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

[+TrailGators]

It will happen again I'm sure, but for every park where this happens, there is probably a park where the administration is aware of geocaching, allows it to go on, but doesn't want to be put on the spot by giving it their

official approval.

 

When you demand their sanction in these cases you too often wind up with an answer that you don't like and one they didn't want to be forced into giving.

There have been instances where the park management gave geocaching their tacit approval by ignoring it, but when a well meaning geocacher demanded their official blessing, they ruined it for everyone else.

BINGO!

I mentioned earlier I am a Parks Supervisor. I admit I oversee only a tiny fraction of the 600,000+ acres involved here, but that just means my paperwork is probably much simpler then that of the guy who oversees ABDSP.

If cacher X comes to me and asks if it's ok to hide a cache at location Y it's no problem. As far as maintenance and upkeep of the parks, I'm the guy at the top of the ladder.

Now, if you tell me you want that permission in writing we have a potential problem. I would have to bump that up to my Director. He would have to discuss it at a meeting with the parks commission. They probably will want a ruling on liability issues from our attorney. Then the board of selectmen vote on whether or not to grant a letter of permission. Chances are someone in that long line of people is going to just say "No" instead of going though all that time and money for a few geocaches. At the very least they would probably decide they needed the cache owner to provide insurance and a bond, just like we do for festivals and fairs and such that use our parks.

Trust me, this is how .gov works. The higher the level of government (local, county, state, federal) the more involved the process gets.

 

Good luck to the CA cachers. Hopefully you can either convince the new guy of the error of his ways or maybe even go right over his head.

Thanks Mopar! I appreciate your advice.

[+Kealia]

TrailGators - Good luck. I've been following this thread as we have a somewhat similar issue occuring on BLM land up North here.

 

I've found a few caches in ABDSP and know what a gem that place is. Good luck to you!

[+TrailGators]

TrailGators - Good luck. I've been following this thread as we have a somewhat similar issue occuring on BLM land up North here.

 

I've found a few caches in ABDSP and know what a gem that place is. Good luck to you!

Thanks Kealia. That's too bad about the BLM up there. The BLM have been good to us down here. I think our rep will get things ironed out once he understands exactly what the issues are.

[Luckless]

It will happen again I'm sure, but for every park where this happens, there is probably a park where the administration is aware of geocaching, allows it to go on, but doesn't want to be put on the spot by giving it their

official approval.

 

When you demand their sanction in these cases you too often wind up with an answer that you don't like and one they didn't want to be forced into giving.

 

There have been instances where the park management gave geocaching their tacit approval by ignoring it, but when a well meaning geocacher demanded their official blessing, they ruined it for everyone else.

Sometimes when I'm asking for permission I'm afraid I'm going to make people aware of what is going on and they are going to decline/or approve my request then go after the caches that were planted without permission, because they are now aware of them. This isn't going to make me very popular with my fellow cachers.

BINGO!

I mentioned earlier I am a Parks Supervisor. I admit I oversee only a tiny fraction of the 600,000+ acres involved here, but that just means my paperwork is probably much simpler then that of the guy who oversees ABDSP.

If cacher X comes to me and asks if it's ok to hide a cache at location Y it's no problem. As far as maintenance and upkeep of the parks, I'm the guy at the top of the ladder.

Now, if you tell me you want that permission in writing we have a potential problem. I would have to bump that up to my Director. He would have to discuss it at a meeting with the parks commission. They probably will want a ruling on liability issues from our attorney. Then the board of selectmen vote on whether or not to grant a letter of permission. Chances are someone in that long line of people is going to just say "No" instead of going though all that time and money for a few geocaches. At the very least they would probably decide they needed the cache owner to provide insurance and a bond, just like we do for festivals and fairs and such that use our parks.

Trust me, this is how .gov works. The higher the level of government (local, county, state, federal) the more involved the process gets.

 

Good luck to the CA cachers. Hopefully you can either convince the new guy of the error of his ways or maybe even go right over his head.

Weeell I don't exactly always ask for permission. Sometimes when you are talking to a land manager you get a feeling that asking for permission is going to open a can of worms. When that happens I'll ask if there is anything prohibiting geocaching. Then they don't have to feel like they are committing to anything.

Edited December 30, 2007 by Luckless

[+Miragee]

Sorry I'm a bit late to this discussion. I was out in ABDSP yesterday having a wonderful time with a great group of cachers, all of whom are very sad about this sudden decision. The Rangers have known about Geocaching in the Park for years, and for the past several years, all cache placements have had to abide by additional guidelines specific to the Park.

 

In a Park where this is allowed . . .

 

 

do you think these grandparents would think they had to ask specific permission to place this cache in honor of their granddaughter . . . ?

 

Some of the oldest caches in San Diego County are in Anza Borrego Desert State Park. They have been out there since 2001, not causing a problem for anyone.

[+TrailGators]

Sorry I'm a bit late to this discussion. I was out in ABDSP yesterday having a wonderful time with a great group of cachers, all of whom are very sad about this sudden decision. The Rangers have known about Geocaching in the Park for years, and for the past several years, all cache placements have had to abide by additional guidelines specific to the Park.

 

In a Park where this is allowed . . .

 

 

do you think these grandparents would think they had to ask specific permission to place this cache in honor of their granddaughter . . . ?

 

Some of the oldest caches in San Diego County are in Anza Borrego Desert State Park. They have been out there since 2001, not causing a problem for anyone.

Looks like fun! I wish I could have gone yesterday. Still wating for a thumb's up from my doc. The silly thing is that this policy change will have very little (if any) effect on helping ABDSP. If geocachers can pickup two truckloads of trash off "the same" two-mile stretch of highway every six months, then there is obviously a bigger problem out there than 358 caches that are now being viewed as litter. Edited December 30, 2007 by TrailGators

[+blubuturflies]

TrailGators - Good luck. I've been following this thread as we have a somewhat similar issue occuring on BLM land up North here.

 

I've found a few caches in ABDSP and know what a gem that place is. Good luck to you!

Thanks Kealia. That's too bad about the BLM up there. The BLM have been good to us down here. I think our rep will get things ironed out once he understands exactly what the issues are.

 

Good work TrailGators. It's important to put in perspective all of this information, so hopefully a reasonable balance can be arrived at for reasonable land use. I was just hoping to use some of my holiday to head out that way and knock of some bookmarked caches when I saw these posts on a couple caches. Bummer.. first the high heat of summer and then 5 months of work, sports and other obligations just get in the way all the time...!

 

I have some random thoughts on this subject for whatever they are worth:

 

-Certainly a GPS coordinate or any other reference to a point of interest in say Jerry Schads Foot and Afield, or Lindsay's Anza Borrego Guide is potentially as destructive to the environment as an earthcache or a virtual cache if it gets more than 20 to 40 people to visit that location in a year. I'm sure those books do.

 

-My kids will also pick up sticks and rocks and try to pick the flowers in the area as quickly as they will look for a pill bottle or ammo can.

 

-I personally would probably visit more earthcaches if I were closer to more of them and really enjoy the grandfathered Virtuals we've been to so far. Many times they more fun and informative TO ME than looking for a micro on a crowded street corner.

 

-I'd be more into Waymarking and benchmarking if the tools (PocketQueries) and google maps were better integrated with the same databases (and it's still legal now in these areas.) I just find myself fighting too many tools and gadgets already as it is.

 

-The family does enjoy fighting over the swag in the physical caches. They give some incentivice for little ones to enjoy a little hike outside away from the virtual world, and are good to verify the puzzles, but otherwise I'm more into the interesting trails and locations marked by these GPS waypoints and the interaction with other people in the know.

 

-interesting to note ABDSP is the same park where the environmental rules could be bent by special interest, for mega power lines cutting through the middle..... although that battle isn't over yet and certainly some reasonable compromises could be sought there as well.

 

-Anza Borrego is in the larger desert that is being trashed by our friends from the south. (Google "Sonora Desert AZ Illegal trash" or something similar for images). Government seems to look the other way when this is pointed out.

 

-also interesting to note ABDSP is in the same county where environmental and other laws get bent or overlooked (pertaining to the canyons) and even citizens who speak out about that are prosecuted by the city, or sued for trying to clean up. I've ended up in a few (luckily vacant) migrant camps accidentaly while geocaching with just myself ,the little ones and their cousins, and thought to myself about the saftey and environmental issues this brings up. Luckily I wasn't beat up or put on trial for those misteps, yet.

 

Keep up the good fight for rational compromise!!!!

Edited December 30, 2007 by blubuturflies

[+TrailGators]

TrailGators - Good luck. I've been following this thread as we have a somewhat similar issue occuring on BLM land up North here.

 

I've found a few caches in ABDSP and know what a gem that place is. Good luck to you!

Thanks Kealia. That's too bad about the BLM up there. The BLM have been good to us down here. I think our rep will get things ironed out once he understands exactly what the issues are.

 

Good work TrailGators. It's important to put in perspective all of this information, so hopefully a reasonable balance can be arrived at for resonable land use. I was just hoping to use some of my holiday to head out that way and knock of some bookmarked caches when I saw these posts. Bummer.. first the high heat and then 5 months of other work and sports obligations just get in the way....

 

I have some random thoughts on this subject for whatever they are worth:

 

-Certainly a GPS coordinate to a point of interest in say Jerry Schads Foot and Afield, or Lindsay's Anza Borrego Guide is potentially as destructive to the environment as an earthcache or a virtual cache if it gets more than 20 to 40 people to visit that location in a year. I'm sure those books do.

 

-My kids will also pick up sticks and rocks and try to pick the flowers in the area as quickly as they will look for a pill bottle or ammo can.

 

-I personally would probably visit more earthcaches if I were closer to more of them and really enjoy the grandfathered Virtuals we've been to so far. Many times they more fun and informative TO ME than looking for a micro on a crowded street corner.

 

-I'd be more into Waymarking and benchmarking if the tools (PocketQueries) and google maps were better integrated with the same databases (and it's still legal now in these areas.) I just find myself fighting too many tools and gadgets already as it is.

 

-The family does enjoy fighting over the swag in the physical caches. They give some incentivice for little ones to enjoy a little hike outside away from the virtual world, and are good to verify the puzzles, but otherwise I'm more into the interesting locations marked by the GPS trails.

 

-interesting to note ABDSP is the same park where the environmental rules could be bent by special interest, for mega power lines cutting through the middle..... although that battle isn't over yet and certainly some reasonable compromises could be sought there as well.

 

-Anza Borrego is in the larger desert that is being trashed by our friends from the south. (Google Sonora Desert AZ Illegal trash or something similar for photos)

 

-also interesting to note it's in the same county where environmental and other laws get bent or overlooked (pertaining to our canyons) and even citizens who speak out about that are prosecuted by the city or sued for trying to clean up. I've ended up in a few (luckily vacant) migrant camps accidentaly while geocaching with just myself ,the little ones and their cousins, and thought to myself about the saftey and environmental issues this brings up. Luckily I wasn't beat up or put on trial for those misteps, yet.

 

Keep up the good fight for rational compromise!!!!

Thanks blubuturflies! ABDSP is a cool place. The entire desert was under the ocean at one time. Geocaching has taken me to ridge tops that are loaded with tiny ancient seashells and sand dollars. There are tons of cool canyons and slot canyons to explore. Anyhow, it is my understanding that V2 of the website coming out next year will allow waymarks to be added into our PQs. So many of these cool spots could still be uploaded to your GPS once they are added to the site's database. I would prefer to see both waymarks and geocaches out there but having waymarks is better than nothing.

[+bettsbugs]

I did not read through all the responses, but saw a prevalent theme on the ones I did read.

 

I understand that the land is 'our' land, but you need to remember that 'our' includes not only 'us' but those that come after us. Often we get so focused on what we want, that we forget those given the responsibility of taking care of 'our' lands are doing their best to ensure that everyone, now and in the future, will be able to enjoy the land as well.

 

Geocaching does leave it's mark on the land just by the basis of added foot traffic. There are many of us that go places we would have never gone if not for the joy of geocaching. Everytime I find myself getting upset about how 'they' won't let me do this or they won't let me do that, I just drive down the road to our local community forest area and see where the motorized vehicles have torn up the mountainside because it was 'their right' to use public land as they saw fit.

 

Just my two cents.

[magellan315]

I did not read through all the responses, but saw a prevalent theme on the ones I did read.

 

I understand that the land is 'our' land, but you need to remember that 'our' includes not only 'us' but those that come after us. Often we get so focused on what we want, that we forget those given the responsibility of taking care of 'our' lands are doing their best to ensure that everyone, now and in the future, will be able to enjoy the land as well.

 

Geocaching does leave it's mark on the land just by the basis of added foot traffic. There are many of us that go places we would have never gone if not for the joy of geocaching. Everytime I find myself getting upset about how 'they' won't let me do this or they won't let me do that, I just drive down the road to our local community forest area and see where the motorized vehicles have torn up the mountainside because it was 'their right' to use public land as they saw fit.

 

Just my two cents.

 

Next time read all the posts. You would have seen the one about how there were guidelines specifically negotiated with the ABDSP and have been in place for a few years. As well as a CITO every 6 months. Until all the facts are in this appears to be a new park superintendent who has been given misinformation and failed to confirm if it was true and talk to the parks Geocaching contacts.

[+Serial007]

A guideline does not grant express permission. It takes from a few minutes to a few days to ask and request permission from the proper authority, even if it is just to verify that the established guideline is still in place. On the flip side it wasn't the geocaches that were following the guidelines that lead to the banning of geocaching in the park. It was the ones that weren't following any guideline at all that ended in years of existing geocaches being wiped out.

 

One of the main things that upsets me is that there are reasons for the guidelines that geocaching.com has for placing caches but a lot of the times they are ignored or simply not read. This ends up causing the exact situation that has happened here. What upsets me even more is that there are a lot of new caches being published that violate a majority or all of the guidelines, and could either end up getting someone hurt or end up getting even more areas banned or restricted from geocaching.

 

There are a lot of public parks and areas in the world, responsibility of most of them has been assigned to either government agencies or companies to handle them. This is in order to preserve them so that everyone can enjoy them. Some park managers can be pompous and egotistical however, the same can hold true of all people. In the end, their job is to ensure the safety security and preservation of our public land.

 

There were most likely many caches that were posted in accordance with the guidelines and permission was granted to place them. This allows proper communication to be established to ensure that caches aren't inadvertently placed in parts of public property in which they can do more harm than good.

 

When people start cutting corners they could end up hurting plant life, wildlife, or others. In these cases, it is not the owner of the geocache that ends up bearing the responsibility, it is whoever owns or manages the land. Geocaching.com is a company in itself and could then end up subsequently getting sued for destroying land or hurting people.

 

When geocaches in this park started getting placed in sensitive areas we ended up doing more harm than good. This isn't the type of image we should put out as geocachers. In the end, with the letter we all got a warning and a request to do what is already in our guidelines. If we break that request then we end up putting Groundspeak at risk for getting sued for the damages that have already occurred from the geocaches in sensitive areas that shouldn't have been put there in the first place. Groundspeak is already nice enough to assume that we are not breaking their guidelines, lets not get things to the point that we have to prove that we are following them.

Edited December 31, 2007 by Serial007

[+TrailGators]

One of the main things that upsets me is that there are reasons for the guidelines that geocaching.com has for placing caches but a lot of the times they are ignored or simply not read. This ends up causing the exact situation that has happened here.

Which guideline was not followed in this case? Edited December 31, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Royalott]

Before I hid any caches at the local county park Devil's Punchbowl I befriended the park rangers (father and son) and showed them where I was placing my cache. To me this was the best policy.

 

Thanks to the new policy at ABDSP, 620,000 acres are off limits. Cachers have themselves to blame.

 

I agree that cashers have themselves to blame for this. Arrogant people that think they can just hide indiscriminately. It hurts us all.

 

I have only 8 hid but I went to the effort of finding those responsible for the area I wanted to hide them in and got permission. It was easy. I have no respect for those that are risking this fine hobby because they are just too lazy to get permission. If I was running a park or other area and clowns hid cashes any place they wanted and did not get permission I would pull them too.

 

Lazy arrogant people are going to ruin it for all of us

[+TrailGators]

Before I hid any caches at the local county park Devil's Punchbowl I befriended the park rangers (father and son) and showed them where I was placing my cache. To me this was the best policy.

 

Thanks to the new policy at ABDSP, 620,000 acres are off limits. Cachers have themselves to blame.

I agree that cashers have themselves to blame for this. Arrogant people that think they can just hide indiscriminately. It hurts us all.

 

I have only 8 hid but I went to the effort of finding those responsible for the area I wanted to hide them in and got permission. It was easy. I have no respect for those that are risking this fine hobby because they are just too lazy to get permission. If I was running a park or other area and clowns hid cashes any place they wanted and did not get permission I would pull them too.

 

Lazy arrogant people are going to ruin it for all of us

 

I'm going to borrow Magellan315s eloquent post from above to answer this:

Next time read all the posts. You would have seen the one about how there were guidelines specifically negotiated with the ABDSP and have been in place for a few years. As well as a CITO every 6 months. Until all the facts are in this appears to be a new park superintendent who has been given misinformation and failed to confirm if it was true and talk to the parks Geocaching contacts.

[+Serial007]

One of the main things that upsets me is that there are reasons for the guidelines that geocaching.com has for placing caches but a lot of the times they are ignored or simply not read. This ends up causing the exact situation that has happened here.

Which guideline was not followed in this case?

 

Off-limit (Physical) Caches

 

By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location. However, if we see a cache description that mentions ignoring "No Trespassing" signs (or any other obvious issues), your listing may be immediately archived. We also assume that your cache placement complies with all applicable laws. If an obvious legal issue is present, or is brought to our attention, your listing may be immediately archived.

[+TrailGators]

One of the main things that upsets me is that there are reasons for the guidelines that geocaching.com has for placing caches but a lot of the times they are ignored or simply not read. This ends up causing the exact situation that has happened here.

Which guideline was not followed in this case?

 

Off-limit (Physical) Caches

 

By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location. However, if we see a cache description that mentions ignoring "No Trespassing" signs (or any other obvious issues), your listing may be immediately archived. We also assume that your cache placement complies with all applicable laws. If an obvious legal issue is present, or is brought to our attention, your listing may be immediately archived.

We had permission. We've been placing caches in that park for over six years with the rangers full knowledge. They gave us guidelines. Try reading the thread.

[+Serial007]

We had permission. We've been placing caches in that park for over six years with the rangers full knowledge. They gave us guidelines. Try reading the thread.

 

As I have already said established guidelines do not mean expressed permission and that the ones that were following the guidelines were not the reason for the original letter. Please read my response fully, I have read all posts in the thread.

[+mini cacher]

@Trailgators: its unfortunate that you are dealing with both a land manager AND forum members that don't quite comprehend what is (and is not) going on there. I look forward to hearing more when more is known. Sorry we'll have to sift through all the noise in this thread to get that when it does come out. Good Luck.

 

Edit: changed "here" to "there" since I am not there... I am here. I didn't want my post to mislead people into thinking I was from the area in question.

Edited December 31, 2007 by mini cacher

[+Miragee]

<snip>

 

When geocaches in this park started getting placed in sensitive areas we ended up doing more harm than good.

 

<snip>

You seem to know more about this that I do, and I have actually cached in Anze Borrego Desert State Park. The only incident I am aware sounds like a made-up story to blame Geocachers for damage that may, or may not have occurred. Since the cache was not in the area that supposedly sustained damage, I don't know how the cache placement could be blamed, but it was . . .

 

While caching in ABDSP yesterday we walked up to a cache, placed in 2003, that is located in this pretty canyon.

 

 

As we were coming back down the canyon, we passed some hikers. There were more people in that single group of hikers than have found that cache in the past two years!

 

Which groups have had a greater impact on the canyon and its vegetation in the past two years? The large groups of weekend hikers, or the rare Geocacher?

[+TrailGators]

We had permission. We've been placing caches in that park for over six years with the rangers full knowledge. They gave us guidelines. Try reading the thread.

 

As I have already said established guidelines do not mean expressed permission and that the ones that were following the guidelines were not the reason for the original letter. Please read my response fully, I have read all posts in the thread.

The fact is that nobody knows exactly what happened yet. The lastest info is that the new Superindendant "may have found" a cache close to a Bighorn sheep watering hole. This guy is different than the last guy and feels that this is an issue. No restriction about placing caches near watering holes was ever written in the guidelines that the park gave to us 4 years ago. If we find out that this is the issue then we can add that new guideline to the guidelines for ABDSP. So please don't jump to conclusions until the facts are known. I can't believe how many people keep doing this. It's getting old. Edited December 31, 2007 by TrailGators

[+TrailGators]

@Trailgators: its unfortunate that you are dealing with both a land manager AND forum members that don't quite comprehend what is (and is not) going on here. I look forward to hearing more when more is known. Sorry we'll have to sift through all the noise in this thread to get that when it does come out. Good Luck.

Thanks minicacher!

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

Chin up Trailgators, as I long ago discovered there are many people who simply can't comprehend posts no matter how you explain it to them.

[+TrailGators]

Chin up Trailgators, as I long ago discovered there are many people who simply can't comprehend posts no matter how you explain it to them.

My folks used to always tell me to have a "stiff upper lip" and "chin chin"! Now I know why!

[+Serial007]

We had permission. We've been placing caches in that park for over six years with the rangers full knowledge. They gave us guidelines. Try reading the thread.

 

As I have already said established guidelines do not mean expressed permission and that the ones that were following the guidelines were not the reason for the original letter. Please read my response fully, I have read all posts in the thread.

The fact is that nobody knows exactly what happened yet. The lastest info is that the new Superindendant "may have found" a cache close to a Bighorn sheep watering hole. This guy is different than the last guy and feels that this is a big issue. No restriction about placing caches near watering holes was ever written in the guidelines that the park gave to us 4 years ago. If we find out that this is the issue then we can add that new guideline to the guidelines for ABDSP. So please don't jump to conclusions until the facts are known. I can't believe how many people keep doing this. It's getting old.

 

I really have no conclusions to jump to since it is still an open issue. 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.

[+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? Edited December 31, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Serial007]

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 sucky part is that with anyone in a powerful position, you don't always get evidence or a reason. You could end up finding out that the guy was a geocacher who got frustrated on a 5/5, or that the wrong person called on a day his dog died. We can only hope that in the end, things will turn out alright. My opinion that people who harm the environment with inappropriately placed caches does give us a bad name but, I am in no means directing those comments specifically to you or anyone in this thread. Please don't take any offense, I really hope you get to the bottom of things and good luck.

[+TrailGators]

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 sucky part is that with anyone in a powerful position, you don't always get evidence or a reason. You could end up finding out that the guy was a geocacher who got frustrated on a 5/5, or that the wrong person called on a day his dog died. We can only hope that in the end, things will turn out alright. My opinion that people who harm the environment with inappropriately placed caches does give us a bad name but, I am in no means directing those comments specifically to you or anyone in this thread. Please don't take any offense, I really hope you get to the bottom of things and good luck.

When an iron fist mentality exists it doesn't take very much to mess things up for everyone. Anyhow, thanks.

[Lateck]

I am very new to this sport, I live nearby and ride (street motorcycle) through the area in question. I downloaded some cashes a few days ago and the went back yesterday to recheck the listings and they were gone. Now with this thread I see why.

 

TrailGators, I have a question for you or some of the cool headed ones.

 

What can I(We) do to help clear up this problem with out creating a larger one?

 

I would like to respect the fine area and the people that manage it for us but I would also like to keep a family activity going.

 

Sincerely,

Lateck

Edited December 31, 2007 by Lateck

[Lateck]

Deleted due to posting it twice.

 

Lateck

Edited December 31, 2007 by Lateck

[+ArcherDragoon]

Chin up Trailgators, as I long ago discovered there are many people who simply can't comprehend posts no matter how you explain it to them.

Hey,

 

First, thanks Kit Fox for bringing this type of situation to light...many of us may not be from the area, but I think it has helped remind us how important geocaching really is to many of us. There happens to be a simialr thread going on (all though much slower...due to fewer numbers) in the MNGCA forums. I have been following that one for a while and have been following this one since it started.

 

Second, good luck TrailGators...and don't pay too much attention to those in the thread that don't seem to actually read the entire thread...had they done that, you wouldn't need to be repeating your posts so often. I am not familiar with your area and don't know the history of geocaching in your area...so all I can offer is support (be it from a distance)...but good luck and hope you are able to resolve this situation...it is a pitty you and other locals have been put into this situation all over a misunterstanding and misinformation.

 

Again, good luck and hope everything works out for the best.

 

Later,

ArcherDragoon

[+TrailGators]

I am very new to this sport, I live nearby and ride (street motorcycle) through the area in question. I downloaded some cashes a few days ago and the went back yesterday to recheck the listings and they were gone. Now with this thread I see why.

 

TrailGators, I have a question for you or some of the cool headed ones.

 

What can I(We) do to help clear up this problem with out creating a larger one?

 

I would like to respect the fine area and the people that manage it for us but I would also like to keep a family activity going.

 

Sincerely,

Lateck

Hi Lateck,

At this point we need to have our rep see what he can do. Other than that a good connection somewhere is what we really need. Thanks.

[+TrailGators]

Chin up Trailgators, as I long ago discovered there are many people who simply can't comprehend posts no matter how you explain it to them.

Hey,

 

First, thanks Kit Fox for bringing this type of situation to light...many of us may not be from the area, but I think it has helped remind us how important geocaching really is to many of us. There happens to be a simialr thread going on (all though much slower...due to fewer numbers) in the MNGCA forums. I have been following that one for a while and have been following this one since it started.

 

Second, good luck TrailGators...and don't pay too much attention to those in the thread that don't seem to actually read the entire thread...had they done that, you wouldn't need to be repeating your posts so often. I am not familiar with your area and don't know the history of geocaching in your area...so all I can offer is support (be it from a distance)...but good luck and hope you are able to resolve this situation...it is a pitty you and other locals have been put into this situation all over a misunterstanding and misinformation.

 

Again, good luck and hope everything works out for the best.

 

Later,

ArcherDragoon

Thanks AD! Edited December 31, 2007 by TrailGators

[+TrailGators]

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!

[+Rockin Roddy]

Not good news.....sounds like you'll be fighting a VERY steep uphill battle. Sorry to hear this!

[+Mopar]

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!

That doesn't sound good, once an avalanche starts it can be hard to stop. Like I said earlier, you can still go over his head. The problem is that even if you win you may lose. If you can't win the supervisor over with reason and facts (and it doesn't sound like you will) then he sure isn't going to be cooperative if geocaching gets forced down his throat by his higher ups.

Good luck, that truly is a great park for geocaching.

[+Happy Humphrey]

I don't have any knowledge of this specific area of land, and reading through the thread there's no point in commenting on the case in point: but this does raise some general questions which might be more fun to discuss, rather than endlessly speculating.

 

What do land managers actually object to most, as far as geocaching is concerned? Is it that a few extra people visit certain spots, or is it that there are containers that are left in situ?

 

Bear in mind that the public will generally contain an unruly element anyway (kids, for a start!). The fact that occasionally a visitor may search a small area looking for a cache makes him/her (in my opinion) no better or worse than the usual inquisitive child or curious adult.

 

Do articles in newspapers and web sites get "banned" from time to time? Anything that advertises the park in the widespread press will certainly have a major effect, with thousands of extra people trampling all over the area ("New York Times: Top Ten viewpoints in America no. 7 : in Anza-Borrego Desert State Park" = ranger rage!).

 

An outright ban in a park could bring their rules into disrepute if it appears unreasonable. So there's a beer can every ten feet in the drainage channel next to the road through a park, but hang a camo'd bison tube in one of the trees next to the car park and face legal action: what nonsense is this?

 

What happens when the park ranger is sent out to retrieve a 5/5 mystery cache? Does he get all week to find it?

 

Deep down, do park managers really want visitors? Or do they feel that these places are really only for qualified rangers?

[+geomann1]

 

Deep down, do park managers really want visitors? Or do they feel that these places are really only for qualified rangers?

 

A mix, to some it makes their job easier if no one comes to the park and allowing geocaches to them means they may possibly have to get off their butts more often and do something, others want more people to come and experience the parks and welcome reponsible geocaching. In my county (Lee County, Florida) the park department gives courses on GPS and geocaching. They have a permitting process in place to put a geocache at a park, but to date it is free and not a big deal.

[+Royalott]

No, actually the park manager SAID they had to approve a listing on GC.com. Obviously THEY have no control over that, but the local review can, and should for the benefit of the future of this game.

 

What really fries me though, is the attitude. THEY control OUR land and direct what we can do. In certain circumstances, this can be justified, but the attitude is far too common, and far to vague. The gaul of someone to claim that even a virtual can't be listed without thier sayso.

 

I'm done here. The topic of power hungry idiots raises my blood pressure.

 

SD

 

Well I agree with him, sorry. That may be OUR land but HE is the one taking care of it for the rest of us. Some thoughtless clown could put a virtual cashe in the middle of an ancient treasure and anyone going to it could distroy it. That is distroying OUR property. He is there to protect it. Some may think that because it it government land that they can do anything they want to it. Wrong! I don't want some clown distroying my treasures because they own a part of it.

 

There were even some that wanted to dam up the Grand Canyon for hydro electric power.

 

If a person is too dang lazy to ask to put out a cashe then they ought to get another hobby. That is my view.

[+scuba dude]

No, actually the park manager SAID they had to approve a listing on GC.com. Obviously THEY have no control over that, but the local review can, and should for the benefit of the future of this game.

 

What really fries me though, is the attitude. THEY control OUR land and direct what we can do. In certain circumstances, this can be justified, but the attitude is far too common, and far to vague. The gaul of someone to claim that even a virtual can't be listed without thier sayso.

 

I'm done here. The topic of power hungry idiots raises my blood pressure.

 

SD

 

Well I agree with him, sorry. That may be OUR land but HE is the one taking care of it for the rest of us. Some thoughtless clown could put a virtual cashe in the middle of an ancient treasure and anyone going to it could distroy it. That is distroying OUR property. He is there to protect it. Some may think that because it it government land that they can do anything they want to it. Wrong! I don't want some clown distroying my treasures because they own a part of it.

 

There were even some that wanted to dam up the Grand Canyon for hydro electric power.

 

If a person is too dang lazy to ask to put out a cashe then they ought to get another hobby. That is my view.

 

If you read ALL the posts (where we heard that one before?) I never said anyone gets to do anything they want. I already mentioned being a good land steward. There were guidlines in place here. People seemed to be following those guidelines (from trailgators). Nothing about geocaching was harming anything historic or fragile.

 

So If a single, appointed government person decides your house is not to thier liking they can have it destroyed, right. That seems to be your thinking. Let one person have complete control, without checks and balances, regardless of of whether his/her thoughts are based on realities. (and your comparison of geocaching to daming the grand canyon, is no different than comparing removing caches to removing your house.)

 

The latest info given on this thread shows that a single, narrow minded person has banned caches becuase he is offended by them. If left unchecked, he will probably start banning a lot of other things in the park too.

[+ArcherDragoon]

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!

Not all naturalists are bad

 

My sister works as one in Minnesota and wishes geocaching would be more accepted to bring more visitors to various areas of the state and possibly bring more tourism into the state. There are two ends of the spectrum at work...and it too bad that Jorgenson feels that way. She doesn't geocache, but wishes it was more accepted...and she fights for it in her neck of the woods.

 

"If we are not going to share the wilderness...then what good is it to keep around..."

--I know this sounds extreme, but there is a bit of truth in that statement--

 

Anywho...good luck all!!!

[+Renegade Knight]

...Many lessons can be learned by this!

The first lesson is that even if you did ask they won't tell you where any sensative locations are. That's how they keep them protected. This is especially true of archaological sites.

 

Parks that actually do have sensative locations can take two approaches to solving the "problem" of being a park intended for public use and enjoyment. They can ban everthing that could take place on a sensative location right down to fishing. Not much of a park when you do that.

 

Or they can monitor activies and only interfere when an actual potential problem comes up. This is how the BLM approaches caching (at least in my area). The only caches that are pulled are the ones that are smack dab on top of a site of concern. Then the BLM works with the cache owner directly.

 

Parks can choose to allow recreation and manage the exceptions or they can prohibit everthing except those few things that need no exceptions. But that gets you back to the park not really being much of a park.

[+Renegade Knight]

No, actually the park manager SAID they had to approve a listing on GC.com. Obviously THEY have no control over that, but the local review can, and should for the benefit of the future of this game.

 

What really fries me though, is the attitude. THEY control OUR land and direct what we can do. In certain circumstances, this can be justified, but the attitude is far too common, and far to vague. The gaul of someone to claim that even a virtual can't be listed without thier sayso.

 

I'm done here. The topic of power hungry idiots raises my blood pressure.

 

SD

That may be OUR land but HE is the one taking care of it for the rest of us. Some thoughtless clown could put a virtual cashe in the middle of an ancient treasure and anyone going to it could distroy it. That is distroying OUR property....

 

The park should manage their lands with the attitude of "Preservation for the people, not from the people" If your treasure it locked down and nobody is ever allowed to enjoy it. It really has no value. Nature will destroy it soon enough and without somebody to apprieciate it, it's just part of the dirt that surrounds it.

 

A blanket lockdown on activites is actually completely unenlightened. The problem is that we humans like the same things and locations today as our ancestors did. We hunt and fish the same areas, swim on the same beaches and enjoy the same natural wonders. To fully protect cultural resources they would need to disallow our access to rivers, lakes, ponds, landmarks and a host of other areas the access to which you take for granted.

 

You walk on more history than you have ever thoght about.

[+TrailGators]

No, actually the park manager SAID they had to approve a listing on GC.com. Obviously THEY have no control over that, but the local review can, and should for the benefit of the future of this game.

 

What really fries me though, is the attitude. THEY control OUR land and direct what we can do. In certain circumstances, this can be justified, but the attitude is far too common, and far to vague. The gaul of someone to claim that even a virtual can't be listed without thier sayso.

 

I'm done here. The topic of power hungry idiots raises my blood pressure.

 

SD

Well I agree with him, sorry. That may be OUR land but HE is the one taking care of it for the rest of us. Some thoughtless clown could put a virtual cashe in the middle of an ancient treasure and anyone going to it could distroy it. That is distroying OUR property. He is there to protect it. Some may think that because it it government land that they can do anything they want to it. Wrong! I don't want some clown distroying my treasures because they own a part of it.

 

Using your logic we should not geocache anywhere because thoughtless clowns will always exist. The fact is most of the thoughtless clowns out there aren't geocachers. The desert is visited by hundreds of thousands of campers, hikers and off-roaders each year. Geocachers are a tiny fraction of the visitors. Secondly, geocaching actually offers a way to educate park visitors to stay away from nearby sensitive areas. Information such as this and park rules are often posted on cache pages. This is proactive. To me this is a lot better than having some overzealous armchair quarterback being overreactive to a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction causing some potential issue in the park.

 

For the five billionith time, we had a blanket approval and guidelines for the park. The park is over 900+ square miles in size. So the rangers are not going to drive 20-30 miles to visit a cache everytime someone wants it approved. So I'm not sure what you are thinking. 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.

[+TrailGators]

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!

Not all naturalists are bad

 

My sister works as one in Minnesota and wishes geocaching would be more accepted to bring more visitors to various areas of the state and possibly bring more tourism into the state. There are two ends of the spectrum at work...and it too bad that Jorgenson feels that way. She doesn't geocache, but wishes it was more accepted...and she fights for it in her neck of the woods.

 

"If we are not going to share the wilderness...then what good is it to keep around..."

--I know this sounds extreme, but there is a bit of truth in that statement--

 

Anywho...good luck all!!!

AD, I totally agree that all naturalists are not bad. I think he really meant extreme naturalists. Those guys wish people didn't exist. By the way, I totally agree with your last statement!

[+ArcherDragoon]

Hey,

 

Yeah, the MNGCA had a run in with some extreme naturalists before getting a policy in place to be able to geocache in State Parks (still working on WMA's and whatnot)...the whole process was started before I started geocaching.

 

Now, just a little more than a year later (after the policy was adopted for our State Parks)...the DNR is using geocaching as part of the celebration for the state's 150th Statehood Celebration...go figure!!! It should be interesting...the whole things sounds great...I can't wait until it is launched!!!

 

I guess it is the ebb and flow of the times. Hopefully the battle (and I hope to use that loosely in this situation...) happening in your area will have a positive outcome. Things don't sound too great now, but we can always hope.

 

Well, time to go again...thanks for the updates...I am sure many of us will check back often to see how this goes. Good Luck!!! I know you have a bunch of great cachers out there...good luck to all of you.

 

Later,

ArcherDragoon

[+mini cacher]

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".

[+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 agree that it won't make then change their minds because they wouldn't notice the obvious. But why not support the parks that support us? We currently don't have any CITO events adjacent BLM land and they have been very supportive. So in my view they deserve the CITOs more.

[+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....

[Luckless]

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.

[+mini cacher]

@Trailgators: Indeed. It just sucks that it ends up being a lose-lose all around. But there is a certain amount of "principle" involved.