for sure? And the mention that a large amount of caches have been put in places that are sensitive could also be fairly questioned I think. It seems that a lot of these reports are coming 'from the field'. That they have been getting calls complaining of the caches. Is there an obvious intent here or were they in areas that one would have no clue were sensitive. This ranger did not have all of the facts concerning these specific incidents. I am not saying that these things did not all occur but it can be easy for someone to get upset over something they care about even if it is threatened in the slightest. This person is probably reading this thread. Hopefully this person will see that we care about the park as well and have equal respect for the land.

When we asked for the return of one of our confiscated caches we were told that it had an artifact in it and that the cache was thrown away. Contacting the last finder they said they remember no artifact. So we don't know what that was about? But the accusatory undertone was completely unwarranted. No further information was given.

 

We understand that Marc has been working to protect and care for the land for almost 40 years. Anyone with the Lowell Lindsay Anza Borrego books will see his name mentioned in most of the books! His love and passion for Anza Borrego cannot be more apperant. Obviously he has good intentions. I think he just needs to see we ALSO have good intentions.

Because we were asked to we did begin to remove some of our caches. Initially the ones we'd be sad to miss if they were picked up. We do love those desert sea to seas. And we were happy to see The Squeeze had not been taken yet. But we removed them with hopes of being able to bring them back in the future.

It was questioned whether geocachers would come and remove their caches or just leave them behind as litter. He said thats why they are picking them up. Because they don't trust or believe we would return to retrieve them. They don't know what cachers are about at all. We told the ranger that our belief is that we would remove them if we had to do it. We are a respectful community.

 

More than the right to have a geocache on ABDSP, we are defending our position of being part of a community of caring and aware individuals that do not trash, litter and disrespect a place that many of us drive hours to get to in order to enjoy and appreciate.

 

Hopefully relaying parts of our conversation with the ranger will prove helpful with future talks. I will provide the name of the ranger we spoke to if Marko Ramius would like it. He had some good thoughts. Both sides have one thing in common for sure.

Our love of this wondrous desert.

Link to comment

Thanks for all that information. It is good to know we might be able to work things out.

 

On a different subject - - - The other night on the Channel 10 news they had a segment about a proposal to close the Dos Cabezas/Piedras Grande to ALL vehicle activity. The way I understood it, if this goes through, the only way to get to Mortero Palms and the other features on the west side of the highway down there will be by hiking, mountain biking, or on horseback.

 

A small notice was posted in the newspaper, on a weekend when most people would not see it . . .

 

Public comment is being taken until around the 20th of this month. I'll have to do a little more research to see where comments need to be sent . . .

 

On Edit:

 

Okay, here is the contact info:

 

Colorado Desert District HQ of Dept. of Parks and Recreation

10News at 6:30 p.m.

Contact the Colorado Desert District HQ of the California Department of Parks and Recreation:

Jim Dice, Sr.

Environmental Scientist

Colorado Desert District

California Department of Parks and Recreation

200 Palm Canyon Drive

Borrego Springs, CA 92004

idice@parks.ca.gov

Fax: 760-767-3427

Edited by Miragee
Link to comment

That's some news! We don't get that paper here. What is the reason given in wanting to close that area to vehicle activity???

 

 

Thanks for all that information. It is good to know we might be able to work things out.

 

On a different subject - - - The other night on the Channel 10 news they had a segment about a proposal to close the Dos Cabezas/Piedras Grande to ALL vehicle activity. The way I understood it, if this goes through, the only way to get to Mortero Palms and the other features on the west side of the highway down there will be by hiking, mountain biking, or on horseback.

 

A small notice was posted in the newspaper, on a weekend when most people would not see it . . .

 

Public comment is being taken until around the 20th of this month. I'll have to do a little more research to see where comments need to be sent . . .

 

On Edit:

 

Okay, here is the contact info:

 

Colorado Desert District HQ of Dept. of Parks and Recreation

10News at 6:30 p.m.

Contact the Colorado Desert District HQ of the California Department of Parks and Recreation:

Jim Dice, Sr.

Environmental Scientist

Colorado Desert District

California Department of Parks and Recreation

200 Palm Canyon Drive

Borrego Springs, CA 92004

idice@parks.ca.gov

Fax: 760-767-3427

Link to comment
So there appear to be a lot of changes afoot in the park.

 

This ranger spoke to us for quite a while and he was really cool. He said there are mixed feelings about the geocache issue, but that it is one that Marc feels very strongly about and has for many years. He said that if something could be proposed where they have the say and control of where these are placed that MAYBE something could be worked out. That they don't want to leave it up to a reviewer who does not know the land. Plastic containers that get brittle and break apart does look like trash to them. So maybe getting them to approve the type of container can be suggested. And as far as the number of caches, he said numbers and data talk. That if something could be produced showing the number of caches, the number in areas, the number of visitors to these locations since posting that it would be helpful. Maybe someone with a cool program could get this data together?

Thanks very much for posting this. Too often we tend to look at things from our perspective only. Trying to understand what the folks on the other side of the issue desire is the first step to working out an agreement.

 

It wouldn't be be too hard to figure out the the number of caches by area. A relatively straightforward task in GSAK given an understanding of the area boundaries. I would think that visits (at least logged visits) would be relatively easy to come up with as well. One thing you can say about this sport is that is self-documenting. :unsure:

 

It was questioned whether geocachers would come and remove their caches or just leave them behind as litter. He said thats why they are picking them up. Because they don't trust or believe we would return to retrieve them. They don't know what cachers are about at all. We told the ranger that our belief is that we would remove them if we had to do it. We are a respectful community.

I agree that the folks on the forum are a respectful community but we are not the only ones who place caches. Unfortunately, from what I have seen, there is a percentage of caches that do get abandoned, either because the cache owner is a casual cacher (place it and forget it) or because they cacher has effectively left the sport. So there is some substance behind their fear that caches would not be picked up. We've all seen it.

 

In some other places, there is a much more proactive effort to deal with this issue by those at the center of their communities. There is active policing of abandoned caches by the community -- with those caches that are determined to be abandoned either being archived or adopted by members of the community. When caches are archived, there are cleanup groups that go out to each archived site to make sure that no geo-litter remains.

 

Perhaps formalizing such a thing in our community (at least for ABDSP) would help in achieving a better working relationship with TPTB in the Park. If they had confidence that, when problem came up, they could just call us and it would be taken care of promptly, they might be less interested in dealing with it themselves. (After all, as somone pointed out earlier, they probably do have better things to do than to spend time and money cleaning up geocaches...)

Link to comment

That's some news! We don't get that paper here. What is the reason given in wanting to close that area to vehicle activity???

 

Thanks for all that information. It is good to know we might be able to work things out.

 

On a different subject - - - The other night on the Channel 10 news they had a segment about a proposal to close the Dos Cabezas/Piedras Grande to ALL vehicle activity. The way I understood it, if this goes through, the only way to get to Mortero Palms and the other features on the west side of the highway down there will be by hiking, mountain biking, or on horseback...

I think the main reason is going to be the crossing-the-railroad-tracks part.

Link to comment

I know I would be a lot more inclined to go pick up my caches if I knew they were going to be there. If for some reason the rangers are picking them up and not notifying anyone they are doing themselves a real disservice. The geocaching community would pick up each and every cache. Maybe the rangers could inform us to as to which caches are in sensitive areas and could let us know to take special precautions when retrieving it.

 

I'd like to go get my caches up in upper Coyote Canyon but are they alrady gone- it's an awful long drive! Anyone want to join me. Last chance at a few smiley faces up there.

 

Dave

Link to comment

 

<snip>

 

In some other places, there is a much more proactive effort to deal with this issue by those at the center of their communities. There is active policing of abandoned caches by the community -- with those caches that are determined to be abandoned either being archived or adopted by members of the community. When caches are archived, there are cleanup groups that go out to each archived site to make sure that no geo-litter remains.

 

Perhaps formalizing such a thing in our community (at least for ABDSP) would help in achieving a better working relationship with TPTB in the Park. If they had confidence that, when problem came up, they could just call us and it would be taken care of promptly, they might be less interested in dealing with it themselves. (After all, as somone pointed out earlier, they probably do have better things to do than to spend time and money cleaning up geocaches...)

 

Good comments!

 

I think making a proactive community effort to retrieve our caches from ABDSP is a very constructive suggestion. Clearly, it will take some time to get agreements in place regarding geocaching in the park. In the meantime, we can make a very positive statement about the geocaching community by complying with the current policy in an organized manner.

 

It will take some time for cache owners to find time to collect their caches. A better approach to removing them might be to form teams who collect each and every cache in a selected area. Volunteer teams could pick a section of the park and go out and pick up or verify the removal of all caches in that area. As they are archived, the caches will drop off the maps and progress can be verified. An added benefit of this approach is that it reduces the traffic in any sensitive areas we may not know about.

 

As for the caches collected, we could hold them in some centralized area for return or disposition after contacting the owner. This may also be the best way to preserve logs and travel bugs. Might even be a good excuse for a Pick-Up-Your-Cache event!

 

This might be a good forum to organize the volunteer groups, similar to our SD Cache Event Teams.

 

What say the community?

Edited by M2
Link to comment

 

<snip>

 

In some other places, there is a much more proactive effort to deal with this issue by those at the center of their communities. There is active policing of abandoned caches by the community -- with those caches that are determined to be abandoned either being archived or adopted by members of the community. When caches are archived, there are cleanup groups that go out to each archived site to make sure that no geo-litter remains.

 

Perhaps formalizing such a thing in our community (at least for ABDSP) would help in achieving a better working relationship with TPTB in the Park. If they had confidence that, when problem came up, they could just call us and it would be taken care of promptly, they might be less interested in dealing with it themselves. (After all, as somone pointed out earlier, they probably do have better things to do than to spend time and money cleaning up geocaches...)

 

Good comments!

 

I think making a proactive community effort to retrieve our caches from ABDSP is a very constructive suggestion. Clearly, it will take some time to get agreements in place regarding geocaching in the park. In the meantime, we can make a very positive statement about the geocaching community by complying with the current policy in an organized manner.

 

It will take some time for each and every owner to collect their caches. A better approach to removing them might be to form teams who collect each and every cache in a selected area. Volunteer teams could pick a section of the park and go out and pick up or verify the removal of all caches in that area. As they are archived, the caches will drop off the maps and progress can be verified. An added benefit of this approach is that it reduces the traffic in any sensitive areas we may not know about.

 

As for the caches collected, we could hold them in some centralized area for return or disposition after contacting the owner. This may also be the best way to preserve logs and travel bugs. Might even be a good excuse for a Pick-Up-Your-Cache event!

 

This might be a good forum to organize the volunteer groups, similar to our SD Cache Event Teams.

 

What say the community?

I think it's a good idea but I would wait until we hear back from Marco (Jenn is talking to them today) because there may be areas of the park that they let us leave caches (like the off-roading sections mentioned above). Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

because there may be areas of the park that they let us leave caches (like the off-roading sections mentioned above).

 

 

The OFF ROAD VEHICLE AREA is not under ABDSP jurisdiction. That area is bought and paid for by green sticker money. Some areas are fenced off for sensitive areas, read fenced off, at least they are I'D as such. Different rangers attend to that area also. Still state rangers but assigned to the OHVSRA. Different rules

Link to comment

While camping in the back country I left the caches I found where they were. I'm not in the area frequently enough, so I wouldn't be able to get the containters back to the owners. I hope they get to stick around or are replaced when they are allowed again.

 

If anyone is interested, there were a few places in ABDSP and a bunch in the OHVSRA that I didn't get to where I wanted to set up more earthcaches. I can provide general descriptions/non-gps enabled maps for the locaitons and assist in the cache description.

 

I'm not sure how much a help/hinderance the earthcaches are to allowing traditionals in the park. :P

 

I've tried contacting the Super about the existing earthcaches I have in the park and have not had a response yet.

Link to comment

I'm not sure how much a help/hinderance the earthcaches are to allowing traditionals in the park. :P

 

I've tried contacting the Super about the existing earthcaches I have in the park and have not had a response yet.

 

 

How the heck will they remove an Earthcache. 0002014F.gif

Link to comment

because there may be areas of the park that they let us leave caches (like the off-roading sections mentioned above).

 

 

The OFF ROAD VEHICLE AREA is not under ABDSP jurisdiction. That area is bought and paid for by green sticker money. Some areas are fenced off for sensitive areas, read fenced off, at least they are I'D as such. Different rangers attend to that area also. Still state rangers but assigned to the OHVSRA. Different rules

 

So all off-roading trails are OK? I thought Coyote Canyon, Fish Creek, Borrego Mountain Wash, etc were all in ABDSP. It seems like if you can off-road then that area can't be considered "sensitive."
Link to comment

That's some news! We don't get that paper here. What is the reason given in wanting to close that area to vehicle activity???

 

Thanks for all that information. It is good to know we might be able to work things out.

 

On a different subject - - - The other night on the Channel 10 news they had a segment about a proposal to close the Dos Cabezas/Piedras Grande to ALL vehicle activity. The way I understood it, if this goes through, the only way to get to Mortero Palms and the other features on the west side of the highway down there will be by hiking, mountain biking, or on horseback...

I think the main reason is going to be the crossing-the-railroad-tracks part.

They said the reason they were proposing closing all the roads west of S2, which are presently open to Street Legal Vehicles only, is to protect archeological sites. Seems to me they would not have to close the entire road and trail system in that area to accomplish that task . . .

 

It was only a short segment, and I only saw it once, so before I can submit my comments on the proposed road closure and its extent, I'll need to get more information.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...