Don't ask Don't Tell = bad idea!

[+TrailGators]

Did the park use permits? I don't have a problem with permits.

The beauty of permits here is that the state park rangers must first approve of the geocache location before it gets posted on geocaching.com. Our New York reviewers know better than to post caches that are in state parks without a permit. If the cache is in a area the rangers don't like they can just say it needs to be somewhere else and not approve the permit. It gives them control. Part of a permit process could also be to request that cachers must first talk with the rangers so they can outline beforehand where caches are allowed. I know some cachers around here work with the rangers to see that the caches stay within guidelines, such as family friendly ,etc..

If I recall correctly geocachers had to work to get this policy in place to where the state park directors would agree upon allowing geocaching in the parks. So maybe it is just going to take time to get a policy in place there.

Even so, as I mentioned before in this thread there are some rangers I've talked to who view geocaching as something that is approved of for now in my state's parks, but that could change. I don't know if that's meant to be a warning for me to be a good cacher/respectful of the park land or if that is an outright expression of their disproval of geocaching.

I think you are right and that we will have to come up with a new policy since they reneged on the one we have been using for the past 4 years. We have other parks in the area that require you to submit a request form to the rangers with the coords and photos of the cache location. They also have requirements about the cache having to be within 15 feet of the trail. This is always a big concern for every park. That kind of system could work here too. I just found out that there are going to be some talks this Wednesday so we'll see what happens.

[+blubuturflies]

I'm thinking that maybe we should move our bi-annual CITO event somewhere else and leave the four truckloads of trash dropped by the hundreds of thousands of campers, hikers and off-roaders on that small stretch of highway.

It would be interesting to see how some sort of "boycott" of a park/agency would pan out. Unfortunately, it doesn't feel like there would be a huge amount of "public" support for such a cause since geocaching is largely unknown to the general public. And it is not like the park would "feel the burn" of a boycott the same as a retail chain or something... specially when it would appear that they would prefer fewer (or no) visitors anyway. I would even say that they are not likely to make a connection between "no CITO events" and "lots of trash on the road".

I think that there will be very poor turnout to the next CITO at ABDSP, if things have not changed by April. So why not use our efforts to support the parks that support us? We currently don't have any CITO events at the adjacent BLM land, and they have been very supportive....

 

If my eyes are correct... the Adopt a Hi-Way sign in the picture says "San Diego County Geocachers"?. Maybe that section of Hi-way can be un-adopted with Cal-Trans knowing the reason?..... or a BLM section adopted instead?? Not sure how hard that is, if it costs, or if it would matter. I quess wait until the talks.

 

BALANCE balance balance... Certainly there need to be rules and laws on the land use. But there also needs to be reasonable balance between exteme protection and extreme misuse. Only one example of many here in So. Cal... We've seen the extreme protection of Gnat Catcher habitat... so exteme that there can't be fire access roads cutting through some areas nor controlled burning of areas close to homes in good weather conditions. Yet we also fight every fire we can to full extinction as fast as we can every time one breaks out. 99% of the time the firefighters are succesful, but then so much of that habitat goes up in smoke in the last couple extreme weather condiitons because there is SO much fuel to burn. AND THEN... the politicians all come here to jump on the Global Warming bandwagon as the cause. Nuts! All to the demise of gnat catchers and many other species.

 

Uniform application of the laws also needs check and balances. An extreme ban on all virtuals and earthcaches is also going to have to target all of the GPS guide books in the press and the local reader articles, or any internet posts that also draw people's attention to the treasures they might otherwise not notice or visit. Several of the earthcaches we've done simply bring you to an interpretive pannel installed by the park agency in the first place. I can't necessarily argue the same thing for the physical caches.

[+Stargazer22]

TrailGators, good luck on getting this worked out OK.

It is difficult and frustrating until you can find out more information and details.

We'll be watching this thread with interest since it potentially could affect any of us in our home states as well. I feel bad for the guys who put all the work into coming up with an approved list of guidelines that seem to have been arbitrarily thrown out the window now.

Hang in there!

[+TrailGators]

TrailGators, good luck on getting this worked out OK.

It is difficult and frustrating until you can find out more information and details.

We'll be watching this thread with interest since it potentially could affect any of us in our home states as well. I feel bad for the guys who put all the work into coming up with an approved list of guidelines that seem to have been arbitrarily thrown out the window now.

Hang in there!

Thanks Stargazer. We are finding out now that there was no way we could have known about some of these "sensitive" areas. For example, some of them are archealogical sites that are not posted anywhere and they won't tell us where they are. You can't tell some of these are archealogical sites from looking at them because some of them look just like any other part of the desert. So an archealogist is looking at the locations of all the caches right now. So it is obvious that there will have to be an approval process if they allow us to cache in ABDSP again. I'm not sure why they just figured this out after 6+ years of permitting us to cache out there. I think it is good to track this to give others an understanding of some of the issues you can run into even when you do follow all the guidelines. Edited January 3, 2008 by TrailGators

[+Confucius' Cat]

Sorry i didn't read every single post and came in late on this, but it seems there has always been a policy and it has always been followed, at least as far as the GC approval process goes. This leads me to wonder if the "offending" caches might not have been listed on another site or sites?

 

We often hear, in answer to the "why won't they approve my cache that clearly doesn't meet guidelines" complaint, that one can simply get their cache listed on another site (which probably won't be seen by more than 50 people but WTH).

 

Could this be a case of circumstances beyond our control?

[+Miragee]

The one cache that came to my attention was called "Lucky Ducky 13," which was Archived as soon as the Reviewer got a note from the Archaeologist about it. The Archaeologist's note was highly suspicious because it blamed "Geocachers using NAD27 Datum for damage done to an ancient rock cairn." The cache wasn't located where the damage occurred, and unless the people were caught in the act, admitted they were Geocachers, who were using the wrong Datum, the cache got the blame for something it did not do . . .

 

The thing that was particularly sad about that cache taking the blame was because it was placed by a couple who are very knowledgeable about the area who never would have put a cache in the immediate vicinity of sensitive archaeological ruins.

Edited January 3, 2008 by Miragee

[+TrailGators]

The one cache that came to my attention was called "Lucky Ducky 13," which was Archived as soon as the Reviewer got a note from the Archaeologist about it. The Archaeologist's note was highly suspicious because it blamed "Geocachers using NAD27 Datum for damage done to an ancient rock cairn." The cache wasn't located where the damage occurred, and unless the people were caught in the act, admitted they were Geocachers, who were using the wrong Datum, the cache got the blame for something it did not do . . .

 

The thing that was particularly sad about that cache taking the blame was because it was placed by a couple who are very knowledgeable about the area who never would have put a cache in the immediate vicinity of sensitive archaeological ruins.

So that means that the cache was actually ~300 feet away. The guidelines require 200 feet. Why would geocachers use the wrong datum anyhow? That doesn't make sense. They would have DNFed every cache they ever attempted if they were always 300 feet off. Also if you read the logs some people had been to the nearby morteros many other times. So it clearly sounds like it was a fairly well-known place prior to the cache being placed there. So I'm sure that many others were visiting that site. Edited January 3, 2008 by TrailGators

[+briansnat]

The one cache that came to my attention was called "Lucky Ducky 13," which was Archived as soon as the Reviewer got a note from the Archaeologist about it. The Archaeologist's note was highly suspicious because it blamed "Geocachers using NAD27 Datum for damage done to an ancient rock cairn." The cache wasn't located where the damage occurred, and unless the people were caught in the act, admitted they were Geocachers, who were using the wrong Datum, the cache got the blame for something it did not do . . .

 

The thing that was particularly sad about that cache taking the blame was because it was placed by a couple who are very knowledgeable about the area who never would have put a cache in the immediate vicinity of sensitive archaeological ruins.

So that means that the cache was actually ~300 feet away. The guidelines require 200 feet. Why would geocachers use the wrong datum anyhow? That doesn't make sense. They would have DNFed every cache they ever attempted if they were always 300 feet off. Also if you read the logs some people had been to the nearby morteros many other times. So it clearly sounds like it was a fairly well-known place prior to the cache being placed there. So I'm sure that many others were visiting that site.

 

We've heard this story before. There is damage to the site, a geocache is somewhere nearby, so therefore geocachers must have vandalized the site.

[+dhsundance]

I'm thinking that maybe we should move our bi-annual CITO event somewhere else and leave the four truckloads of trash dropped by the hundreds of thousands of campers, hikers and off-roaders on that small stretch of highway.

It would be interesting to see how some sort of "boycott" of a park/agency would pan out. Unfortunately, it doesn't feel like there would be a huge amount of "public" support for such a cause since geocaching is largely unknown to the general public. And it is not like the park would "feel the burn" of a boycott the same as a retail chain or something... specially when it would appear that they would prefer fewer (or no) visitors anyway. I would even say that they are not likely to make a connection between "no CITO events" and "lots of trash on the road".

I think that there will be very poor turnout to the next CITO at ABDSP, if things have not changed by April. So why not use our efforts to support the parks that support us? We currently don't have any CITO events at the adjacent BLM land, and they have been very supportive....

 

Actually I would hope this would be the best attended CITO- just to prove that we really care about the park. Hopefully by then there will be some kind of agreement reached that allows caching.

 

Dave

[+TrailGators]

I'm thinking that maybe we should move our bi-annual CITO event somewhere else and leave the four truckloads of trash dropped by the hundreds of thousands of campers, hikers and off-roaders on that small stretch of highway.

It would be interesting to see how some sort of "boycott" of a park/agency would pan out. Unfortunately, it doesn't feel like there would be a huge amount of "public" support for such a cause since geocaching is largely unknown to the general public. And it is not like the park would "feel the burn" of a boycott the same as a retail chain or something... specially when it would appear that they would prefer fewer (or no) visitors anyway. I would even say that they are not likely to make a connection between "no CITO events" and "lots of trash on the road".

I think that there will be very poor turnout to the next CITO at ABDSP, if things have not changed by April. So why not use our efforts to support the parks that support us? We currently don't have any CITO events at the adjacent BLM land, and they have been very supportive....

 

Actually I would hope this would be the best attended CITO- just to prove that we really care about the park. Hopefully by then there will be some kind of agreement reached that allows caching.

 

Dave

When they have been busy picking up great caches and posting a notes that say "Picking up trash," it is very annoying. It's almost like they enjoy throwing salt in the wound. I also think that it's makes sense to care about other nearby parks that have never been cared about by us.

[+Sioneva]

Catching up to this thread late... good luck, TrailGators!

[+briansnat]

When they have been busy picking up great caches and posting a notes that say "Picking up trash," it is very annoying. rolleyes.gif It's almost like they enjoy throwing salt in the wound. I also think that it's makes sense to care about other nearby parks that have never been cared about by us.

 

Your tax dollars at work.

 

I don't know about your state, but the park rangers in this area are always screaming bloody murder about budget cuts and manpower shortages. Yet in one state park they enough spare manpower to go around

picking up geocaches. However in the very same park, ATV use is illegal, but they don't have enough manpower to catch the rogue riders.

 

If the issue is damage to the park, which of the two would be a better allocation of manpower?

 

ATV damage:

 

 

 

This was a meadow 2 years ago:

 

Geocache "damage" (there are caches hidden in each of these pictures)

 

 

 

 

[+Miragee]

The latest cache that was picked up by the Rangers is "Powder Can Cache." It had been in place for almost six years and it was the second-oldest cache in San Diego County.

 

The cache was located amidst these tumbled rocks and boulders.

 

 

In the years that cache had been in existence, it averaged only ten visits per year. How much damage can those few people cause to an environment like that . . . ?

[+SKILLET]

I'm thinking that maybe we should move our bi-annual CITO event somewhere else and leave the four truckloads of trash dropped by the hundreds of thousands of campers, hikers and off-roaders on that small stretch of highway.

It would be interesting to see how some sort of "boycott" of a park/agency would pan out. Unfortunately, it doesn't feel like there would be a huge amount of "public" support for such a cause since geocaching is largely unknown to the general public. And it is not like the park would "feel the burn" of a boycott the same as a retail chain or something... specially when it would appear that they would prefer fewer (or no) visitors anyway. I would even say that they are not likely to make a connection between "no CITO events" and "lots of trash on the road".

I think that there will be very poor turnout to the next CITO at ABDSP, if things have not changed by April. So why not use our efforts to support the parks that support us? We currently don't have any CITO events at the adjacent BLM land, and they have been very supportive....

 

Actually I would hope this would be the best attended CITO- just to prove that we really care about the park. Hopefully by then there will be some kind of agreement reached that allows caching.

 

Dave

 

 

Since I organize the CITO event, I talked to Cal Trans and we can move it 10miles east if we want, BLM land to the south and the OHVRA to the north.

 

But I agree with Dave, and I'm getting fond of that stretch of Highway. I pass by every two weeks going to my place in the desert.

 

Plus we don't want to be poor losers if things don't work out.

Edited January 6, 2008 by SKILLET

[+Team Cotati]

When they have been busy picking up great caches and posting a notes that say "Picking up trash," it is very annoying. rolleyes.gif It's almost like they enjoy throwing salt in the wound. I also think that it's makes sense to care about other nearby parks that have never been cared about by us.

 

Your tax dollars at work.

 

I don't know about your state, but the park rangers in this area are always screaming bloody murder about budget cuts and manpower shortages. Yet in one state park they enough spare manpower to go around

picking up geocaches. However in the very same park, ATV use is illegal, but they don't have enough manpower to catch the rogue riders.

 

If the issue is damage to the park, which of the two would be a better allocation of manpower?

 

ATV damage:

 

 

 

This was a meadow 2 years ago:

 

Geocache "damage" (there are caches hidden in each of these pictures)

 

 

 

 

 

"If the issue is damage to the park, which of the two would be a better allocation of manpower?"

 

What did the person responsible for that park have to say when you asked him that question?

[nobby.nobbs]

Has anyone actually sat down with the rangers and shown them the locations of the caches and the number of visitors and the lack of any damage?

It is often the perceived damage that people will cause that scares them. they assume that we are the same as the idiots who drive through and cause all the damage.

It might be worth pointing out that the more people like us there is the more likely that someone will see the drivers and be able to identify them.

[+Team Cotati]

Has anyone actually sat down with the rangers and shown them the locations of the caches and the number of visitors and the lack of any damage?

It is often the perceived damage that people will cause that scares them. they assume that we are the same as the idiots who drive through and cause all the damage.

It might be worth pointing out that the more people like us there is the more likely that someone will see the drivers and be able to identify them.

 

If you believe this post from Miss Jean, as I do:

 

"NOTE:

Over the last few days, I have been communicating with ABDSP representatives. We are not yet done with our various conversations. I ask those who are interested in this topic to hang tight, and please hold your horses. I realize that there is a lot of passion on both sides of this issue.

 

I'll post back here when I can make a complete report."

 

We are pretty likely to get that answer relatively soon.

[+Miragee]

Has anyone actually sat down with the rangers and shown them the locations of the caches and the number of visitors and the lack of any damage?

It is often the perceived damage that people will cause that scares them. they assume that we are the same as the idiots who drive through and cause all the damage.

It might be worth pointing out that the more people like us there is the more likely that someone will see the drivers and be able to identify them.

Judging from the snide remarks, like "Nice try" and "Just picking up the trash" posted by Notaranger, I don't think face-to-face talks with that person, or the Superintendet, would go very well right now.

 

Something apparently really set them off, but I have a feeling it wasn't a Geocache, or Geocacher, that was the true culprit. Geocachers just got blamed.

 

The banning of caches in the park only affects a few people, compared to the thousands of other visitors who use the park. However, those few Geocachers are affected greatly.

 

Since our number is so small, our impact is very minimal, so why ban our activity . . . ?

 

Doesn't make any sense to me . . .

 

I am truly hopeful negotiations between MissJenn and the Park Superintendent go well.

[+Team Cotati]

Has anyone actually sat down with the rangers and shown them the locations of the caches and the number of visitors and the lack of any damage?

It is often the perceived damage that people will cause that scares them. they assume that we are the same as the idiots who drive through and cause all the damage.

It might be worth pointing out that the more people like us there is the more likely that someone will see the drivers and be able to identify them.

Judging from the snide remarks, like "Nice try" and "Just picking up the trash" posted by Notaranger, I don't think face-to-face talks with that person, or the Superintendet, would go very well right now.

 

Something apparently really set them off, but I have a feeling it wasn't a Geocache, or Geocacher, that was the true culprit. Geocachers just got blamed.

 

The banning of caches in the park only affects a few people, compared to the thousands of other visitors who use the park. However, those few Geocachers are affected greatly.

 

Since our number is so small, our impact is very minimal, so why ban our activity . . . ?

 

Doesn't make any sense to me . . .

 

I am truly hopeful negotiations between MissJenn and the Park Superintendent go well.

 

I am truly hopeful that those two "superintendents" are two different people. You know, for the sake of Miss Jenn's negotations.

Edited January 7, 2008 by Team Cotati

[magellan315]

Give Miss Jenn some time to work on this back in 2002 she negotiated a Geocaching policy with the with agency that handles the Pennsylvania State park and forest systems. I'm sure she'll get good results, but it may take some time. Fortunately there are a number of state agencies that have Geocaching policies and it will be a matter of patience.

[nobby.nobbs]

Good luck to her by the sounds of it, if it's possible to turn their viewpoint around she'll do it.

[+briansnat]

Has anyone actually sat down with the rangers and shown them the locations of the caches and the number of visitors and the lack of any damage?

It is often the perceived damage that people will cause that scares them. they assume that we are the same as the idiots who drive through and cause all the damage.

It might be worth pointing out that the more people like us there is the more likely that someone will see the drivers and be able to identify them.

 

I'm sure the people who have been picking up the caches are fully aware that there is little or no associated damage by now.

[+karstic]

To get back more to the original point, permission is a good idea, yes. But the idea of an outright ban on physical geocaches in a park that is one of the only ones in CA that allows primitive camping ANYWHERE in the park without permission, and brags about it's 500 miles of offroad vehicle trails accessible without permission, seems to be an over the top reaction in my book.

*Definitely* over the top and an over reaction.4x4's create much more damage than an ammo can hidden in a pile of rocks IMO. Although it could be argued that poeple use the 4x4's to get to the caches which may be off trail.

 

Really...What evidence do you have of that? Any vehicle operating on the 4wd roads within ABDSP MUST be street licensed AND operating on existing roads. If they are not, then they are breaking the law.

[+Renegade Knight]

The one cache that came to my attention was called "Lucky Ducky 13," which was Archived as soon as the Reviewer got a note from the Archaeologist about it. The Archaeologist's note was highly suspicious because it blamed "Geocachers using NAD27 Datum for damage done to an ancient rock cairn...

 

That's actually very interesting. Because if you plug in WGS84 coords into a GPS set for NAD27 you get a very specific error that will take you to exactly one spot on the ground (give or take the standard GPS error of +or- 20'.)

 

It means the archaeologist is using their brain and understands a few things about caching. Alas they were only using it to speculate on blame. You could do a trial and see if the error isn't the other direction entirly and away from the Cairn.

[+Renegade Knight]

I would absolutely love for the decision to be reversed and have all of the geocaches that are within guidelines to be saved. In this case we are dealing with the government, and we all know that whenever a decision is made it can just as easily be unmade by someone higher above. At the same time, I would love for all people to also be careful and respectful when placing caches which was what the quoted original complaint was based on.

I appreciate that. I would love to see the evidence of what violated any guidelines and why whatever that was justifies banning geocaching from the entire park. We've done a great job for six years so what suddenly changed?

The opinion of a key individual. But you knew that.

Watch out for flappers. (Stolen from Gullivers Travels).

Good luck.

[+TrailGators]

I would absolutely love for the decision to be reversed and have all of the geocaches that are within guidelines to be saved. In this case we are dealing with the government, and we all know that whenever a decision is made it can just as easily be unmade by someone higher above. At the same time, I would love for all people to also be careful and respectful when placing caches which was what the quoted original complaint was based on.

I appreciate that. I would love to see the evidence of what violated any guidelines and why whatever that was justifies banning geocaching from the entire park. We've done a great job for six years so what suddenly changed?

The opinion of a key individual. But you knew that.

Watch out for flappers. (Stolen from Gullivers Travels).

Good luck.

Actually I found out that this guy has been around for a few years. Latest update is that things aren't looking very good at all. There is also a rumor that the county parks are following suit. Some caches in county parks are also getting pulled. Edited January 9, 2008 by TrailGators

[+Sioneva]

I would absolutely love for the decision to be reversed and have all of the geocaches that are within guidelines to be saved. In this case we are dealing with the government, and we all know that whenever a decision is made it can just as easily be unmade by someone higher above. At the same time, I would love for all people to also be careful and respectful when placing caches which was what the quoted original complaint was based on.

I appreciate that. I would love to see the evidence of what violated any guidelines and why whatever that was justifies banning geocaching from the entire park. We've done a great job for six years so what suddenly changed?

The opinion of a key individual. But you knew that.

Watch out for flappers. (Stolen from Gullivers Travels).

Good luck.

Actually I found out that this guy has been around for a few years. Latest update is that things aren't looking very good at all. There is also a rumor that the county parks are following suit. Some caches in county parks are also getting pulled.

 

I'm really sorry to hear that. Makes me wonder who this guy will try to get banned next!

[+TrailGators]

I would absolutely love for the decision to be reversed and have all of the geocaches that are within guidelines to be saved. In this case we are dealing with the government, and we all know that whenever a decision is made it can just as easily be unmade by someone higher above. At the same time, I would love for all people to also be careful and respectful when placing caches which was what the quoted original complaint was based on.

I appreciate that. I would love to see the evidence of what violated any guidelines and why whatever that was justifies banning geocaching from the entire park. We've done a great job for six years so what suddenly changed?

The opinion of a key individual. But you knew that.

Watch out for flappers. (Stolen from Gullivers Travels).

Good luck.

Actually I found out that this guy has been around for a few years. Latest update is that things aren't looking very good at all. There is also a rumor that the county parks are following suit. Some caches in county parks are also getting pulled.

 

I'm really sorry to hear that. Makes me wonder who this guy will try to get banned next!

There could be some more fallout before this is over.

 

On a positive note, we had a cacher from Kansas post this link in our local thread. So it sounds like Ruth Coleman would be interested in keeping geocaching in the parks as a way to get kids involved in more outdoor activities. That was very nice of that Kansas cacher to share this with us! I think we should get the geocaching kids and their crayons ready for some letters to Ruth!

Edited January 9, 2008 by TrailGators

[Luckless]

Sounds like you would do well to enlist Ms Coleman's aid.

Her mention that "Several studies show that if a child has not hiked, camped or fished by age 16, they likely never will. " is something I hadn't heard of.

One of the stories I like to relate when seeking permission from recreation directors is an account I read in the forums by someone who wrote to say she had two autistic children. I guess getting her autistic children to exercise was simply impossible, but with geocaching getting them to go "treasure hunting " is no problem at all. They can't wait to go.

[+TrailGators]

Sounds like you would do well to enlist Ms Coleman's aid.

Her mention that "Several studies show that if a child has not hiked, camped or fished by age 16, they likely never will. " is something I hadn't heard of.

One of the stories I like to relate when seeking permission from recreation directors is an account I read in the forums by someone who wrote to say she had two autistic children. I guess getting her autistic children to exercise was simply impossible, but with geocaching getting them to go "treasure hunting " is no problem at all. They can't wait to go.

 

I didn't know about that study either. I still remember my dad taking my friend and me hiking in the Catoctin mountains when I was 7. It was a blast. Maybe that's part of the reason I still really enjoy hiking. The sad part is that this really does adversely impact the kids. Kids love finding treasure so they almost always prefer finding larger caches that hold swag. If the parks go away that leaves urbans where larger caches are the minority. So geocaching does make activities like hiking more enticing and fun to kids. Anyhow, I'm sure we will be contacting Ruth pretty soon.

[J.A.R.S.]

Has anyone been reading "Seattle City Parks Dept. Policy on caches in Discovery Park"?

 

Lightning Jeff sent a Public Records Act request asking about damage attributed to caches, policies under consideration, etc. It was eye-opening. The City was not able to produce any documentation of any kind related to the allegations of damage. LF posted the pdf file of the City of Seattle documents.

[+Confucius' Cat]

LF posted the pdf file of the City of Seattle documents.

Page 12 seems to express the problem pretty well with the statement "But because geocaching was done without permission from us as the property owner..."

 

I don't particularly like the park management asserting "ownership" of public property, but all of the other objections would have been mitigated by prior approval of the cache placements by the "property owners."

 

It also seems that maybe the removal of existing geocaches was a commercial ploy to attempt to make money for their concession contractor. "we have reached an agreement with Playtime for one day only geocaches..."

 

I noticed in the "contract" a provision for $4.25/ person fee. Your tax dollars at work... you now have the privilege of paying a private company a fee to use YOUR tax-payer provided property.

 

This brings back memories of "after school programs" that were offered in our elementary school for "free" as long as you provided the private company (which had a name that sounded like gubbament) with your child's social security number. We refused to give our child's number and we were told we could not participate unless we paid the cost ourselves which they would have been paid by the Feds if they were given the SSN... something like $300/child. The "program" was "pickup" basketball games. I believe this theft of public funds is still going on in the name of "keeping the kids off the streets."

 

i wonder what the "concessions" of this "Playtime" really amount to?

 

I wouldn't be surprised if some palms aren't being greased under the table.

[+TrailGators]

UPDATE: There is still no progress with ABDSP, but I thought I would share an example of what is going on right now from one of our local cachers:

 

Just some food for thought: After our recent trip to ABDSP this past weekend "saving" a few caches from destruction we stopped by It's In The Can Man which has been removed per ABDSP policy. Now, the cache was hidden inside a rusted old can in a pile of dozens of other rusty old cans. The cache is gone but the rusty old cans are still there. Somebody please fill me in on how a cache can be litter and rusty old cans are not. Maybe there is some kind of historical significance with the cans...

This clearly shows the mentality of the local rangers that we are dealing with...

[+egami]

UPDATE: There is still no progress with ABDSP, but I thought I would share an example of what is going on right now from one of our local cachers:

 

Just some food for thought: After our recent trip to ABDSP this past weekend "saving" a few caches from destruction we stopped by It's In The Can Man which has been removed per ABDSP policy. Now, the cache was hidden inside a rusted old can in a pile of dozens of other rusty old cans. The cache is gone but the rusty old cans are still there. Somebody please fill me in on how a cache can be litter and rusty old cans are not. Maybe there is some kind of historical significance with the cans...

This clearly shows the mentality of the local rangers that we are dealing with...

 

There are two sides to every story...

[+TrailGators]

UPDATE: There is still no progress with ABDSP, but I thought I would share an example of what is going on right now from one of our local cachers:

 

Just some food for thought: After our recent trip to ABDSP this past weekend "saving" a few caches from destruction we stopped by It's In The Can Man which has been removed per ABDSP policy. Now, the cache was hidden inside a rusted old can in a pile of dozens of other rusty old cans. The cache is gone but the rusty old cans are still there. Somebody please fill me in on how a cache can be litter and rusty old cans are not. Maybe there is some kind of historical significance with the cans...

This clearly shows the mentality of the local rangers that we are dealing with...

 

There are two sides to every story...

Maybe you don't understand that they are removing caches from the park because they "claim" that geocaches are "litter." This example clearly contradicts their position.

[+Miragee]

UPDATE: There is still no progress with ABDSP, but I thought I would share an example of what is going on right now from one of our local cachers:

 

Just some food for thought: After our recent trip to ABDSP this past weekend "saving" a few caches from destruction we stopped by It's In The Can Man which has been removed per ABDSP policy. Now, the cache was hidden inside a rusted old can in a pile of dozens of other rusty old cans. The cache is gone but the rusty old cans are still there. Somebody please fill me in on how a cache can be litter and rusty old cans are not. Maybe there is some kind of historical significance with the cans...

This clearly shows the mentality of the local rangers that we are dealing with...

 

There are two sides to every story...

Do you know something we don't?

 

They are supposedly working on a "Master Plan" for Anza Borrego Desert State Park and the properties nearby.

(that) . . . .will hopefully lead to a successful plan to operate the area to benefit recreation, resources, and public safety.

What I don't understand, is why, until that plan is completed couldn't the caches have remained where they were. Some have been in place for more than six years. "Notaranger" has been a "cacher" since 2004 and was responsible for providing our local Reviewer with the Guidelines we have been following for the past couple of years.

 

The policy they had in place was changed abrupty, without any notice allowing cache owners time to retrieve their property. And, to top that off, when they have removed many of the caches, they have not posted Notes on the cache pages letting the cache owners, and cachers, know the cache is not there anymore. This leads to logs like this one.

 

For them to take the caches without notice and throw them away as if there are trash is unconscionable.

[+egami]

UPDATE: There is still no progress with ABDSP, but I thought I would share an example of what is going on right now from one of our local cachers:

 

Just some food for thought: After our recent trip to ABDSP this past weekend "saving" a few caches from destruction we stopped by It's In The Can Man which has been removed per ABDSP policy. Now, the cache was hidden inside a rusted old can in a pile of dozens of other rusty old cans. The cache is gone but the rusty old cans are still there. Somebody please fill me in on how a cache can be litter and rusty old cans are not. Maybe there is some kind of historical significance with the cans...

This clearly shows the mentality of the local rangers that we are dealing with...

 

There are two sides to every story...

Maybe you don't understand that they are removing caches from the park because they "claim" that geocaches are "litter." This example clearly contradicts their position.

 

That's your side of the story...maybe it's right, maybe there is more to it...

[+egami]

 

Do you know something we don't?

 

They are supposedly working on a "Master Plan" for Anza Borrego Desert State Park and the properties nearby.

 

Not about this specific situation. I am just saying...there are two sides to every story and I don't see the ABDSP side represented.

 

Geocaching is a privilege, not a right...if they control the ground then they don't have to have any better reason to disallow caching. Not that I agree with that, but that's the reality...if it were effecting me I'd be lobbying and working hard with those in the area to demonstrate the positives and trying to overcome that hurdle.

[+scuba dude]

That's your side of the story...maybe it's right, maybe there is more to it...

 

Have you actually taken the time to read this thread? It sounds as if you are just coming in at the last page with NO CLUE what your are talking about. Please go back and read, then make educated, constructive comments.

 

SD

[+TrailGators]

UPDATE: There is still no progress with ABDSP, but I thought I would share an example of what is going on right now from one of our local cachers:

 

Just some food for thought: After our recent trip to ABDSP this past weekend "saving" a few caches from destruction we stopped by It's In The Can Man which has been removed per ABDSP policy. Now, the cache was hidden inside a rusted old can in a pile of dozens of other rusty old cans. The cache is gone but the rusty old cans are still there. Somebody please fill me in on how a cache can be litter and rusty old cans are not. Maybe there is some kind of historical significance with the cans...

This clearly shows the mentality of the local rangers that we are dealing with...

 

There are two sides to every story...

Maybe you don't understand that they are removing caches from the park because they "claim" that geocaches are "litter." This example clearly contradicts their position.

That's your side of the story...maybe it's right, maybe there is more to it...

I simply presented some "facts" and not a side.

 

Fact: There was a pile of rusty cans (litter).

Fact: A cache was placed inside one of those cans.

Fact: The cache was removed because the park rangers claim that "geocaches are litter."

Fact: The rangers left the actual litter that was around that cache.

 

If you don't see anything odd about that behavior then there's nothing I can say to you. Perhaps others have an opinion....

[+egami]

I simply presented some "facts" and not a side.

 

Which is precisely my point...

 

You act as if I was contesting the validity of your statements.

[+egami]

Have you actually taken the time to read this thread? It sounds as if you are just coming in at the last page with NO CLUE what your are talking about. Please go back and read, then make educated, constructive comments.

 

SD

 

First, I've read most of it...secondly, what is uneducated, un-constructive about saying I haven't heard their side of the story from their perspective...am I just to ASSUME that everything the cachers here have posted is the WHOLE story? I have no way of knowing what their perspective is from this conversation outside of second-hand, at best, accounts of it.

 

Sounds to me like a bunch of knee-jerk responses to my comments making assumptions about my position versus reading it for face value.

 

Have I taken the time to read it...you'd know if you had read it all...

Edited January 23, 2008 by egami

[+scuba dude]

Have you actually taken the time to read this thread? It sounds as if you are just coming in at the last page with NO CLUE what your are talking about. Please go back and read, then make educated, constructive comments.

 

SD

 

First, I've read most of it...secondly, what is uneducated, un-constructive about saying I haven't heard their side of the story from their perspective...

 

Sounds to me like a bunch of knee-jerk responses to my comments making assumptions about my position versus reading it for face value.

 

Here's what I see...

 

This thread has gone on for more than 4 pages. In that span we went from caches being seized and disposed of by park personel. Lots of wild theories followed. Finally, someone WHO HAS BEEN IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH PARK PERSONEL gave reason why.

 

Now you come and claim that something "isn't the whole story."

 

I say you sir are a troll. Someone who has found 29 caches since July of '06 yet has over 1200 posts in the forums. It appears to me as if you like to talk, but not to act. And here you are talking again, trying to stir the pot in a thread which already seen it's fair share of heated debate.

 

SD

 

ps- nice way to go back and basically re-write your entire post after hitting submit.

Edited January 23, 2008 by scuba dude

[+egami]

Here's what I see...

 

This thread has gone on for more than 4 pages. In that span we went from caches being seized and disposed of by park personel. Lots of wild theories followed. Finally, someone WHO HAS BEEN IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH PARK PERSONEL gave reason why.

 

Now you come and claim that something "isn't the whole story."

 

Again, all I am saying is there is not clear cut information as to the full reasoning behind their efforts...it's, at best, second-hand information...outside of the OP that supposedly is text from one of the management level people.

 

Do you have a problem with the fact that I would like to hear more from THEIR side? Because that is all my comment was regarding.

 

I say you sir are a troll. Someone who has found 29 caches since July of '06 yet has over 1200 posts in the forums. It appears to me as if you like to talk, but not to act. And here you are talking again, trying to stir the pot in a thread which already seen it's fair share of heated debate.

 

SD

 

And, here we have the ad hominem attack to top it off...the guy who clearly has read the entire thread criticizing me for "coming in late" and "trolling" fails to acknowledge I was well into this conversation before he was...

 

Yes, I have 29 cache finds because I have a life outside of caching and I have 3 kids to drag along and am casual. It clearly means that my opinion has no merit because I don't devote as much of my life to a hobby as you do.

 

I have 1200 posts because I enjoy caching and I enjoy the forum and I work in IT...

 

But, none of that matters because the real issue here is you're trying to defeat my logic with personal attacks rather than backing off being defensive and reading it at face value...

 

I at no point in time have stood 100% behind their actions...again, because I don't know the whole story. But, GOD FORBID, someone desire to hear ALL SIDES before coming to a conclusion...I should just be a geocaching sheep like you and assume the worst.

Edited January 23, 2008 by egami

[+TrailGators]

I say you sir are a troll. Someone who has found 29 caches since July of '06 yet has over 1200 posts in the forums. It appears to me as if you like to talk, but not to act. And here you are talking again, trying to stir the pot in a thread which already seen it's fair share of heated debate. SD ps- nice way to go back and basically re-write your entire post after hitting submit.

I agree SD. I'm not going waste my time with a troll either. I think most people will see how hypocrtical these rangers down here are being. It's really ashame.

[+egami]

I say you sir are a troll. Someone who has found 29 caches since July of '06 yet has over 1200 posts in the forums. It appears to me as if you like to talk, but not to act. And here you are talking again, trying to stir the pot in a thread which already seen it's fair share of heated debate. SD ps- nice way to go back and basically re-write your entire post after hitting submit.

I agree SD. I'm not going waste my time with a troll either. I think most people will see how hypocrtical these rangers down here are being. It's really ashame.

 

Right, God forbid that I actually would be interested in hearing their side of it.

[+TrailGators]

I say you sir are a troll. Someone who has found 29 caches since July of '06 yet has over 1200 posts in the forums. It appears to me as if you like to talk, but not to act. And here you are talking again, trying to stir the pot in a thread which already seen it's fair share of heated debate. SD ps- nice way to go back and basically re-write your entire post after hitting submit.

I agree SD. I'm not going waste my time with a troll either. I think most people will see how hypocrtical these rangers down here are being. It's really ashame.

Right, God forbid that I actually would be interested in hearing their side of it.

Here's a clue: They are not going to post here. Also their side can't negate the facts... Edited January 23, 2008 by TrailGators

[+egami]

Here's a clue: They are not going to post here. Also their side can't negate the facts...

 

Again, that reiterated my point...this is largely one side of the issue, so I am glad you can finally see the point there.

 

As far as negating facts, I agree, conversely...I don't see these facts negated:

 

Numerous geocaches have been placed within the Anza-Borrego Desert State Park without authorization. No consideration was given to resource sensitivity in the placement of any of these geocaches, and many have been discovered in very sensitive locales. Caches have been removed from archeological sites, paleontological areas, bighorn sheep watering sites and in sensitive caves.

 

So, I am simply saying there seems to be some level of legitimacy to the ABDSP side. No question some of their actions are "questionable". However, it also seems hypocritical to me that cachers will take a hard line stance against ABDSP when there does seem to be some legit concern.

 

Again, it's simply underscoring the point that I want to hear more...and I will continue to follow the topic because it interests me. I don't want to see more parks go this direction.

[+TrailGators]

As far as negating facts, I agree, conversely...I don't see these facts negated:

 

Numerous geocaches have been placed within the Anza-Borrego Desert State Park without authorization. No consideration was given to resource sensitivity in the placement of any of these geocaches, and many have been discovered in very sensitive locales. Caches have been removed from archeological sites, paleontological areas, bighorn sheep watering sites and in sensitive caves.

 

So, I am simply saying there seems to be some level of legitimacy to the ABDSP side. No question some of their actions are "questionable". However, it also seems hypocritical to me that cachers will take a hard line stance against ABDSP when there does seem to be some legit concern.

 

Again, it's simply underscoring the point that I want to hear more...and I will continue to follow the topic because it interests me. I don't want to see more parks go this direction.

Now you are the one not seeing our side....

FACT: Those rangers gave our reviewers guidelines in 2003, which they have been following.

 

By the way, now Jorgensen has changed "numerous" to "hundreds" in a recent email to a local geocacher:

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

Now you tell me which side is being honest based on that. There are only 358 geocaches in the entire 30 square miles of park. They have yet to show anybody one single cache that violates the agreed upon guidelines. So it's our side that is not being heard and not the other way around.....

[+scuba dude]

For those of you following this, we just got some more input from one of our local cachers:

I talked to one of the rangers I know who told me some time ago that Jorgenson had been sending them out to get caches. You won't be able to change his mind either as he is a naturalist and hates caching with a vengeance. If you write to complain, send your letters to the higher ups in Sacramento.

 

I'm not as a optimistic as I was earlier, but we're not going to give up!

 

I know you won't comprehend this but here it is anyway EGAMI.....

 

The caches placed there where done WITH permission, and under the guidlines. New guy comes in who hates caching, and begins yanking all of them. There is no evidence that any cache was in violation of set rules, or resulting in damage to any area of the park.

 

This is my last reply to any of your posts. If this forum had an ignore feature, you would be one of the trolls on my list. I'm done with you.

 

SD

Edited January 23, 2008 by scuba dude