Jump to content

Physical geocaches prohibited in ABDSP?


M2
Followers 15

Recommended Posts

I sent a request to ABDSP (anzaborrego@parks.ca.gov) on 12/28 to review the earthcaches I already have out there. I haven't even gotten an acknowledgement that they received the request. :drama:

 

I guess they have been too busy in the negotiations and removing the traditionals. :drama:

If you read what Jorgensen wrote in an email posted above (post 207), it sounds like he has no issue with virtuals or earthcaches.

In the log quoted in first post Jorgensen says to contact him for earthcache approval.

Link to comment
I sent a request to ABDSP (anzaborrego@parks.ca.gov) on 12/28 to review the earthcaches I already have out there. I haven't even gotten an acknowledgement that they received the request. :drama:

 

I guess they have been too busy in the negotiations and removing the traditionals. :drama:

If you read what Jorgensen wrote in an email posted above (post 207), it sounds like he has no issue with virtuals or earthcaches.

In the log quoted in first post Jorgensen says to contact him for earthcache approval.

I wouldn't worry about Earthcaches out there at this point in time. He seems to only be focused on "litter." That's why I think we should move the CITO down the road until he realizes what litter really is... :drama: Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

For what it's worth, I made it clear to Jorgensen that nobody representing GC.com participated in or encouraged the pirate site. His response was something to the effect that this response is not helping our cause. Unfortunately, there is little we can do to control lynch mobs, but this activity certainly isn't welcome. It has and will continue to undermine the ability of the GC staff to petition those senior to Jorgensen.

I can understand why someone would respond in the way abdspgeocacher did.

 

Jorgensen behaved like a bully. There have been caches in the Park for almost seven years. Notaranger has even logged "Found it" on caches as far back as 2004. When Jorgensen decided he did not want caches in the Park anymore, he did not give adequate notice for a change in Policy. He had people remove them as if they were "trash." Plus, most of the time, Notes were not posted on the cache pages letting the cache owners and cachers know the caches had been removed. :drama: That has led to logs like this one :drama:

 

If Jorgensen had acted in a more professional manner, which is the way a Superintendent of a State Park should act, the anger in the caching community would not have erupted as it did.

 

Some of the caches that were removed had been in place for several years and some had not been found more than six times per year for the past couple of years. That amount of "traffic" cannot possibly cause any damage to the area.

 

I had a stake in several of the "Historic Caches" in the Park because of my two "Historic Cache Adventures," V. 1.0 and V. 2.0

 

The Archived caches that are in ABDSP are going to remain in the lists for my Multi-caches. My hope is that those caches will eventually be returned to their hiding places for future cachers to seek and find.

 

Say there, do you have a copy of the previous 'policy' handy?

Link to comment
Say there, do you have a copy of the previous 'policy' handy?

Here are the ABDSP guidelines that we were given and that we have been following:

1. Caches must be placed within 50 feet of authorized trail.

2. No caches permitted within 200 feet of an historic or archeological site.

3. No caches permitted in, on or under any building, structure or manmade object.

4. Caches cannot be buried. (*per gc.com policy)

5. No cutting or modification of vegetation.

6. No modifying of geologic features, i.e., no moving rocks, hiding under rocks or creating cairns.

Link to comment
DeserTrekers couldn't find I HATE ROCKS !! (Traditional Cache) at 1/12/2008

 

Log Date: 1/12/2008

And it was because we ran into two rangers at the site and they said these cache hides inside the park are not leagal. Since I was a park range in my past life, we agreed not to look for these until they are cleared from the sup. (Future Cachers might take note of this!!!)

 

This Cache is not in the ABDSP their sign is a good 1/2 mile away.

 

It takes two rangers to remove Caches. 0002019C.gif

 

Time for some budget cuts I think.

 

Someone else found this one the same day so maybe it's still there ???

 

The next day

 

lionhouse75 couldn't find I HATE ROCKS !! (Traditional Cache) at 1/13/2008

 

Log Date: 1/13/2008

Well, maybe we just didn't look under/over/around/in the right rocks or the Park Rangers already found it and removed, either way, Team Lionhouse75 and WindyMatters had no luck with this one either.

 

 

OK what do I do now ,replace it this weekend when I go out . Replace it every two weeks when I go out after that.

 

Or just archeive it. 0002018E.gif

 

 

Stopped by this weekend and checked on I HATE ROCKS and it is still there.

 

Most take more than two Rangers to remove a Cache 00020148.gif

Link to comment
Say there, do you have a copy of the previous 'policy' handy?

Here are the ABDSP guidelines that we were given and that we have been following:

1. Caches must be placed within 50 feet of authorized trail.

2. No caches permitted within 200 feet of an historic or archeological site.

3. No caches permitted in, on or under any building, structure or manmade object.

4. Caches cannot be buried. (*per gc.com policy)

5. No cutting or modification of vegetation.

6. No modifying of geologic features, i.e., no moving rocks, hiding under rocks or creating cairns.

 

Who is "we"? Who gave you those ABDSP guidelines?

Link to comment
Say there, do you have a copy of the previous 'policy' handy?

Here are the ABDSP guidelines that we were given and that we have been following:

1. Caches must be placed within 50 feet of authorized trail.

2. No caches permitted within 200 feet of an historic or archeological site.

3. No caches permitted in, on or under any building, structure or manmade object.

4. Caches cannot be buried. (*per gc.com policy)

5. No cutting or modification of vegetation.

6. No modifying of geologic features, i.e., no moving rocks, hiding under rocks or creating cairns.

 

Who is "we"? Who gave you those ABDSP guidelines?

These Guidelines were given to WestCoastAdmin in 2003 by:

 

Heather Thomson

iplay3rd@earthlink.net

Archaeologist

California State Parks

Colorado Desert District

 

She also goes by the handle notaranger...

Link to comment
Say there, do you have a copy of the previous 'policy' handy?

Here are the ABDSP guidelines that we were given and that we have been following:

1. Caches must be placed within 50 feet of authorized trail.

2. No caches permitted within 200 feet of an historic or archeological site.

3. No caches permitted in, on or under any building, structure or manmade object.

4. Caches cannot be buried. (*per gc.com policy)

5. No cutting or modification of vegetation.

6. No modifying of geologic features, i.e., no moving rocks, hiding under rocks or creating cairns.

 

Who is "we"? Who gave you those ABDSP guidelines?

These Guidelines were given to WestCoastAdmin in 2003 by:

 

Heather Thomson

iplay3rd@earthlink.net

Archaeologist

California State Parks

Colorado Desert District

 

She also goes by the handle notaranger...

 

WestCoastAdmin? Who's that?

Link to comment
Say there, do you have a copy of the previous 'policy' handy?

Here are the ABDSP guidelines that we were given and that we have been following:

1. Caches must be placed within 50 feet of authorized trail.

2. No caches permitted within 200 feet of an historic or archeological site.

3. No caches permitted in, on or under any building, structure or manmade object.

4. Caches cannot be buried. (*per gc.com policy)

5. No cutting or modification of vegetation.

6. No modifying of geologic features, i.e., no moving rocks, hiding under rocks or creating cairns.

 

Who is "we"? Who gave you those ABDSP guidelines?

These Guidelines were given to WestCoastAdmin in 2003 by:

 

Heather Thomson

iplay3rd@earthlink.net

Archaeologist

California State Parks

Colorado Desert District

 

She also goes by the handle notaranger...

 

WestCoastAdmin? Who's that?

WestCoastAdmin was the Groundspeak reviewer that was approving caches in ABDSP.
Link to comment

Don't know if you guys have seen this: http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=638

 

Lower right corner, volunteer's newsletter. Man, we haven't made many friends there!

Given that geocaches are not litter and at best fit the criteria for abandoned property why would they break the law and throw away the personal property without following the legally precribed process for abandoned property?

 

The park system can have it's knuckles wrapped pretty hard for such disregard of their duties.

 

At least all the photo's show you who your future allies are. Who's gonig to work as a volunteer? They won't turn you away as a cacher, but they will suddenly have to deal wiht cachers on a personal level.

Link to comment
Don't know if you guys have seen this: http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=638

 

Lower right corner, volunteer's newsletter. Man, we haven't made many friends there!

I had not seen that. Thanks for sharing that. They are running a smear campaign based on many lies. They claim "hundreds of geocaches are in sensitive locations." That is BS. There are were only 358 geocaches out in ABDSP and not 3000 like they claim. They have been targeting the oldest historic caches in the park to twist the knife. Desert-Peek-A-Boo hidden in March of 2001 was the latest victim. It is really sad. The only recourse now is for our negotiators to go to the top because the local park management is completely hosed. I'm not going to participate in the spring CITO that picks up actual litter in our their park.
Link to comment
Don't know if you guys have seen this: http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=638

 

Lower right corner, volunteer's newsletter. Man, we haven't made many friends there!

I had not seen that. Thanks for sharing that.

This thread must be getting too long. See post 32 back on page 1.

:) The problem with these threads is you tend to only read the most recent posts. At any rate, we are dealing with dishonest people that want us out of their park.
Link to comment
I'm not going to participate in the spring CITO that picks up actual litter in our their park.

 

Sorry you feel like that, but we adopted a Highway that just happens to be in the ABDSP. and we are going to clean the highway not the Desert state Park. Cal Trans owns the highway and the rightaway for the highway, about 20 ft each side and that's what some of us will be cleaning. 0002007E.gif

Link to comment
I'm not going to participate in the spring CITO that picks up actual litter in our their park.

 

Sorry you feel like that, but we adopted a Highway that just happens to be in the ABDSP. and we are going to clean the highway not the Desert state Park. Cal Trans owns the highway and the rightaway for the highway, about 20 ft each side and that's what some of us will be cleaning. 0002007E.gif

 

Skillet, I didn't realize that. In that case, I can help with the 20 feet next to the road that is not part of the park. However, if other people start picking up trash in the park then I don't want to be part of a group that is doing that. So I will leave if that happens. How's that? :) Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

Yesterday I hiked out to the Trestle with Eric and Hill, The Polar Bear, and fisnjack. That is a location I have hoped to see for more than thirty years, and one I never would have visited, at my age, without the motivation of a Geocache at the location.

 

6a9afdf2-8b55-4a25-8468-aa71fde8e01d.jpg

 

As requested by the cache owners, we removed the cache containers we found on our way to the Trestle cache, so they would not be stolen by the Rangers. The log books in the caches that have been out for almost seven years have a lot of history in them that would be a shame to lose. :)

 

Like TG, I don't think we should clean up a highway that goes through Park since Park management has such disdain for Geocachers. :)

 

Since they seem to have plenty of time to clean up our "trash," we should leave the real trash in their Park for them to clean up. :):)

Link to comment
Yesterday I hiked out to the Trestle with Eric and Hill, The Polar Bear, and fisnjack. That is a location I have hoped to see for more than thirty years, and one I never would have visited, at my age, without the motivation of a Geocache at the location.

 

6a9afdf2-8b55-4a25-8468-aa71fde8e01d.jpg

 

As requested by the cache owners, we removed the cache containers we found on our way to the Trestle cache, so they would not be stolen by the Rangers. The log books in the caches that have been out for almost seven years have a lot of history in them that would be a shame to lose. :)

 

Like TG, I don't think we should clean up a highway that goes through Park since Park management has such disdain for Geocachers. :)

 

Since they seem to have plenty of time to clean up our "trash," we should leave the real trash in their Park for them to clean up. :):)

Bummer, I couldn't get out there this year with you guys. By the way, how is that a sensitive area?
Link to comment

<snip>

 

Bummer, I couldn't get out there this year with you guys. By the way, how is that a sensitive area?

It isn't . . . And that is the other reason their blanket prohibition of caching, and stealing of caches regardless of location, is so maddening to me. :)

 

It is wrong to block more than 600,000 acres from Geocaching . . . If it was delicate, moss-covered terrain above treeline in Alaska or Rocky Mountain National Park, I would agree the environment is too sensitive, but 99% of this environment . . .

 

c4c17cc8-a695-4973-b89b-738663f6ee68.jpg

 

is not too delicate for caches. :)

 

I was sure sad to see all the "Archived" notices from MissJenn arrive in my InBox this morning . . . :)

Link to comment
It is wrong to block more than 600,000 acres from Geocaching . . . If it was delicate, moss-covered terrain above treeline in Alaska or Rocky Mountain National Park, I would agree the environment is too sensitive, but 99% of this environment . . .

 

c4c17cc8-a695-4973-b89b-738663f6ee68.jpg

 

is not too delicate for caches. :)

 

I was sure sad to see all the "Archived" notices from MissJenn arrive in my InBox this morning . . . :)

 

 

I agree but those caches must have been part of the "hundreds" because we only had 358 out there....

Hundreds of unauthorized caches have been poorly placed in sensitive areas of

archeological, paleotological, historical, and resource importance.

 

Sincerely,

Mark Jorgensen

Superintendent

Anza-Borrego Desert State Park

Link to comment
It is wrong to block more than 600,000 acres from Geocaching . . . If it was delicate, moss-covered terrain above treeline in Alaska or Rocky Mountain National Park, I would agree the environment is too sensitive, but 99% of this environment . . .

 

<snip>

is not too delicate for caches. :)

 

I was sure sad to see all the "Archived" notices from MissJenn arrive in my InBox this morning . . . :)

 

I agree but those caches must have been part of the "hundreds" because we only had 358 out there....

Hundreds of unauthorized caches have been poorly placed in sensitive areas of

archeological, paleotological, historical, and resource importance.

 

Sincerely,

Mark Jorgensen

Superintendent

Anza-Borrego Desert State Park

I hate being lied to . . . I wonder how long Jorgensen's nose is now? :):):)

 

And, these lies are so easily disproved . . . if we ever get the ear of someone who cares . . . :)

Link to comment
Say there, do you have a copy of the previous 'policy' handy?

Here are the ABDSP guidelines that we were given and that we have been following:

1. Caches must be placed within 50 feet of authorized trail.

2. No caches permitted within 200 feet of an historic or archeological site.

3. No caches permitted in, on or under any building, structure or manmade object.

4. Caches cannot be buried. (*per gc.com policy)

5. No cutting or modification of vegetation.

6. No modifying of geologic features, i.e., no moving rocks, hiding under rocks or creating cairns.

 

Who is "we"? Who gave you those ABDSP guidelines?

These Guidelines were given to WestCoastAdmin in 2003 by:

 

Heather Thomson

iplay3rd@earthlink.net

Archaeologist

California State Parks

Colorado Desert District

 

She also goes by the handle notaranger...

So this is the nice Lady :unsure: that was just out picking up TRASH ......................MY Caches LANIE DESERT CACHE , SHELBYS DESERT CACHE

Link to comment
Say there, do you have a copy of the previous 'policy' handy?

Here are the ABDSP guidelines that we were given and that we have been following:

1. Caches must be placed within 50 feet of authorized trail.

2. No caches permitted within 200 feet of an historic or archeological site.

3. No caches permitted in, on or under any building, structure or manmade object.

4. Caches cannot be buried. (*per gc.com policy)

5. No cutting or modification of vegetation.

6. No modifying of geologic features, i.e., no moving rocks, hiding under rocks or creating cairns.

 

Who is "we"? Who gave you those ABDSP guidelines?

These Guidelines were given to WestCoastAdmin in 2003 by:

 

Heather Thomson

iplay3rd@earthlink.net

Archaeologist

California State Parks

Colorado Desert District

 

She also goes by the handle notaranger...

So this is the nice Lady :unsure: that was just out picking up TRASH ......................MY Caches LANIE DESERT CACHE , SHELBYS DESERT CACHE

 

Did she look like this?

The-Exorcist-in-5-Seconds.jpg

Link to comment
I'm not going to participate in the spring CITO that picks up actual litter in our their park.

 

Sorry you feel like that, but we adopted a Highway that just happens to be in the ABDSP. and we are going to clean the highway not the Desert state Park. Cal Trans owns the highway and the rightaway for the highway, about 20 ft each side and that's what some of us will be cleaning. 0002007E.gif

So, lets just move the trash outside 20 feet :unsure:

 

I remember seeing cachers go out to 100 feet cleaning up trash. I take it you will remind them to stay within 20 feet of the roadway? :blink:

Link to comment
I'm not going to participate in the spring CITO that picks up actual litter in our their park.

 

Sorry you feel like that, but we adopted a Highway that just happens to be in the ABDSP. and we are going to clean the highway not the Desert state Park. Cal Trans owns the highway and the rightaway for the highway, about 20 ft each side and that's what some of us will be cleaning. 0002007E.gif

So, lets just move the trash outside 20 feet :unsure:

 

I remember seeing cachers go out to 100 feet cleaning up trash. I take it you will remind them to stay within 20 feet of the roadway? :blink:

Please, I hope you will consider, for the sake of all the people driving by and seeing the SD Geocacher's sign and not knowing about the ABDSP cache war, picking up all the trash visible from the roadway! :huh:
Link to comment
I'm not going to participate in the spring CITO that picks up actual litter in our their park.

 

Sorry you feel like that, but we adopted a Highway that just happens to be in the ABDSP. and we are going to clean the highway not the Desert state Park. Cal Trans owns the highway and the rightaway for the highway, about 20 ft each side and that's what some of us will be cleaning. 0002007E.gif

So, lets just move the trash outside 20 feet :unsure:

 

I remember seeing cachers go out to 100 feet cleaning up trash. I take it you will remind them to stay within 20 feet of the roadway? :blink:

Please, I hope you will consider, for the sake of all the people driving by and seeing the SD Geocacher's sign and not knowing about the ABDSP cache war, picking up all the trash visible from the roadway! :huh:
Trust me TFTC, the area doesn't look that bad. The past CITOs have pretty much cleaned up that area. You can't see most of the trash until you get right up on it as you are slowly walking. The most visible trash is the stuff along the smooth dirt shoulder, which is within 20 feet of the road. Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

Don't know if you guys have seen this: http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=638

 

Lower right corner, volunteer's newsletter. Man, we haven't made many friends there!

Given that geocaches are not litter and at best fit the criteria for abandoned property why would they break the law and throw away the personal property without following the legally precribed process for abandoned property?

 

The park system can have it's knuckles wrapped pretty hard for such disregard of their duties.

 

At least all the photo's show you who your future allies are. Who's gonig to work as a volunteer? They won't turn you away as a cacher, but they will suddenly have to deal wiht cachers on a personal level.

 

:unsure: I WILL VOLUNTEER TO BE A RANGER! :huh:

 

:o FATTBOY :blink:

Link to comment
It is wrong to block more than 600,000 acres from Geocaching . . . If it was delicate, moss-covered terrain above treeline in Alaska or Rocky Mountain National Park, I would agree the environment is too sensitive, but 99% of this environment . . .

 

<snip>

is not too delicate for caches. :unsure:

 

I was sure sad to see all the "Archived" notices from MissJenn arrive in my InBox this morning . . . :D

 

I agree but those caches must have been part of the "hundreds" because we only had 358 out there....

Hundreds of unauthorized caches have been poorly placed in sensitive areas of

archeological, paleotological, historical, and resource importance.

 

Sincerely,

Mark Jorgensen

Superintendent

Anza-Borrego Desert State Park

I hate being lied to . . . I wonder how long Jorgensen's nose is now? :huh:B):D

 

And, these lies are so easily disproved . . . if we ever get the ear of someone who cares . . . :blink:

 

Perhaps you could volunteer to give a presentation to that ABDSP volunteer group? You know,

volunteer to volunteer. :o

Link to comment

I don't particularly approve of the pirate caches, however; since Miss Jen doesn't seem to be making anyheadway with the jerks I think it might be time really show them how bad it could become. Placing caches just anywhere, not followingf guidelines at all and say placing 20 at a time in specific spots then activating one until it gets picked up then 2 - 4- 8 ect as they spend more and more time gathering "trash". It woundn't take too many folks to do this either. One good thing about our recovering the caches Sat was that when i took a nasty header the ammo can on my back took the brunt of the fall.

Link to comment
I don't particularly approve of the pirate caches, however; since Miss Jen doesn't seem to be making anyheadway with the jerks I think it might be time really show them how bad it could become. Placing caches just anywhere, not followingf guidelines at all and say placing 20 at a time in specific spots then activating one until it gets picked up then 2 - 4- 8 ect as they spend more and more time gathering "trash". It woundn't take too many folks to do this either. One good thing about our recovering the caches Sat was that when i took a nasty header the ammo can on my back took the brunt of the fall.
Miss Jenn is talking to their superiors. If any geocachers do things to justify the lies the jerks are claiming, then they are really not helping us. Why not wait until Miss Jenn is done talking to their superiors? Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
Anyone going to recommend this park for "Closure" due to budget constraints?
That would work for the geocachers, but the campers would hate it.

True, but I'm sure campers are next. I mean camping and recreating near sensitive locations.

It wasn't the thousands of campers doing the damage. It was the handful of geocachers.... B)
Link to comment
Anyone going to recommend this park for "Closure" due to budget constraints?
That would work for the geocachers, but the campers would hate it.

True, but I'm sure campers are next. I mean camping and recreating near sensitive locations.

It wasn't the thousands of campers doing the damage. It was the handful of geocachers.... B)

On one of my projects (restoring a historical building) had one of the volunteers visit the building with their son. Their son was reported to be a structural engineer. They saw the sagging floor and freaked about immenent collapse. In order to save the building, the father and son volunteer duo proceeded to take out all the old fashioned cast iron heat registers and toss them out the windows thus saving the building from it's peril and feeling as if they were heroes. Never mind that structural engineers had inspected the building at a level much higher than a casual walk through. Our heroes saved the day and you can visit the site now and see all the carnage created by their handy work. They did not get the standing ovation they felt they deserved.

 

In this case the park volunteers are not pursuing a noble crusade. They just think they are. They have a perception problem.

Link to comment

I don't particularly approve of the pirate caches, however; since Miss Jen doesn't seem to be making anyheadway with the jerks I think it might be time really show them how bad it could become. Placing caches just anywhere, not followingf guidelines at all and say placing 20 at a time in specific spots then activating one until it gets picked up then 2 - 4- 8 ect as they spend more and more time gathering "trash". It woundn't take too many folks to do this either. One good thing about our recovering the caches Sat was that when i took a nasty header the ammo can on my back took the brunt of the fall.

My two cents - I think Pirate caches can only hurt our chances of any type of diplomacy with ABDSP staff. It's one thing to organize, protest and writes letters. It's another to out right break the rules. In the end, it's harder to do the right thing.

Link to comment

Anyone going to recommend this park for "Closer" due to budget constraints? Seriously. If you have pick between two parks...why not pick the one that didn't bite the hand that feeds it?

 

A tool for the war chest.

 

No, this park is not going to be recommended for closure.

 

 

They should <_<:unsure:

Link to comment

Anyone going to recommend this park for "Closer" due to budget constraints? Seriously. If you have pick between two parks...why not pick the one that didn't bite the hand that feeds it?

 

A tool for the war chest.

No, this park is not going to be recommended for closure.

They should :unsure:<_<

 

If we can get the spotlight shining on what our tax dollars are paying these ABDSP rangers to do, then maybe they might consider it. I'd rather see Carlsbad State Beach stay open. Honestly, if I wasn't a geocacher I'd honestly be wondering why we are paying rangers to run around all day picking up hundreds of geocaches hidden in non-sensitive areas. It's a ridiculous waste of money. This may end up being our best tactic... :unsure:
Link to comment

Anyone going to recommend this park for "Closer" due to budget constraints? Seriously. If you have pick between two parks...why not pick the one that didn't bite the hand that feeds it?

 

A tool for the war chest.

No, this park is not going to be recommended for closure.

They should :unsure::unsure:

 

If we can get the spotlight shining on what our tax dollars are paying these ABDSP rangers to do, then maybe they might consider it. I'd rather see Carlsbad State Beach stay open. Honestly, if I wasn't a geocacher I'd honestly be wondering why we are paying rangers to run around all day picking up hundreds of geocaches hidden in non-sensitive areas. It's a ridiculous waste of money. This may end up being our best tactic... <_<

 

Ahhh, the old Spotlight Tactic. Didn't see that one coming.

Great plan though.

Link to comment

Apparently, according to an email shared with me, Rangers are patrolling, and removing caches, from areas outside the current boundaries of the Park, particularly in the areas of Truckhaven, Desert Cahuilla, or the Freeman Properties north of County Rd. S-22.

 

In this same email, it is mentioned that

" the process of creating a General Plan for this area is underway, and will hopefully lead to a successful plan to operate the area to benefit recreation, resources, and public safety. Resource inventories continue to be conducted and the environmental consulting firm EDAW has been retained by the Ocotillo Wells State Vehicular Recreation Area to conduct the process.

What I don't understand is why, until this General Plan has been created, couldn't the have caches have remained in place?

 

Why did Jorgensen have to abruptly change the policy about Geocaches in the Park, prior to the creation of this General Plan? The General Plan might very well allow Geocaching, since Geocaching is allowed in other State Parks.

 

It is very, very sad to have lost the "Historic Caches" such as "Dos Hombres - "The Worlds Longest Curved Trestle," "Jacumba 3446," "Jacumba Scramble," "Overland," "Truckhaven," "Desert Peek-a-boo," "Powder Can Cache," among others, none of which were in sensitive areas.

Link to comment

Apparently, according to an email shared with me, Rangers are patrolling, and removing caches, from areas outside the current boundaries of the Park, particularly in the areas of Truckhaven, Desert Cahuilla, or the Freeman Properties north of County Rd. S-22.

 

In this same email, it is mentioned that

" the process of creating a General Plan for this area is underway, and will hopefully lead to a successful plan to operate the area to benefit recreation, resources, and public safety. Resource inventories continue to be conducted and the environmental consulting firm EDAW has been retained by the Ocotillo Wells State Vehicular Recreation Area to conduct the process.

What I don't understand is why, until this General Plan has been created, couldn't the have caches have remained in place?

 

Why did Jorgensen have to abruptly change the policy about Geocaches in the Park, prior to the creation of this General Plan? The General Plan might very well allow Geocaching, since Geocaching is allowed in other State Parks.

 

It is very, very sad to have lost the "Historic Caches" such as "Dos Hombres - "The Worlds Longest Curved Trestle," "Jacumba 3446," "Jacumba Scramble," "Overland," "Truckhaven," "Desert Peek-a-boo," "Powder Can Cache," among others, none of which were in sensitive areas.

 

Perhaps you ought to ask Miss Jenn or Jorgensen. If you ever do, would you please share their feedback?

Edited by Team Cotati
Link to comment

Sorry but I'm not clear on this. Who and why are they taking caches that are outside ABDSP?

 

I lnked this article for you. This is where the fight for allowing geocaches is very linked with the fight for offroad access in Truckhaven. Basically the state has purchased Truckahven. This area is either going to become part of ABDSP or Ocotillo Wells SVRA. What do you think guys like Jorgenson want? Maybe with all the budgetary issues keeping it for the offroaders makes more sense.

 

http://theabf.org/pdf/BS_Cahuilla_article_307.pdf

Link to comment

Sorry but I'm not clear on this. Who and why are they taking caches that are outside ABDSP?

 

I lnked this article for you. This is where the fight for allowing geocaches is very linked with the fight for offroad access in Truckhaven. Basically the state has purchased Truckahven. This area is either going to become part of ABDSP or Ocotillo Wells SVRA. What do you think guys like Jorgenson want? Maybe with all the budgetary issues keeping it for the offroaders makes more sense.

 

http://theabf.org/pdf/BS_Cahuilla_article_307.pdf

Here's a quote from that article:

 

The plan states, “Even when bighorn sheep appear to be tolerant of a particular activity, continued and frequent

use can cause them to avoid an area, eventually interfering with use of resources, such as water, mineral lick,

lambing or feeding areas, or use of traditional movement routes.”

Based on that quote, I can't imagine how Jorgensen could possibly claim that casual Geocaching has any impact whatsoever on the sheep. Geocaching activity in remote areas where the sheep are present is not continued and frequent...

Edited by FlagMan
Link to comment

Now about HOW you reach some of these cache destinations!

 

I think we can look at what the off roading community has been dealing with to get an idea of how disputes are handled within this park.

 

The last 1 1/2 years have been getting increasingly challenging with the threat and legal action that has been in battle over the threatened closure of Truckhaven, north of S-22.

You can read about this on the San Diego Off Road Coalition website here. As well as on the Tierra Del Sol website, where it has affected their 46 year event here. You can also read about it here on the CORVA - California Off-Road Vehicle Association website. HERE you can read about their latest lawsuit with Center for Biological Diversity/Desert Protective Council over Truckhaven. SDORC spends over $6,000 a month on legal council to fight this and other issues that affect our local trails. They also have a lobbyist.

 

These guys are out there fighting to keep these areas open for all of us.

 

If any of us have taken our vehicles off the pavement to get to any geocaches then it affects you. These proposals, threats, lawsuits are a part of what these groups have to deal with. We support them because they are our voice and act on our behalf so that we may be able to enjoy seeing parts of this park and others, we may otherwise be unable to get to either because we don't have the vehicle, or because we are unable to hike a long distance.

 

This is not to say that groups such as the CBD or the DPC are bad. Not at all. I think most of us are opposed to the proposed Sunrise Powerlink going through the desert. The DPC has been fighting hard against that. So they are a voice for a lot of us on some issues.

 

I will note that part of that land there is not owned by Anza Borrego yet, it is still owned by the Anza Borrego Foundation .This foundation does acquire land that is going to be transferred to the State Park. The land in the article that what posted is a bigger piece that the foundation was trying to buy for the park, but the deal fell through. So that made it so that the state could then buy it and classify it. They will either give it all or part to Anza Borrego and or make the other part go to OWSVRA. The controversy was that the ABF wanted to buy it for Anza Borrego to keep it out of OWSVRA hands. So this has been a huge let down for them. Here is a link to to the CEQA document filed by the state. This outlines evrything going on with that. There is also a map. Classification of how the state will divide the land will be made after studies are complete. So this General Plan, could be a couple of years off so...

 

We all like to off road, hike, geocache. Maybe we need to find out who some of Anza Borregos active supporters are and ALIGN ourselves with them. Since it seems that much of the drama that plays out in those places is done between lawyers and the appointed voices.

 

We supported the San Diego 4 Wheelers this weekend by attending their event. They discussed the ongoing issues and said that the rangers had issued citations for trespassing in Anza Borrego in the Truckhaven area in the last year. They asked if you know of anyone who has received one of these to contact SDORC or TDS. They don't even want you walking in their newly acquired areas. Hmmm! Not until they say, yet there are no signs. They said the rangers have been difficult through this. They even have air patrol there!

Anyway... :)

 

I see Groundspeak is a member of Tread Lightly. Maybe we expand on that and try to contact TL and see what they can suggest. Here is what they have about Geocaching on their site.

 

Just some information of what else is happening out there with HOW you can reach these cache destinations!

 

Sure hope those closures in the southern part of the S-2 don't go through.

 

With all of this going on, they still have time to get our caches! Amazing! :)

Link to comment

Now about HOW you reach some of these cache destinations!

 

I think we can look at what the off roading community has been dealing with to get an idea of how disputes are handled within this park.

 

The last 1 1/2 years have been getting increasingly challenging with the threat and legal action that has been in battle over the threatened closure of Truckhaven, north of S-22.

You can read about this on the San Diego Off Road Coalition website here. As well as on the Tierra Del Sol website, where it has affected their 46 year event here. You can also read about it here on the CORVA - California Off-Road Vehicle Association website. HERE you can read about their latest lawsuit with Center for Biological Diversity/Desert Protective Council over Truckhaven. SDORC spends over $6,000 a month on legal council to fight this and other issues that affect our local trails. They also have a lobbyist.

 

These guys are out there fighting to keep these areas open for all of us.

 

If any of us have taken our vehicles off the pavement to get to any geocaches then it affects you. These proposals, threats, lawsuits are a part of what these groups have to deal with. We support them because they are our voice and act on our behalf so that we may be able to enjoy seeing parts of this park and others, we may otherwise be unable to get to either because we don't have the vehicle, or because we are unable to hike a long distance.

 

This is not to say that groups such as the CBD or the DPC are bad. Not at all. I think most of us are opposed to the proposed Sunrise Powerlink going through the desert. The DPC has been fighting hard against that. So they are a voice for a lot of us on some issues.

 

I will note that part of that land there is not owned by Anza Borrego yet, it is still owned by the Anza Borrego Foundation .This foundation does acquire land that is going to be transferred to the State Park. The land in the article that what posted is a bigger piece that the foundation was trying to buy for the park, but the deal fell through. So that made it so that the state could then buy it and classify it. They will either give it all or part to Anza Borrego and or make the other part go to OWSVRA. The controversy was that the ABF wanted to buy it for Anza Borrego to keep it out of OWSVRA hands. So this has been a huge let down for them. Here is a link to to the CEQA document filed by the state. This outlines evrything going on with that. There is also a map. Classification of how the state will divide the land will be made after studies are complete. So this General Plan, could be a couple of years off so...

 

We all like to off road, hike, geocache. Maybe we need to find out who some of Anza Borregos active supporters are and ALIGN ourselves with them. Since it seems that much of the drama that plays out in those places is done between lawyers and the appointed voices.

 

We supported the San Diego 4 Wheelers this weekend by attending their event. They discussed the ongoing issues and said that the rangers had issued citations for trespassing in Anza Borrego in the Truckhaven area in the last year. They asked if you know of anyone who has received one of these to contact SDORC or TDS. They don't even want you walking in their newly acquired areas. Hmmm! Not until they say, yet there are no signs. They said the rangers have been difficult through this. They even have air patrol there!

Anyway... :)

 

I see Groundspeak is a member of Tread Lightly. Maybe we expand on that and try to contact TL and see what they can suggest. Here is what they have about Geocaching on their site.

 

Just some information of what else is happening out there with HOW you can reach these cache destinations!

 

Sure hope those closures in the southern part of the S-2 don't go through.

 

With all of this going on, they still have time to get our caches! Amazing! :)

 

Thanks Slabys- that is some excellent material to keep us informed.

 

Dave

Link to comment

..." the process of creating a General Plan for this area is underway, and will hopefully lead to a successful plan to operate the area to benefit recreation, resources, and public safety. Resource inventories continue to be conducted and the environmental consulting firm EDAW has been retained by the Ocotillo Wells State Vehicular Recreation Area to conduct the process....

Contact EDAW and the Park Project Manager who's job it is to get that EA/EIS completed and ask to be put on the list for when they hold their public hearing, or when they are ready to take public comment. Environmental documents are available to the public for review and comment. The hard part is to get on the list to be notified when it's time for comment.

 

Public interest can also escalate the enviromental document up the ladder to consider public input if it's needed, but you have to review the simpler document to make that determination yourself.

 

Everyone interested should do this as indivuals. This isn't the place for a spokesmodel.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 15
×
×
  • Create New...