Physical geocaches prohibited in ABDSP?

[+TrailGators]

I find RK comments to be helpful in the discussion of the park, all of TC's are just snide and condescending and do not add anything.

Sorry Hottie, I have the same perception about your snide/condescending comments. Well, maybe not all of your comments, but certainly the majority. Tact and humility tend to win people over; give it a try.

I feel the same way. He'd be wise to pick up a copy of How to Win Friends and Influence People and read it because he rubs a lot of people the wrong way in the forums. Right or wrong if you have an abrasive delivery nobody is going to listen to you.

 

The ignore button works quite well, I used it a long time ago

 

 

[+Notaranger]

Why have other caches, not located in "sensitive areas" been removed? Why weren't cache owners given some notice and allowed to retrieve their property? And why haven't "Notes" been posted on cache pages when caches have been removed. "Notes" would inform the cache owner and cachers there is no cache to be found. People continue to look for missing caches because they do not know the container has been removed.

 

Per Anza-Borrego Desert State Parks Geocaching policy-

 

The following Earthcaches are currently active within the park and have been approved:

 

17 Palms Oasis – A Fault Controlled Spring by TerryDad2 GC1026Z

Alluvial Fan & Flash Floods - Anza Borrego SP by TerryDad2 GCZ5XJ

Alluvial Fan Ages by TerryDad2 GCZBYV

Calcite Mine by PassingWind GCQV53

Cannonball Wash and the Diablo Formation by Miragee GCZCPA

Desert Varnish - Anza Borrego SP by TerryDad2

Fish Creek Gypsum - US Gypsum Mine by TerryDad2 GCZ5X5

Peninsular Batholith Xenolith – Anza Borrego SP by TerryDad2 GCZ5XA

Sandstone Canyon – Anza Borrego SP by TerryDad2 GCZ5X8

Split Mountain Gorge – Anza Borrego SP by TerryDad2 GCZ5WK

 

The following geocaches each contained a prehistoric Native American artifact (a potsherd). The caches have been removed from the park.

 

Dead Things? by $kimmer GCKPRH

Peace, Espavo by SlabyFam GCE951

 

The following geocaches have been removed from the park.

 

Alcoholic Pass lives on by PezCachers GCNHNJ

Welcome Geo-cachers ! by jahoadi and john GCTHTE

Annalee Rose by Slewfootsue & Border Bandit GCMHXA

Cabeza de Richardo by $kimmer GCKPQW

Cache Sin Nombre by W9JIM GC304F

hey! it's another cache by ikes GCZ710

It's in the Can Man GCKXHW

Lootie's Loot by Carlootie GC108PT

Over the Edge by RocketMan GCAFFA

Powder Can Cache GC161 GC161

Stuff We All Get in San Diego by JCnBb2 GCWCJ1

Tu-Uncommon; aka Not Your Mummys' Cache GCN63D

Where Is Everyone? by Night Hunter GCR2EY

Little Wind Cave by gratefuldad116 GC10CQG

Danger Ahead GCYKK2

Buttes Pass Cache GCZ0HJ

Wild Hare at Nude Wash by svet & deb GC17KM4

Quartz Cave GCTJ75

J & R by CAMP W GCT4KT

Mud Cave Cookie Tin by W9JIM GC2A7

 

Thank you for your cooperation.

[+Team Cotati]

Why have other caches, not located in "sensitive areas" been removed? Why weren't cache owners given some notice and allowed to retrieve their property? And why haven't "Notes" been posted on cache pages when caches have been removed. "Notes" would inform the cache owner and cachers there is no cache to be found. People continue to look for missing caches because they do not know the container has been removed.

 

Per Anza-Borrego Desert State Parks Geocaching policy-

 

The following Earthcaches are currently active within the park and have been approved:

 

17 Palms Oasis – A Fault Controlled Spring by TerryDad2 GC1026Z

Alluvial Fan & Flash Floods - Anza Borrego SP by TerryDad2 GCZ5XJ

Alluvial Fan Ages by TerryDad2 GCZBYV

Calcite Mine by PassingWind GCQV53

Cannonball Wash and the Diablo Formation by Miragee GCZCPA

Desert Varnish - Anza Borrego SP by TerryDad2

Fish Creek Gypsum - US Gypsum Mine by TerryDad2 GCZ5X5

Peninsular Batholith Xenolith – Anza Borrego SP by TerryDad2 GCZ5XA

Sandstone Canyon – Anza Borrego SP by TerryDad2 GCZ5X8

Split Mountain Gorge – Anza Borrego SP by TerryDad2 GCZ5WK

 

The following geocaches each contained a prehistoric Native American artifact (a potsherd). The caches have been removed from the park.

 

Dead Things? by $kimmer GCKPRH

Peace, Espavo by SlabyFam GCE951

 

The following geocaches have been removed from the park.

 

Alcoholic Pass lives on by PezCachers GCNHNJ

Welcome Geo-cachers ! by jahoadi and john GCTHTE

Annalee Rose by Slewfootsue & Border Bandit GCMHXA

Cabeza de Richardo by $kimmer GCKPQW

Cache Sin Nombre by W9JIM GC304F

hey! it's another cache by ikes GCZ710

It's in the Can Man GCKXHW

Lootie's Loot by Carlootie GC108PT

Over the Edge by RocketMan GCAFFA

Powder Can Cache GC161 GC161

Stuff We All Get in San Diego by JCnBb2 GCWCJ1

Tu-Uncommon; aka Not Your Mummys' Cache GCN63D

Where Is Everyone? by Night Hunter GCR2EY

Little Wind Cave by gratefuldad116 GC10CQG

Danger Ahead GCYKK2

Buttes Pass Cache GCZ0HJ

Wild Hare at Nude Wash by svet & deb GC17KM4

Quartz Cave GCTJ75

J & R by CAMP W GCT4KT

Mud Cave Cookie Tin by W9JIM GC2A7

 

Thank you for your cooperation.

 

WRT "Per Anza-Borrego Desert State Parks Geocaching policy-", is there an 'electronic' copy of that policy that you could refer me to? When was that policy established? By whom? Should there prove to not be an electronic copy available, how would I obtain a paper copy from ABDSP sources? Thanks.

 

Also, would it be more accurate to have stated that the caches in the first category above were 're-approved'?

Edited February 10, 2008 by Team Cotati

[+RocketMan]

The following geocaches have been removed from the park.

 

Alcoholic Pass lives on by PezCachers GCNHNJ

Welcome Geo-cachers ! by jahoadi and john GCTHTE

Annalee Rose by Slewfootsue & Border Bandit GCMHXA

Cabeza de Richardo by $kimmer GCKPQW

Cache Sin Nombre by W9JIM GC304F

hey! it's another cache by ikes GCZ710

It's in the Can Man GCKXHW

Lootie's Loot by Carlootie GC108PT

Over the Edge by RocketMan GCAFFA

Powder Can Cache GC161 GC161

Stuff We All Get in San Diego by JCnBb2 GCWCJ1

Tu-Uncommon; aka Not Your Mummys' Cache GCN63D

Where Is Everyone? by Night Hunter GCR2EY

Little Wind Cave by gratefuldad116 GC10CQG

Danger Ahead GCYKK2

Buttes Pass Cache GCZ0HJ

Wild Hare at Nude Wash by svet & deb GC17KM4

Quartz Cave GCTJ75

J & R by CAMP W GCT4KT

Mud Cave Cookie Tin by W9JIM GC2A7

Thanks for providing this information. I have archived my Over the Edge Cache (GCAFFA). I do have a suggestion: Rather then post the list here, it would be more productive and make more sense to post "Needs Archived" logs to the cache pages which will be sent in email form to the cache owners. Very few cachers actually visit these forums, so most of the folks on the list above will not know that their caches have been removed.

 

On another note, is there some reason why the older caches are being targeted? The list above contains a very high percentage of very old caches, including the the oldest ones in the park. It makes it look like someone has an agenda beyond just removing caches from the park.

 

The following geocaches each contained a prehistoric Native American artifact (a potsherd). The caches have been removed from the park.

 

Dead Things? by $kimmer GCKPRH

Peace, Espavo by SlabyFam GCE951

While putting artifacts in a cache in a State Park seems like a stupid idea to me, there is no proof that the pottery shards came from the park. It's not hard to find pottery shards in many other places where it is legal to take them. Cachers usually carry a bag of swag items that they place in caches. The don't generally pick the swag items up off the ground near the cache site. With that said, if they did pick them up in the park, shame on them but I guarantee there are many more people that are not cachers picking up pottery shards. As a group of folks, cachers tend to be more sensitive to the rules and the environment so if finding a few pottery shards in those caches is a reason to condemn the whole geocaching community the the park better just close down to all visitors.

 

The following Earthcaches are currently active within the park and have been approved:

 

17 Palms Oasis – A Fault Controlled Spring by TerryDad2 GC1026Z

Alluvial Fan & Flash Floods - Anza Borrego SP by TerryDad2 GCZ5XJ

Alluvial Fan Ages by TerryDad2 GCZBYV

Calcite Mine by PassingWind GCQV53

Cannonball Wash and the Diablo Formation by Miragee GCZCPA

Desert Varnish - Anza Borrego SP by TerryDad2

Fish Creek Gypsum - US Gypsum Mine by TerryDad2 GCZ5X5

Peninsular Batholith Xenolith – Anza Borrego SP by TerryDad2 GCZ5XA

Sandstone Canyon – Anza Borrego SP by TerryDad2 GCZ5X8

Split Mountain Gorge – Anza Borrego SP by TerryDad2 GCZ5WK

It's silly to think there is anything to "approve" when it comes to a virtual cache such as an Earthcache. If the Park thinks they have to "approve" Earthcaches then they better start searching the Internet and telling anyone who has a website with information about any location within ABDSP that they need approval. Back in the days of Virtual caches there were a few National Parks that had issues with Virtual caches, but I believe they realized how silly that was. It just doesn't make sense and there is really nothing to be done about it.

[+airman]

If the park did not approve the Earthcaches, would they then remove them? I would like to be there when Notaranger carries Canyon Sin Nombre or Split Mountain away. Hopefully all potsherds would be left in place.

[+Renegade Knight]

If the park did not approve the Earthcaches, would they then remove them? I would like to be there when Notaranger carries Canyon Sin Nombre or Split Mountain away. Hopefully all potsherds would be left in place.

Earthcaches require direct land owner approval as part of their own guidelines.

[+Renegade Knight]

....While putting artifacts in a cache in a State Park seems like a stupid idea to me, there is no proof that the pottery shards came from the park. It's not hard to find pottery shards in many other places where it is legal to take them. .,.

True. Recently I was in the Petrified Forest. They prohibit the collection of Petrified Wood. The formation containing the petrified wood is large while the park is small. There is a lot of legitimate petrified wood for sale inside and outside the park. The easy solution is to make sure the Petrified wood you have purchased legitimately has the associated receipt. Something similar should be used by cachers who would use a shard as a trade item.

 

If the real problem is that people are picking up shards (and that is a real problem) the cache itself is not the issue. It merely gave the park a chance to read the log and potentially actually catch someone taking shards. The Caches are not even a symptom of the issue.

[+Team Cotati]

The following geocaches have been removed from the park.

 

Alcoholic Pass lives on by PezCachers GCNHNJ

Welcome Geo-cachers ! by jahoadi and john GCTHTE

Annalee Rose by Slewfootsue & Border Bandit GCMHXA

Cabeza de Richardo by $kimmer GCKPQW

Cache Sin Nombre by W9JIM GC304F

hey! it's another cache by ikes GCZ710

It's in the Can Man GCKXHW

Lootie's Loot by Carlootie GC108PT

Over the Edge by RocketMan GCAFFA

Powder Can Cache GC161 GC161

Stuff We All Get in San Diego by JCnBb2 GCWCJ1

Tu-Uncommon; aka Not Your Mummys' Cache GCN63D

Where Is Everyone? by Night Hunter GCR2EY

Little Wind Cave by gratefuldad116 GC10CQG

Danger Ahead GCYKK2

Buttes Pass Cache GCZ0HJ

Wild Hare at Nude Wash by svet & deb GC17KM4

Quartz Cave GCTJ75

J & R by CAMP W GCT4KT

Mud Cave Cookie Tin by W9JIM GC2A7

Thanks for providing this information. I have archived my Over the Edge Cache (GCAFFA). I do have a suggestion: Rather then post the list here, it would be more productive and make more sense to post "Needs Archived" logs to the cache pages which will be sent in email form to the cache owners. Very few cachers actually visit these forums, so most of the folks on the list above will not know that their caches have been removed.

 

On another note, is there some reason why the older caches are being targeted? The list above contains a very high percentage of very old caches, including the the oldest ones in the park. It makes it look like someone has an agenda beyond just removing caches from the park.

 

The following geocaches each contained a prehistoric Native American artifact (a potsherd). The caches have been removed from the park.

 

Dead Things? by $kimmer GCKPRH

Peace, Espavo by SlabyFam GCE951

While putting artifacts in a cache in a State Park seems like a stupid idea to me, there is no proof that the pottery shards came from the park. It's not hard to find pottery shards in many other places where it is legal to take them. Cachers usually carry a bag of swag items that they place in caches. The don't generally pick the swag items up off the ground near the cache site. With that said, if they did pick them up in the park, shame on them but I guarantee there are many more people that are not cachers picking up pottery shards. As a group of folks, cachers tend to be more sensitive to the rules and the environment so if finding a few pottery shards in those caches is a reason to condemn the whole geocaching community the the park better just close down to all visitors.

 

The following Earthcaches are currently active within the park and have been approved:

 

17 Palms Oasis – A Fault Controlled Spring by TerryDad2 GC1026Z

Alluvial Fan & Flash Floods - Anza Borrego SP by TerryDad2 GCZ5XJ

Alluvial Fan Ages by TerryDad2 GCZBYV

Calcite Mine by PassingWind GCQV53

Cannonball Wash and the Diablo Formation by Miragee GCZCPA

Desert Varnish - Anza Borrego SP by TerryDad2

Fish Creek Gypsum - US Gypsum Mine by TerryDad2 GCZ5X5

Peninsular Batholith Xenolith – Anza Borrego SP by TerryDad2 GCZ5XA

Sandstone Canyon – Anza Borrego SP by TerryDad2 GCZ5X8

Split Mountain Gorge – Anza Borrego SP by TerryDad2 GCZ5WK

It's silly to think there is anything to "approve" when it comes to a virtual cache such as an Earthcache. If the Park thinks they have to "approve" Earthcaches then they better start searching the Internet and telling anyone who has a website with information about any location within ABDSP that they need approval. Back in the days of Virtual caches there were a few National Parks that had issues with Virtual caches, but I believe they realized how silly that was. It just doesn't make sense and there is really nothing to be done about it.

 

Policy must be a blank sheet of paper.

[+RocketMan]

If the park did not approve the Earthcaches, would they then remove them? I would like to be there when Notaranger carries Canyon Sin Nombre or Split Mountain away. Hopefully all potsherds would be left in place.

Earthcaches require direct land owner approval as part of their own guidelines.

Yeah you are right but that is a GSA guideline, not gc.com guideline and it is still silly in my opinion. And if you go back to the early days of virtual caches, I believe you will find that it was considered silly by other folks who pull more weight than I do.

[+TrailGators]

If the park did not approve the Earthcaches, would they then remove them? I would like to be there when Notaranger carries Canyon Sin Nombre or Split Mountain away. Hopefully all potsherds would be left in place.

Earthcaches require direct land owner approval as part of their own guidelines.

Yeah you are right but that is a GSA guideline, not gc.com guideline and it is still silly in my opinion. And if you go back to the early days of virtual caches, I believe you will find that it was considered silly by other folks who pull more weight than I do.

I agree. Why would you need to approve a POI that's along an approved trail/road in a park?

[+TerryDad2]

The following Earthcaches are currently active within the park and have been approved:

 

17 Palms Oasis – A Fault Controlled Spring by TerryDad2 GC1026Z

Alluvial Fan & Flash Floods - Anza Borrego SP by TerryDad2 GCZ5XJ

Alluvial Fan Ages by TerryDad2 GCZBYV

Calcite Mine by PassingWind GCQV53

Cannonball Wash and the Diablo Formation by Miragee GCZCPA

Desert Varnish - Anza Borrego SP by TerryDad2

Fish Creek Gypsum - US Gypsum Mine by TerryDad2 GCZ5X5

Peninsular Batholith Xenolith – Anza Borrego SP by TerryDad2 GCZ5XA

Sandstone Canyon – Anza Borrego SP by TerryDad2 GCZ5X8

Split Mountain Gorge – Anza Borrego SP by TerryDad2 GCZ5WK

 

Does that mean the earthcaches not listed above are not "approved"? I US Gypsum Mine is outside the State Park.

 

Mr. Jorgensen has not notified me of the approval of these earthcaches. I have made a couple of attempts to contact him to get approval but have received no response. I think an approval should come from him or some other ranger instead of being posted in the forums by a volunteer.

[+FlagMan]

The following Earthcaches are currently active within the park and have been approved:

 

17 Palms Oasis – A Fault Controlled Spring by TerryDad2 GC1026Z

Alluvial Fan & Flash Floods - Anza Borrego SP by TerryDad2 GCZ5XJ

Alluvial Fan Ages by TerryDad2 GCZBYV

Calcite Mine by PassingWind GCQV53

Cannonball Wash and the Diablo Formation by Miragee GCZCPA

Desert Varnish - Anza Borrego SP by TerryDad2

Fish Creek Gypsum - US Gypsum Mine by TerryDad2 GCZ5X5

Peninsular Batholith Xenolith – Anza Borrego SP by TerryDad2 GCZ5XA

Sandstone Canyon – Anza Borrego SP by TerryDad2 GCZ5X8

Split Mountain Gorge – Anza Borrego SP by TerryDad2 GCZ5WK

 

Does that mean the earthcaches not listed above are not "approved"? I US Gypsum Mine is outside the State Park.

 

Mr. Jorgensen has not notified me of the approval of these earthcaches. I have made a couple of attempts to contact him to get approval but have received no response. I think an approval should come from him or some other ranger instead of being posted in the forums by a volunteer.

Exactly. notaranger is Heather Thomson who originally gave WestCoastAdmin the following ABDSP Guidelines in 2003:

 

 

Jorgenson refuses to acknowledge these Guidelines as coming from his department. But now notaranger (Heather Thomson) is the one removing all the caches and taking all the "official" action for Jorgenson. Hate to say it, but you can't have it both ways. If notaranger (Heather) is Jorgenson's official representative, then Jorgenson needs to acknowledge that ALL of the caches in ABDSP were sanctioned by Heather Thomson in 2003. This policy has been followed to the best of GC.com's ability and each and every cache that has been listed on the site first had the cache owner confirm that all of Heather Thomson's ABDSP special guidelines were satisfied.

[+Renegade Knight]

If the park did not approve the Earthcaches, would they then remove them? I would like to be there when Notaranger carries Canyon Sin Nombre or Split Mountain away. Hopefully all potsherds would be left in place.

Earthcaches require direct land owner approval as part of their own guidelines.

Yeah you are right but that is a GSA guideline, not gc.com guideline and it is still silly in my opinion. And if you go back to the early days of virtual caches, I believe you will find that it was considered silly by other folks who pull more weight than I do.

I agree. Why would you need to approve a POI that's along an approved trail/road in a park?

You are both right. This site has also come out and said permission on a virtual is silly. They also backed up that opinion when they archived a virtual with permission over one without.

[the voice of reason]

If the park did not approve the Earthcaches, would they then remove them? I would like to be there when Notaranger carries Canyon Sin Nombre or Split Mountain away. Hopefully all potsherds would be left in place.

Earthcaches require direct land owner approval as part of their own guidelines.

Yeah you are right but that is a GSA guideline, not gc.com guideline and it is still silly in my opinion. And if you go back to the early days of virtual caches, I believe you will find that it was considered silly by other folks who pull more weight than I do.

I agree. Why would you need to approve a POI that's along an approved trail/road in a park?

You are both right. This site has also come out and said permission on a virtual is silly. They also backed up that opinion when they archived a virtual with permission over one without.

 

 

Wind em' up and watch em' go!

[+TrailGators]

Wind em' up and watch em' go!

Wouldn't it be nice if local geocachers had a place to discuss this issue?

Oh, looky here, this is a discussion forum!

Edited February 11, 2008 by TrailGators

[+Team Cotati]

If the park did not approve the Earthcaches, would they then remove them? I would like to be there when Notaranger carries Canyon Sin Nombre or Split Mountain away. Hopefully all potsherds would be left in place.

 

And what would be the purpose and benefit of your presence?

[+Snake & Rooster]

This thread has certainly attracted an assortment of sock puppets and trolls.

[+SKILLET]

This thread has certainly attracted an assortment of sock puppets and trolls.

 

You sure hit the nail on the head there.

[+The JJ Duo]

This thread has certainly attracted an assortment of sock puppets and trolls.

 

You sure hit the nail on the head there.

Wow! Let's step back abit here. If we look through the eyes of all parties involved here,we should be able to see that some compromises are needed (unfortunately mostly ours). I propose that NOTARANGER is most likely not a "bad guy" here, and Mr.Jorgensen actually has the long range vision of ABSP in mind (which should be our goal as well !). We are dealing with alot of emotional issues involved with our freedoms and cache placements. We also feel "unappreciated" as to our role in the scheme of things (please delete Egos here). Did we really expect appreciation? We all agree that the Park is one of the greatest places for us to explore and appreciate that we have at our disposal. I have always believed that co-operation,respect and understanding, are keys to positive change. Let's look at what we have to lose: memories,plastic,some swag,bragging rites. Now let's look at what is to be gained: Freedom (with some paperwork)of access, respect as a viable entity, co-operation and sanctioning of our sport from the BLM itself! I think it is a worthy coelaboration. We'll recover one way or another, ...let's chose "the other". We are actually struggling on the same issue.....J

[+SKILLET]

Freedom (with some paperwork)of access, respect as a viable entity, co-operation and sanctioning of our sport from the BLM itself!

 

 

To bad the BLM has no jurisdiction over the ABDSP.

[+The JJ Duo]

Freedom (with some paperwork)of access, respect as a viable entity, co-operation and sanctioning of our sport from the BLM itself!

 

 

To bad the BLM has no jurisdiction over the ABDSP.

C'mon Skillet...Let's all work together on this. Is there really a choice?

 

 

 

 

/

[+Miragee]

Wow! Let's step back abit here. If we look through the eyes of all parties involved here,we should be able to see that some compromises are needed (unfortunately mostly ours). I propose that NOTARANGER is most likely not a "bad guy" here, and Mr.Jorgensen actually has the long range vision of ABSP in mind (which should be our goal as well !). We are dealing with alot of emotional issues involved with our freedoms and cache placements. We also feel "unappreciated" as to our role in the scheme of things (please delete Egos here). Did we really expect appreciation? We all agree that the Park is one of the greatest places for us to explore and appreciate that we have at our disposal. I have always believed that co-operation,respect and understanding, are keys to positive change. Let's look at what we have to lose: memories,plastic,some swag,bragging rites. Now let's look at what is to be gained: Freedom (with some paperwork)of access, respect as a viable entity, co-operation and sanctioning of our sport from the BLM itself! I think it is a worthy coelaboration. We'll recover one way or another, ...let's chose "the other". We are actually struggling on the same issue.....J

The problem I have with this entire situation is the extremely unprofessional way it was handled. The Geocaching community has not been shown any level of "co-operation,respect and understanding."

 

I have already asked these questions before, and they still have not been answered to my satisfaction by Notaranger, and I never even received a "courtesy" response to my email to Superintendent Jorgensen.

 

Why was this decision made suddenly right during the busy Holiday Season? Why wasn't Groundspeak given ample notice of this change? Why weren't the cache owners given a reasonable amount of time to retrieve their own caches?

 

Why have caches been removed, but not retained for the cache owners? Many of these caches were ammo cans or other good containers that had value. Also, some of these caches had been in place for a long time, many longer than six years. The logbooks in those caches had a lot of history in them and I'm sure the cache owners would have liked to have had them. There were probably Travel Bugs and Geocoins in some of the caches, and I'm sure the owners of those items would have liked to have those items returned.

 

When the caches were removed, why weren't "Notes" put on the cache pages to let people know the container was no longer in place?

 

In at least one case, three people visited the cache location to remove the container, when the cache itself had only been found six times in the past YEAR. Those three people had more impact on the environment during that single day than the individual cachers who found the container over the previous 365 days.

 

So . . . it isn't the change in policy that has bothered me so much, although that is a very sad development, as it has been the extreme disrespect shown to the Geocaching community and individual cache owners by Notaranger.

 

Since Geocaching is allowed, and even promoted, in other California State Parks, I think someone has some 'plainin' to do . . .

[+TrailGators]

Not to mention the smear campaign going on.

 

This newletter:

 

Published this slander in last month's newletter:

 

Edited February 12, 2008 by TrailGators

[+Team Cotati]

Not to mention the smear campaign going on.

 

This newletter:

 

Published this slander in last month's newletter:

 

 

Wow!! Where'd you find that?

[+TrailGators]

Wow!! Where'd you find that?

There was a link posted on page one of this thread.... Edited February 12, 2008 by TrailGators

[+SKILLET]

Freedom (with some paperwork)of access, respect as a viable entity, co-operation and sanctioning of our sport from the BLM itself!

 

 

To bad the BLM has no jurisdiction over the ABDSP.

C'mon Skillet...Let's all work together on this. Is there really a choice?

 

 

You miss my point the problem is not with the BLM it"s with the ABDSP.

 

BLM in this area of CA has no problems with Caches on their lands, at least not yet.

 

The problem is ABDSP does not want to work with us, There is no work together on this if the other side does not want to listen.

[+TrailGators]

Wow! Let's step back abit here. If we look through the eyes of all parties involved here,we should be able to see that some compromises are needed (unfortunately mostly ours). I propose that NOTARANGER is most likely not a "bad guy" here, and Mr.Jorgensen actually has the long range vision of ABSP in mind (which should be our goal as well !). We are dealing with alot of emotional issues involved with our freedoms and cache placements.

OK, let's step back a bit here and discuss the facts:

1) Geocachers were following park guidelines given to us by a park representative.

2) Geocachers are not the ones publishing slander.

3) Geocachers are not the ones stealing private property that was placed under good faith of an guideline agreement given to us by a park representative.

4) Geocachers have only heard circumstantial evidence linking three caches to the issues they are claiming that "hundreds" of geocaches have.

5) Geocachers care very much about the park. In fact, geocachers have picked up many truckloads of trash during several CITO events.

Edited February 12, 2008 by TrailGators

[+The JJ Duo]

Freedom (with some paperwork)of access, respect as a viable entity, co-operation and sanctioning of our sport from the BLM itself!

 

 

To bad the BLM has no jurisdiction over the ABDSP.

C'mon Skillet...Let's all work together on this. Is there really a choice?

 

 

You miss my point the problem is not with the BLM it"s with the ABDSP.

 

BLM in this area of CA has no problems with Caches on their lands, at least not yet.

 

The problem is ABDSP does not want to work with us, There is no work together on this if the other side does not want to listen.

y dont we just wait a little while and let them see that the desert isnt getting any cleaner from no caches and maybe they will let us put them there agian

 

jimmy from jj duo

[+The JJ Duo]

Freedom (with some paperwork)of access, respect as a viable entity, co-operation and sanctioning of our sport from the BLM itself!

 

 

To bad the BLM has no jurisdiction over the ABDSP.

C'mon Skillet...Let's all work together on this. Is there really a choice?

 

 

You miss my point the problem is not with the BLM it"s with the ABDSP.

 

BLM in this area of CA has no problems with Caches on their lands, at least not yet.

 

The problem is ABDSP does not want to work with us, There is no work together on this if the other side does not want to listen.

y dont we just wait a little while and let them see that the desert isnt getting any cleaner from no caches and maybe they will let us put them there agian

Right...from the mouths of babes. Of course it's not gonna be THAT easy, but has anyone talked to Mr.Jorgensen?

jimmy from jj duo

[Parsa]

We should go up in the chain of command and see if things can be decided in our favor.

This should be done by geocaching.com reps and by local cachers who have connections and experience with the various parks services.

 

If the issue is not resolved in this way we should:

Stop events, including clean up events in the park.

Let the rangers know we will no longer be helping them keep the park clean.

Stop sponsoring cleanup of the highway on the east side of the park.

Boycott the park, and write letters en masse to the officials from California State Parks saying why we are doing so.

Cooperate with the many Jeep and 4WD groups on the boycott and picket at the park headquarters and park entrances for the rights of those who actually own the park.

 

The impact of geocaches and geocachers in the ABDSP is so minimal it is not even funny. Perhaps we can make an impact in other ways they will feel.

[+Team Cotati]

We should go up in the chain of command and see if things can be decided in our favor.

This should be done by geocaching.com reps and by local cachers who have connections and experience with the various parks services.

 

If the issue is not resolved in this way we should:

Stop events, including clean up events in the park.

Let the rangers know we will no longer be helping them keep the park clean.

Stop sponsoring cleanup of the highway on the east side of the park.

Boycott the park, and write letters en masse to the officials from California State Parks saying why we are doing so.

Cooperate with the many Jeep and 4WD groups on the boycott and picket at the park headquarters and park entrances for the rights of those who actually own the park.

 

The impact of geocaches and geocachers in the ABDSP is so minimal it is not even funny. Perhaps we can make an impact in other ways they will feel.

 

This is one of the very best suggestions for an appropriate geocacher response on this issue that I've seen. Thank you.

[+TrailGators]

We should go up in the chain of command and see if things can be decided in our favor.

This should be done by geocaching.com reps and by local cachers who have connections and experience with the various parks services.

 

If the issue is not resolved in this way we should:

Stop events, including clean up events in the park.

Let the rangers know we will no longer be helping them keep the park clean.

Stop sponsoring cleanup of the highway on the east side of the park.

Boycott the park, and write letters en masse to the officials from California State Parks saying why we are doing so.

Cooperate with the many Jeep and 4WD groups on the boycott and picket at the park headquarters and park entrances for the rights of those who actually own the park.

 

The impact of geocaches and geocachers in the ABDSP is so minimal it is not even funny. Perhaps we can make an impact in other ways they will feel.

This is one of the very best suggestions for an appropriate geocacher response on this issue that I've seen. Thank you.

We are still at step one of that process. This part will take the longest, but this is the most important part. Edited February 12, 2008 by TrailGators

[+Renegade Knight]

....We are still at step one of that process. This part will take the longest, but this is the most important part.

 

If it takes a long time, you are not talking to the right person. You should have the answer quickly. The paperwork may take time but the gist of things doesn't. If your rep can't go talk face to face, you are also using the wrong rep. They need to be able to jump in a rig, drive out to a location with park staff and see things first hand.

 

If your rep doesn't know about NEPA, NHPA, Section 106 or have access by a quick phone call to those who do, you may not be using the wrong rep, but you have some gaps to fill in.

Edited February 12, 2008 by Renegade Knight

[+TrailGators]

....We are still at step one of that process. This part will take the longest, but this is the most important part.

 

If it takes a long time, you are not talking to the right person. You should have the answer quickly. The paperwork may take time but the gist of things doesn't. If your rep can't go talk face to face, you are also using the wrong rep. They need to be able to jump in a rig, drive out to a location with park staff and see things first hand.

 

If your rep doesn't know about NEPA, NHPA, Section 106 or have access by a quick phone call to those who do, you may not be using the wrong rep, but you have some gaps to fill in.

Miss Jenn is not updating this thread with the status. However, rumor has it there are some promising things going on. I can't say what they are because it could mess things up if I did. If you want to know then PM me... Edited February 12, 2008 by TrailGators

[+rjbloom & co]

There's a lot of us reading this thread hoping that things will be resolved to the satisfaction of all. I was totally looking forward to some more geocaching in the desert this next year. And at least Notaranger is bothering to post on this thread, and perhaps reading some of it.

[+Team Cotati]

There's a lot of us reading this thread hoping that things will be resolved to the satisfaction of all. I was totally looking forward to some more geocaching in the desert this next year. And at least Notaranger is bothering to post on this thread, and perhaps reading some of it.

 

The desert is a fairly large place. Have you pretty much cleaned out everything except ABDSP?

Edited February 13, 2008 by Team Cotati

[+TrailGators]

The desert is a fairly large place. Have you pretty much cleaned out everything except ABDSP?

What fricking value does that comment add to a thread that is discussing ABDSP? You aren't even from around here, so why are you being nosey and disruptive?

[+Eric and Hill]

The desert is a fairly large place. Have you pretty much cleaned out everything except ABDSP?

What fricking value does that comment add to a thread that is discussing ABDSP? You aren't even from around here, so why are you being nosey and disruptive?

100% Agree. Trolls need to go back under the bridge.

[+SKILLET]

The desert is a fairly large place. Have you pretty much cleaned out everything except ABDSP?

What fricking value does that comment add to a thread that is discussing ABDSP? You aren't even from around here, so why are you being nosey and disruptive?

100% Agree. Trolls need to go back under the bridge.

 

[+Toby's Gang]

The desert is a fairly large place. Have you pretty much cleaned out everything except ABDSP?

What fricking value does that comment add to a thread that is discussing ABDSP? You aren't even from around here, so why are you being nosey and disruptive?

100% Agree. Trolls need to go back under the bridge.

 

 

Can't we all just get along?

[+sharkie]

I will be out in ABDSP this weekend. I had planned one of my favorite kinds of weekends, geocaching in the park! Well I happened on to this thread and was shocked. I had no idea this issue was raging. Anyway, if any cache owner would like me to pick up their cache (assuming I can find it ) I would be happy to try. I will not be in 4 x 4 so no far off adventures.

 

Feel free to email me through my account. I am new to this posting thing and am not sure I will find a particular post

 

sharkie

[+Miragee]

I will be out in ABDSP this weekend. I had planned one of my favorite kinds of weekends, geocaching in the park! Well I happened on to this thread and was shocked. I had no idea this issue was raging. Anyway, if any cache owner would like me to pick up their cache (assuming I can find it ) I would be happy to try. I will not be in 4 x 4 so no far off adventures.

 

Feel free to email me through my account. I am new to this posting thing and am not sure I will find a particular post

 

sharkie

Although these caches are Disabled, and possibly missing, or have been Archived, if you want to visit the locations and take a picture of yourself, and your GPSr at the coodinates, your visit will count toward completion of my "Historic Cache Adventures," Version 1.0 and Version 2.0. You don't need a 4X4 for some of these caches and the locations are worth visiting.

 

Powder Can Cache

 

Desert Peek-a-boo

 

Laura's Memorial

 

Truckhaven

 

Overland

 

Have a great time!!

[+Let's Look Over Thayer]

If the park did not approve the Earthcaches, would they then remove them? I would like to be there when Notaranger carries Canyon Sin Nombre or Split Mountain away. Hopefully all potsherds would be left in place.

Earthcaches require direct land owner approval as part of their own guidelines.

Yeah you are right but that is a GSA guideline, not gc.com guideline and it is still silly in my opinion. And if you go back to the early days of virtual caches, I believe you will find that it was considered silly by other folks who pull more weight than I do.

I agree. Why would you need to approve a POI that's along an approved trail/road in a park?

On the surface, it does seem silly for lands where permission to enter has already been granted to the general public. I would argue however that it does make sense for the GSA to have this policy (at least if they want to cover their butt.)

 

Example 1: If there was a significant geological feature on my land, I would want GSA to ask my permission before they published the Earthcache. So, yes, it does make sense for private property.

 

Example 2: On the surface, it would seem to make sense, that for public lands, you should have an inherent approval because these are generally open to the public. The problem is that, if you don't ask, it can be very hard to determine what is generally accessible and what is not. You cannot assume that just because an Earthcache is within a National Park or Monument that it is legally accessible to the general public. I know of specific areas within Grand Canyon National Park, Carlsbad Caverns National Park, Bandelier National Monument and Mesa Verde National Park (to name just a few) that are off limits to the general public and to which access is granted only by special permission. The easiest way for the GSA to determine whether an Earthcache is outside those "no-go" areas is to ask the park to approve it.

 

The exception to all of this is where the superintendent is a jerk/idiot/etc. and disapproves Earthcaches that are within publically accessible areas. Then I agree that we have slipped over the edge into stupidity. But the stupidity is with the superintendant not the policy.

[+Renegade Knight]

...On the surface, it does seem silly for lands where permission to enter has already been granted to the general public. I would argue however that it does make sense for the GSA to have this policy (at least if they want to cover their butt.)

 

Example 1: If there was a significant geological feature on my land, I would want GSA to ask my permission before they published the Earthcache. So, yes, it does make sense for private property.

 

Example 2: On the surface, it would seem to make sense, that for public lands, you should have an inherent approval because these are generally open to the public. The problem is that, if you don't ask, it can be very hard to determine what is generally accessible and what is not. You cannot assume that just because an Earthcache is within a National Park or Monument that it is legally accessible to the general public. I know of specific areas within Grand Canyon National Park, Carlsbad Caverns National Park, Bandelier National Monument and Mesa Verde National Park (to name just a few) that are off limits to the general public and to which access is granted only by special permission. The easiest way for the GSA to determine whether an Earthcache is outside those "no-go" areas is to ask the park to approve it.

 

The exception to all of this is where the superintendent is a jerk/idiot/etc. and disapproves Earthcaches that are within publically accessible areas. Then I agree that we have slipped over the edge into stupidity. But the stupidity is with the superintendant not the policy.

 

It is silly. Since cachers (just as everone else) should follow all laws and rules. There is no reason for permission for a virtual cache. None. Zero. Nada. If it's that hard to figure out of you should or shouldn't be there, odds are you are just fine, or the park hasn't done their job in posing their public lands as a keep out zone. If a virtual is posted in a spot where people should not be and people go there anyway. Use the logs and give them all a ticket.

 

In my area I've always wanted to see where the Big Lost River gets lost (goes underground). My adventure ended with Posted INL lands (patrolled by gentlemen who carry M16's) or a Fenced off Farmers Field. The big lost river sink would still be a nice thing to see, but figuring out who to ask to get there would be part of the challenge if that were a virtual cache.

 

Asking about a virtual is a courtesy. If you visited the spot to begin with like you should, before you post it, the "where you can and can't be" takes care of itself.

[+mmcgr]

The Utah State Parks folks have successfully integrated geocaching into their programs. In fact, they sponsored a geocaching event in 2007 as well as sponsoring geocaches within the boundaries of the parks as part of their year-long 50th anniversary celebration. They even provided loaner GPSr units to those that didn't have their own. If any place is the motherlode of sensitive archeological and paleontological sites, it is Utah.

 

Maybe the Californians involved in negotiations with ABDSP could contact Utah State Parks to see what they have done, or at least use the Utah example when negotiating with ABDSP. Link to the Utah SP 50th Anniversary Celebration notice is: http://stateparks.utah.gov/50th/. Link to the Utah State Park geocaching guide is: http://stateparks.utah.gov/docs/utwk_geocache_guide.pdf.

 

(Oh, almost forgot to mention, the picture we use on our GC profile was taken in southwestern Utah's Snow Canyon State Park.)

Edited February 16, 2008 by mmcgr

[+TrailGators]

Thanks for the info, mmcqr!

[+Team Cotati]

The Utah State Parks folks have successfully integrated geocaching into their programs. In fact, they sponsored a geocaching event in 2007 as well as sponsoring geocaches within the boundaries of the parks as part of their year-long 50th anniversary celebration. They even provided loaner GPSr units to those that didn't have their own. If any place is the motherlode of sensitive archeological and paleontological sites, it is Utah.

 

Maybe the Californians involved in negotiations with ABDSP could contact Utah State Parks to see what they have done, or at least use the Utah example when negotiating with ABDSP. Link to the Utah SP 50th Anniversary Celebration notice is: http://stateparks.utah.gov/50th/. Link to the Utah State Park geocaching guide is: http://stateparks.utah.gov/docs/utwk_geocache_guide.pdf.

 

(Oh, almost forgot to mention, the picture we use on our GC profile was taken in southwestern Utah's Snow Canyon State Park.)

 

Thanks for that info. However I have looked over the links shown fairly carefully and I am not able to find Utah state park geocaching policy. If there is one which is documented on a www site, would you please direct me to that? Thanks.

[+Miragee]

Well . . . I just got the Archived Notice for "Mud Cave Cookie Tin" and GPSKitty had just replaced the container.

 

The "Mud Cave Cookie Tin" cache was more than seven years old . . .

 

The "Geocacher" who submitted the "SBA" notice is abvlntrs.

 

I am going to email that person with the information about other California State Parks that allow Geocaching and actively promote it, understanding it is a good thing for their park. If only the Volunteers were not being "guided" by such a misguided policy at ABDSP.

[+mmcgr]

The Utah State Parks folks have successfully integrated geocaching into their programs. In fact, they sponsored a geocaching event in 2007 as well as sponsoring geocaches within the boundaries of the parks as part of their year-long 50th anniversary celebration. They even provided loaner GPSr units to those that didn't have their own. If any place is the motherlode of sensitive archeological and paleontological sites, it is Utah.

 

Maybe the Californians involved in negotiations with ABDSP could contact Utah State Parks to see what they have done, or at least use the Utah example when negotiating with ABDSP. Link to the Utah SP 50th Anniversary Celebration notice is: http://stateparks.utah.gov/50th/. Link to the Utah State Park geocaching guide is: http://stateparks.utah.gov/docs/utwk_geocache_guide.pdf.

 

(Oh, almost forgot to mention, the picture we use on our GC profile was taken in southwestern Utah's Snow Canyon State Park.)

 

Thanks for that info. However I have looked over the links shown fairly carefully and I am not able to find Utah state park geocaching policy. If there is one which is documented on a www site, would you please direct me to that? Thanks.

 

When I searched the Utah State Parks site, I didn't find a copy of a policy document.

[+mmcgr]

The Utah State Parks folks have successfully integrated geocaching into their programs. In fact, they sponsored a geocaching event in 2007 as well as sponsoring geocaches within the boundaries of the parks as part of their year-long 50th anniversary celebration. They even provided loaner GPSr units to those that didn't have their own. If any place is the motherlode of sensitive archeological and paleontological sites, it is Utah.

 

Maybe the Californians involved in negotiations with ABDSP could contact Utah State Parks to see what they have done, or at least use the Utah example when negotiating with ABDSP. Link to the Utah SP 50th Anniversary Celebration notice is: http://stateparks.utah.gov/50th/. Link to the Utah State Park geocaching guide is: http://stateparks.utah.gov/docs/utwk_geocache_guide.pdf.

 

(Oh, almost forgot to mention, the picture we use on our GC profile was taken in southwestern Utah's Snow Canyon State Park.)

 

New Mexico State Parks is its celebrating 75th anniversary this year, including a geocaching challenge in April as part of the celebration. See page four of the link:

 

http://www.emnrd.state.nm.us/PRD/documents...nniversary2.pdf