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

[+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!

 

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

It does SD! Go into the Control Panel and click on "Manage Ignored Users." Edited January 23, 2008 by TrailGators

[+Miragee]

<snip>

 

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. <snip>

No there is not . . . !!! That statment is false.

 

I have found many caches in ABDSP and they were NOT

. . . in very sensitive locales. Caches have been removed from archeological sites, paleontological areas, bighorn sheep watering sites and in sensitive caves."

In fact, when I was in the mudcave area, there were two of us negotiating its twists and turns. Our progress was stopped a couple of times because of the crowd of people, families with their children, teenagers, and couples who were also in the cave that day. There were easily more than sixty other people in the cave that day. We wondered where the Greyhound bus had parked . . .

 

The cache we were heading towards was not in the cave and had only been found about six times in the past year. How could six people over a year's time cause any damage when the area is open to crowds of other people?

[+TrailGators]

<snip>

 

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. <snip>

No there is not . . . !!! That statment is false.

 

I have found many caches in ABDSP and they were NOT

. . . in very sensitive locales. Caches have been removed from archeological sites, paleontological areas, bighorn sheep watering sites and in sensitive caves."

In fact, when I was in the mudcave area, there were two of us negotiating its twists and turns. Our progress was stopped a couple of times because of the crowd of people, families with their children, teenagers, and couples who were also in the cave that day. There were easily more than sixty other people in the cave that day. We wondered where the Greyhound bus had parked . . .

 

The cache we were heading towards was not in the cave and had only been found about six times in the past year. How could six people over a year's time cause any damage when the area is open to crowds of other people?

 

I have never seen one either Miragee. This thread shows our side of the story. That false statement is theirs...

[+scuba dude]

It does SD! Go into the Control Panel and click on "Manage Ignored Users."

 

Thanks!

[+egami]

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

 

I understand this...you haven't told me anything I am not perfectly aware of from reading the thread.

[+egami]

<snip>

 

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. <snip>

No there is not . . . !!! That statment is false.

 

I have found many caches in ABDSP and they were NOT

. . . in very sensitive locales. Caches have been removed from archeological sites, paleontological areas, bighorn sheep watering sites and in sensitive caves."

In fact, when I was in the mudcave area, there were two of us negotiating its twists and turns. Our progress was stopped a couple of times because of the crowd of people, families with their children, teenagers, and couples who were also in the cave that day. There were easily more than sixty other people in the cave that day. We wondered where the Greyhound bus had parked . . .

 

The cache we were heading towards was not in the cave and had only been found about six times in the past year. How could six people over a year's time cause any damage when the area is open to crowds of other people?

 

Ok, that's your side of it...I am not contesting your side. I am only saying that I would like to hear their side of it...is that unreasonable?

[+TrailGators]

<snip>

 

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. <snip>

No there is not . . . !!! That statment is false.

 

I have found many caches in ABDSP and they were NOT

. . . in very sensitive locales. Caches have been removed from archeological sites, paleontological areas, bighorn sheep watering sites and in sensitive caves."

In fact, when I was in the mudcave area, there were two of us negotiating its twists and turns. Our progress was stopped a couple of times because of the crowd of people, families with their children, teenagers, and couples who were also in the cave that day. There were easily more than sixty other people in the cave that day. We wondered where the Greyhound bus had parked . . .

 

The cache we were heading towards was not in the cave and had only been found about six times in the past year. How could six people over a year's time cause any damage when the area is open to crowds of other people?

 

Ok, that's your side of it...I am not contesting your side. I am only saying that I would like to hear their side of it...is that unreasonable?

Do you think it's reasonable to expect to hear from those rangers in these threads? Do you think it's reasonable for us to refute the false statement they made that you just posted? Do you think it's reasonable that we post the facts of strange things that they are now doing? Edited January 23, 2008 by TrailGators

[+egami]

Do you think it's reasonable to expect to hear from those rangers in these threads? Do you think it's reasonable for us to refute the false statement they made that you just posted? Do you think it's reasonable that we post the facts of strange things that they are now doing?

 

Don't confound the issue...if it's reasonable for you to challenge these statements on the forums then it's also reasonable for me to assert that this is STILL an incredibly one-sided story. Again, I never refuted anything, the point was simply a statement of fact...it was never an expectation to hear the side of it here. You can refute whatever you like here...it's an open Internet forum.

 

Frankly, this thread has been largely belly-aching and whining about a situation that clearly needs a more level-headed, clear cut approach to lobby them to allow this activity. Maybe what would be more constructive is to create a new thread dedicated to this effort...maybe someone here that has so much passion, and can get past their cyber-venting, could lead this effort and get the story in the local newspaper and start taking the positive, forward-moving steps it's going to take to get things changed.

 

But, right now, all I see (for the most part) is whining. And I see a one-sided story....which certainly appears to have a great deal of merit. So, if this one-sided story DOES have merit...conventional wisdom would suggest to me to get motivated and start organizing to get this reversed.

 

However, again, I never asserted anyones contentions here were false and I never expected the side of the story to be published here...I merely made a simple, factual comment that the three of you took WAY out of context and flamed me for...

Edited January 23, 2008 by egami

[+TrailGators]

Do you think it's reasonable to expect to hear from those rangers in these threads? Do you think it's reasonable for us to refute the false statement they made that you just posted? Do you think it's reasonable that we post the facts of strange things that they are now doing?

 

Don't confound the issue...if it's reasonable for you to challenge these statements on the forums then it's also reasonable for me to assert that this is STILL an incredibly one-sided story. Again, I never refuted anything, the point was simply a statement of fact...it was never an expectation to hear the side of it here. You can refute whatever you like here...it's an open Internet forum.

 

Frankly, this thread has been largely belly-aching and whining about a situation that clearly needs a more level-headed, clear cut approach to lobby them to allow this activity. Maybe what would be more constructive is to create a new thread dedicated to this effort...maybe someone here that has so much passion, and can get past their cyber-venting, could lead this effort and get the story in the local newspaper and start taking the positive, forward-moving steps it's going to take to get things changed.

 

But, right now, all I see is whining. And I see a one-sided story....which certainly appears to have a great deal of merit. So, if this one-sided story DOES have merit...conventional wisdom would suggest to me to get motivated and start organizing to get this reversed.

 

However, again, I never asserted anyones contentions here were false and I never expected the side of the story to be published here...I merely made a simple, factual comment that the three of you took WAY out of context and flamed me for...

It's been nice talking to you....

 

IGNORE USER <click>

[+egami]

It's been nice talking to you....

 

IGNORE USER <click>

 

Good luck getting caching back in the park with that attitude...I am fearful that's the very attitude that got caching kicked out of the park to begin with...

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

I know actually taking this stance won't exactly endear Mr Jorgensen to our activity, but......

How the heck can ya regulate/prohibit someone from basically printing directions to a spot on a website?

 

That isn't what he is regulating...he is regulating the cache existing on the property.

He can request that Groundspeak remove the listing, which they would almost certainly do promptly.

[+TrailGators]

I know actually taking this stance won't exactly endear Mr Jorgensen to our activity, but......

How the heck can ya regulate/prohibit someone from basically printing directions to a spot on a website?

That isn't what he is regulating...he is regulating the cache existing on the property.

He can request that Groundspeak remove the listing, which they would almost certainly do promptly.

Groundspeak has been very cooperative. Not only had they been archiving any cache that was questioned prior to this change in policy, but now they are archiving every cache in the park to comply with the new policy. The strategy is that cooperation gives the best chance at having future successful negotiations with the CA State Park officials. We can always put caches back if the policy can once again be changed in our favor. I agree with this strategy. Edited January 23, 2008 by TrailGators

[+egami]

I know actually taking this stance won't exactly endear Mr Jorgensen to our activity, but......

How the heck can ya regulate/prohibit someone from basically printing directions to a spot on a website?

 

That isn't what he is regulating...he is regulating the cache existing on the property.

He can request that Groundspeak remove the listing, which they would almost certainly do promptly.

 

You are taking that slightly out of context, iirc...someone was asking what authority that he had. I was stating the only thing HE has authority to is the removal of a physical cache.

 

I know he can contact Groundpsak to remove the cache and I believe I made that point later in the thread, so we agree on that aspect.

 

That person was trying to contest the concept of them being able to police the Internet, and technically that is true they can not.

Edited January 23, 2008 by egami

[+Team Cotati]

I know actually taking this stance won't exactly endear Mr Jorgensen to our activity, but......

How the heck can ya regulate/prohibit someone from basically printing directions to a spot on a website?

That isn't what he is regulating...he is regulating the cache existing on the property.

He can request that Groundspeak remove the listing, which they would almost certainly do promptly.

Groundspeak has been very cooperative. Not only had they been archiving any cache that was questioned prior to this change in policy, but now they are archiving every cache in the park to comply with the new policy. The strategy is that cooperation gives the best chance at having future successful negotiations with the CA State Park officials. We can always put caches back if the policy can once again be changed in our favor. I agree with this strategy.

 

I presume that since the park rangers are removing all physical geocaches from the park, that when you say "put caches back" you are meaning new physical caches. Is that correct? Is there a presumption that archived caches will not be removed?

 

"comply with the new policy." The new policy somehow addresses caches that have been archived but left in place?

Edited January 23, 2008 by Team Cotati

[+egami]

I know actually taking this stance won't exactly endear Mr Jorgensen to our activity, but......

How the heck can ya regulate/prohibit someone from basically printing directions to a spot on a website?

That isn't what he is regulating...he is regulating the cache existing on the property.

He can request that Groundspeak remove the listing, which they would almost certainly do promptly.

Groundspeak has been very cooperative. Not only had they been archiving any cache that was questioned prior to this change in policy, but now they are archiving every cache in the park to comply with the new policy. The strategy is that cooperation gives the best chance at having future successful negotiations with the CA State Park officials. We can always put caches back if the policy can once again be changed in our favor. I agree with this strategy.

 

I presume that since the park rangers are removing all physical geocaches from the park, that when you say "put caches back" you are meaning new physical caches. Is that correct? Is there a presumption that archived caches will not be removed?

 

"comply with the new policy." The new policy somehow addresses caches that have been archived but left in place?

 

I think they are hoping that a new policy will allow them to place caches back. My understanding is that all caches were removed due to the actions of the new head honcho and that there are merely hopes of a new policy allowing caching. So, by "placing caches back" that is hopefulness and contingent on a potential change.

 

Right now the only ones being allowed are earthcaches by approval.

[+Team Cotati]

"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."

 

I wonder if MissJenn comprehends that? If so, what did the park management have to say? I can for sure tell you this. If what you say there is true and their is no superceeding policy, the the "new guy" has the right of his authority to change any prior 'policy' that deems to not be in the best interest of the park. If no one to whom he reports tells him otherwise, then he will do as he sees fit. In my opinion, if there is no superceeding policy in place, his superiors are very unilkely to over rule him because they would have nothing but an out of policy decision made by his predecessor to back them up.

 

This doesn't mean that a change is impossible, but I think that it is unlikely.

We know for example, that their volunteer organization is dead set against geocaching and they are on site every day working right beside the rangers and other staff.

Edited January 24, 2008 by Team Cotati

[+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."

 

I wonder if MissJenn comprehends that? If so, what did the park management have to say? I can for tell you this. If what you say there is true and their is no superceeding policy, the the "new guy" has the right of his authority to change any prior 'policy' that deems to not be in the best interest of the park. If no one to whom he reports tells him otherwise, then he will do as he sees fit. In my opinion, if there is no superceeding policy in place, his superiors are very unilkely to over rule him because they would have nothing but an out of policy decision made by his predecessor to back them up.

 

This doesn't mean that a change is impossible, but I think that it is unlikely.

We know for example, that their volunteer organization is dead set against geocaching and they are on site every day working right beside the rangers and other staff.

 

Which is why I said what I did earlier about the whining in the thread...I can understand and relate to the frustration...I'd be upset too, but nonetheless it is what it is and the only way to hope in building that bridge is by coordinating an effort to work with the park.

 

You and I may disagree on the likelihood of it...I think with effort it can be done. If pure bridge-building doesn't do it there is the more political approach. But it'll take work for sure...

[+Team Cotati]

If you had to guess, how many ABDSP geocaches have been archived to date?

[+egami]

No, idea...if I HAD to guess, 10...but I have no idea. I started following the topic when Kit posted this.

[+The NVG]

I am pulling for you guys out west. You guys abided by the rules and then the rules changed. But what changed? This should be communicated to you by the people/person making that decision. Probably, have to request an "audience."

 

In Iowa, and we don't have as many sensitive area as you guys out west. Myself and other cachers (I can't speak for IGO) work directly with Polk County (Home of the state capital, Des Moines) officials. For the Polk County Conservation Board event in April, we are even writing the cache page for them. Polk County realizes that geocaching brings visitors to its parks. Polk has developed a geocaching policy and the Polk County rep does a great job.

 

But if the personnel changed inside Polk County and decided caching negatively affects the environment, we would be as confused, bummed, and as disappointed as you guys.

 

Don't give up and work to get caching accepted like it was. Good luck, Iowa is pulling for you.

[+TrailGators]

If you had to guess, how many ABDSP geocaches have been archived to date?

If I had to guess I would say around 100. The goofy part is that Jorgensen changed the policy on Dec 21st, and immediately sent his rangers/volunteers out there to start taking caches and disposing of them. No time was given for cachers to go out and retreive their own personal property and a lot of these caches had geocoins and other valuable swag. To make matters worse, when some people went out their to get their caches and their caches were already gone and no note was posted on their cache page. They did post notes on the first few to get the message out but then stopped. So now people aren't going out there because they are confident that their caches are still there. It takes the better part of a day to drive out there, pick up caches and drive home. So why would people do this if they didn't know if their caches were still there? Jorgensen really botched this up. If he had given 60 days for everyone to pick up their caches, then the rangers wouldn't have even had to do it. The guy is not the brightest candle in the box. Edited January 24, 2008 by TrailGators

[+TrailGators]

I am pulling for you guys out west. You guys abided by the rules and then the rules changed. But what changed? This should be communicated to you by the people/person making that decision. Probably, have to request an "audience."

 

In Iowa, and we don't have as many sensitive area as you guys out west. Myself and other cachers (I can't speak for IGO) work directly with Polk County (Home of the state capital, Des Moines) officials. For the Polk County Conservation Board event in April, we are even writing the cache page for them. Polk County realizes that geocaching brings visitors to its parks. Polk has developed a geocaching policy and the Polk County rep does a great job.

 

But if the personnel changed inside Polk County and decided caching negatively affects the environment, we would be as confused, bummed, and as disappointed as you guys.

 

Don't give up and work to get caching accepted like it was. Good luck, Iowa is pulling for you.

Thanks! We will need some luck!

[+TrailGators]

"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."

Actually this is not true. We thought it was a new guy but Jorgensen has been out there for a few years. He just did a complete flip-flop on the policy with no proof. They found a hole dug and some rocks moved from an Indian cairn near one of the most popular spots in the desert, the morteros. They blamed geocachers because a geocache was 300 feet away, but their guidelines required only 200 feet. So the cache met their guidelines. Now they claim we are scaring the sheep. These are the same sheep that commonly graze next to the freaking highway in a 30 square mile park. They claimed numerous violations when they only informed us about one violation (which wasn't a violation) and now it's suddenly hundreds. I've never seen such blatant dishonesty in my entire life.

[+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...

 

Here is a photo of the area where that cache was located.

The rangers are picking up the geocaches in ABDSP "because they are litter...."

[4wheelin_fool]

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...

 

Here is a photo of the area where that cache was located.

The rangers are picking up the geocaches in ABDSP "because they are litter...."

 

What you could do is ask "permission" to hold a clean up event. After they say it is "okay", tell them that it is only contingent on if you could leave behind a few geocaches in the area so that your volunteers could monitor the area properly and the effort would not be a waste..

[+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...

 

Here is a photo of the area where that cache was located.

The rangers are picking up the geocaches in ABDSP "because they are litter...."

What you could do is ask "permission" to hold a clean up event. After they say it is "okay", tell them that it is only contingent on if you could leave behind a few geocaches in the area so that your volunteers could monitor the area properly and the effort would not be a waste..

Good idea. Actually we have been doing CITOs in the desert for a few years now. I always thought a CITO cache type was a good idea. Lots of people don't read the cache page but earning a CITO cache icon would be more effective at getting people to bring a trash bag along to areas like this.

[+WRASTRO]

Man...rock crawlin' in a Jeep is ok but hiding a can in a can is a problem for the park. This is twisted. Good luck in the negotiations. As has been noted we are dealing with similar issues here in latte land. No actual evidence yet, just folks flexing because they can.

[Ferreter5]

They claimed numerous violations when they only informed us about one violation (which wasn't a violation) and now it's suddenly hundreds.

With regard to their claims, is there a mechanism via which you can file for the park to produce their documentation on these issues? This is starting down the hardball route, but may eventually by necessary.

 

On another more friendly note, is it possible to visit the park office and nicely request a meeting with the supervisor/director?

[+Team Cotati]

If you had to guess, how many ABDSP geocaches have been archived to date?

If I had to guess I would say around 100. The goofy part is that Jorgensen changed the policy on Dec 21st, and immediately sent his rangers/volunteers out there to start taking caches and disposing of them. No time was given for cachers to go out and retreive their own personal property and a lot of these caches had geocoins and other valuable swag. To make matters worse, when some people went out their to get their caches and their caches were already gone and no note was posted on their cache page. They did post notes on the first few to get the message out but then stopped. So now people aren't going out there because they are confident that their caches are still there. It takes the better part of a day to drive out there, pick up caches and drive home. So why would people do this if they didn't know if their caches were still there? Jorgensen really botched this up. If he had given 60 days for everyone to pick up their caches, then the rangers wouldn't have even had to do it. The guy is not the brightest candle in the box.

 

At that rate all of the ABDSP geocaches could be archived within the next 3-4 weeks. I'll be keeping track on that. What do you think is the likely scenario wrt to the caches once they all have been archived?

[+Team Cotati]

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...

 

Here is a photo of the area where that cache was located.

The rangers are picking up the geocaches in ABDSP "because they are litter...."

What you could do is ask "permission" to hold a clean up event. After they say it is "okay", tell them that it is only contingent on if you could leave behind a few geocaches in the area so that your volunteers could monitor the area properly and the effort would not be a waste..

Good idea. Actually we have been doing CITOs in the desert for a few years now. I always thought a CITO cache type was a good idea. Lots of people don't read the cache page but earning a CITO cache icon would be more effective at getting people to bring a trash bag along to areas like this.

 

I can for sure tell you one thing. If I lived a lot closer to ABDSP, I'd be getting my little self over there pronto and I'd point out that gross litter and inquire of a ranger or volunteer as to when they thought that they might be getting around to cleaning it out. Yes, that's for sure what I'd be doing.

 

As a matter of fact, I passed very near this park on a late December trip to Arizona and had this been known to me then, I'd have made an exit at Indio and checked into this for myself.

 

And yes, this is a challenge.

Edited January 24, 2008 by Team Cotati

[+PhxChem]

Here is a photo of the area where that cache was located.

The rangers are picking up the geocaches in ABDSP "because they are litter...."

 

Did they really leave the cans? Something tells me they would be more motivated to pick up the caches to prove a point than to pick up actual litter....

[+Team Cotati]

Here is a photo of the area where that cache was located.

The rangers are picking up the geocaches in ABDSP "because they are litter...."

 

Did they really leave the cans? Something tells me they would be more motivated to pick up the caches to prove a point than to pick up actual litter....

 

I do not believe that the two are mutually exclusive. And unless there are one heckofa lot more of these cans than are shown in the photo, this ought ot be about one hours work for their volunteer teams. I'd be pretty surprised and disapointed if the state park system routinely used ranger resources to be trash collectors except on possibly a small scale. Except of course in the case of special projects like geocache removal. And when you review the volunteer's news letter, you will see that they (the volunteers) have been 'recruited' to assist in that as well.

 

Their volunteer team in my opinion cannot possibly know about this trash (the cans) or else it would have been removed long ago. Something just does not add up.

Edited January 24, 2008 by Team Cotati

[+TrailGators]

If you had to guess, how many ABDSP geocaches have been archived to date?

If I had to guess I would say around 100. The goofy part is that Jorgensen changed the policy on Dec 21st, and immediately sent his rangers/volunteers out there to start taking caches and disposing of them. No time was given for cachers to go out and retreive their own personal property and a lot of these caches had geocoins and other valuable swag. To make matters worse, when some people went out their to get their caches and their caches were already gone and no note was posted on their cache page. They did post notes on the first few to get the message out but then stopped. So now people aren't going out there because they are confident that their caches are still there. It takes the better part of a day to drive out there, pick up caches and drive home. So why would people do this if they didn't know if their caches were still there? Jorgensen really botched this up. If he had given 60 days for everyone to pick up their caches, then the rangers wouldn't have even had to do it. The guy is not the brightest candle in the box.

At that rate all of the ABDSP geocaches could be archived within the next 3-4 weeks. I'll be keeping track on that. What do you think is the likely scenario wrt to the caches once they all have been archived?

If they gotten 100 in a month and there are 358 caches it will take another 8-10 weeks to get the rest. It may take longer than that because many of the caches they haven't retreived are high terrain caches. However, they may not even bother with those since they are so seldom visited.

 

The likely scenario is that we won't be caching in ABDSP for awhile....

Edited January 25, 2008 by TrailGators

[+Team Cotati]

If you had to guess, how many ABDSP geocaches have been archived to date?

If I had to guess I would say around 100. The goofy part is that Jorgensen changed the policy on Dec 21st, and immediately sent his rangers/volunteers out there to start taking caches and disposing of them. No time was given for cachers to go out and retreive their own personal property and a lot of these caches had geocoins and other valuable swag. To make matters worse, when some people went out their to get their caches and their caches were already gone and no note was posted on their cache page. They did post notes on the first few to get the message out but then stopped. So now people aren't going out there because they are confident that their caches are still there. It takes the better part of a day to drive out there, pick up caches and drive home. So why would people do this if they didn't know if their caches were still there? Jorgensen really botched this up. If he had given 60 days for everyone to pick up their caches, then the rangers wouldn't have even had to do it. The guy is not the brightest candle in the box.

At that rate all of the ABDSP geocaches could be archived within the next 3-4 weeks. I'll be keeping track on that. What do you think is the likely scenario wrt to the caches once they all have been archived?

If they gotten 100 in a month and there are 358 caches it will take another 8-10 weeks to get the rest. It may take longer than that because many of the caches they haven't retreived are high terrain caches. However, they may not even bother with those since they are so seldom visited.

 

The likely scenario is that we won't be caching in ABDSP for awhile....

 

Uh, I don't believe that the terrain has anything to do with archiving a geocache. Since the owners aren't being given the opportunity to pick them up, that takes terrain out of the equation in any event, doesn't it?

 

This is getting kind of hard to follow. One minute it is the rangers ware picking up geocaches and the next it seems to be someone else. Which is it?

Edited January 25, 2008 by Team Cotati

[+briansnat]

 

This might sound ridiculous, but at a certain point rubbish becomes an archaeological site. Depending on

how long this stuff has been there, it is possible that it might be considered to be "historic" and that's why

it was left.

 

It doesn't have to be all that old either. I was working on a trail cleanup and we weren't allowed to touch some old, abandoned cars because they were considered to be an archaeological site by the state.

[+TrailGators]

Uh, I don't believe that the terrain has anything to do with archiving a geocache.

Really? Let's see how long it takes you to hike up to a 4 terrain cache to retreive it versus retreiving the easy caches they have been picking up. The point I was making is that the retreival/archiving process will slow down once they are left with all the tough terrain caches out there. Edited January 25, 2008 by TrailGators

[+TrailGators]

 

This might sound ridiculous, but at a certain point rubbish becomes an archaeological site. Depending on

how long this stuff has been there, it is possible that it might be considered to be "historic" and that's why

it was left.

 

It doesn't have to be all that old either. I was working on a trail cleanup and we weren't allowed to touch some old, abandoned cars because they were considered to be an archaeological site by the state.

 

The funniest part is that people actually get paid to study that stuff....

[+scuba dude]

 

This might sound ridiculous, but at a certain point rubbish becomes an archaeological site. Depending on

how long this stuff has been there, it is possible that it might be considered to be "historic" and that's why

it was left.

 

It doesn't have to be all that old either. I was working on a trail cleanup and we weren't allowed to touch some old, abandoned cars because they were considered to be an archaeological site by the state.

 

Yeah, it's gotten to the point of stupidity. Government sponsored archiologists have decided that anything over 50 years old is now to be protected. Seriously?! 50? What do they expect to "learn" about our society that we don't already have ample proof of? The same goes for something 100 years old. Are we going to "learn" that people used saws and had glass bottles and tin cans? We have a fully understanding of where, how and why people lived in places for hunders of years.

 

I can understand the trash of a pre-historic group can reveal some things about thier society, but the short time frames impossed today are rediculous.

 

SD

[+Team Cotati]

Uh, I don't believe that the terrain has anything to do with archiving a geocache.

Really? Let's see how long it takes you to hike up to a 4 terrain cache to retreive it versus retreiving the easy caches they have been picking up. The point I was making is that the retreival/archiving process will slow down once they are left with all the tough terrain caches out there.

 

Thank you for clearing that up. I didn't realize that such a high percentage of the 358 geocaches there fell into the terrain 4 category. No wonder the rangers will be taking so long to hike there and grab them. I wouldn't be surprised if it took the better part of a year to get them all, if they ever do.

[+Team Cotati]

 

This might sound ridiculous, but at a certain point rubbish becomes an archaeological site. Depending on

how long this stuff has been there, it is possible that it might be considered to be "historic" and that's why

it was left.

 

It doesn't have to be all that old either. I was working on a trail cleanup and we weren't allowed to touch some old, abandoned cars because they were considered to be an archaeological site by the state.

 

Yeah, it's gotten to the point of stupidity. Government sponsored archiologists have decided that anything over 50 years old is now to be protected. Seriously?! 50? What do they expect to "learn" about our society that we don't already have ample proof of? The same goes for something 100 years old. Are we going to "learn" that people used saws and had glass bottles and tin cans? We have a fully understanding of where, how and why people lived in places for hunders of years.

 

I can understand the trash of a pre-historic group can reveal some things about thier society, but the short time frames impossed today are rediculous.

 

SD

 

Yet you must still comply. Frustrating isn't it?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

This whole tempest reminds me of a quote from Mr. Gates

Life is not fair; get used to it.

and one from a sign in my Dad's shop

He who hath the gold maketh the rules!

Edited January 25, 2008 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+fastforty]

I can understand the trash of a pre-historic group can reveal some things about thier society, but the short time frames impossed today are rediculous.

They are saving it for future generations, just in case some semblance of intelligence returns to the human race

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

I can understand the trash of a pre-historic group can reveal some things about thier society, but the short time frames impossed today are rediculous.

They are saving it for future generations, just in case some semblance of intelligence returns to the human race

 

I've always thought it would be cool if some future Archeologist found my preserved body 10,000 years from now and studied it see how life today was.

 

Of course it would be even cooler if I could tell him in person, but you know how that is.

Edited January 25, 2008 by Cpt.Blackbeard

[+Team Cotati]

Uh, I don't believe that the terrain has anything to do with archiving a geocache.

Really? Let's see how long it takes you to hike up to a 4 terrain cache to retreive it versus retreiving the easy caches they have been picking up. The point I was making is that the retreival/archiving process will slow down once they are left with all the tough terrain caches out there.

 

I didn't use the 'R' word, you did.

 

Yes, really 'tis true.

Edited January 25, 2008 by Team Cotati

[+TrailGators]

Uh, I don't believe that the terrain has anything to do with archiving a geocache.

Really? Let's see how long it takes you to hike up to a 4 terrain cache to retreive it versus retreiving the easy caches they have been picking up. The point I was making is that the retreival/archiving process will slow down once they are left with all the tough terrain caches out there.

 

I didn't use the 'R' word, you did.

 

Yes, really 'tis true.

I'm not sure what you mean, but let's just drop it.... Edited January 25, 2008 by TrailGators

[+TrailGators]

I've always thought it would be cool if some future Archeologist found my preserved body 10,000 years from now and studied it see how life today was.

 

Of course it would be even cooler if I could tell him in person, but you know how that is.

Maybe they'll find some rusty Old Milwaukee cans and conclude that it got no better than that....

[+WRASTRO]

I hope I am wrong but I had a bunch of red flags go up when I saw this post on another thread. I don't know how to do the right copy and paste stuff to get this to show up correctly so I have tried coloring things so you can see the flow. I question why this information has not been shared previously in this thread.

 

QUOTE(Kit Fox @ Jan 26 2008, 03:59 PM)

 

QUOTE(rlridgeway @ Jan 26 2008, 03:29 PM)

 

Rogue geocachers spreading out across the land.

Oh , the humanity.

 

 

440 Caches are currently being removed from Anza-Borrego Desert State Park Because of "Rogue Geocachers."

 

Another geocacher contacted the superintendant, and i've got a copy of his reply. All physical caches are being removed and the only cache type being allowed is Earthcaches, with explicit approval. Actions of a few might not affect your area yet.

 

A few quotes from the superintendant:

 

(1)In Anza-Borrego, with 70% of the area designated as State Wilderness, it is most appropriate to transition to virtual caches, rather than have ammo cans and tupperwares in the wild areas.

 

(2)Well, the law on littering is probably most appropriate. Even geocaching.com’s own written policy supposedly claims that cachers need to get permission from landowners before placing a cache. As you say, the behind the scenes “little secret” is that many cachers place geocaches wherever they want and let the landowner deal with it later, or not at all. Well, here in Anza-Borrego we are dealing with it. The magnitude calls for a clean-up. The notice went out a month ago, and geocachers have been issued a notice to retrieve there boxes from park lands.

 

(3) I have been here in Anza-Borrego for thirty-three years and have never once had an official request to place a geocache in this park. One of the District seasonal archeologists worked to minimize the impacts of geocaches on cultural sites, but authorization was never obtained to place caches in Anza-Borrego. “Tacit Approval” or “No one ever told us we couldn’t do it” does not constitute permission.

 

(4)And what happened to the saying, “Leave it better than you found it”? We usually do not clear out what appears to possibly be a historic dump site. I can assure you my staff and I pick up many tons of litter, trash, and abandoned couches, refrigerators, pianos, and washing machines every season out here.

 

5. Have any cachers even tried to work with the park yet to get a policy?

 

Not until the past month, after I sent a notice to geocaching.com to request removal of the 440 documented geocaches, and the hundreds of others which no doubt exist but are on other websites or pirate sites.

 

 

Whoa...

 

Have you shared this information with the folks involved in the situation at Anza-Borrego? I haven't seen any of this shared in the thread you mentioned. And I went to double check just to make sure my memory wasn't failing me. I hope I am wrong, but I have all sorts of red flags going up right now.

[+Renegade Knight]

....(2)Well, the law on littering is probably most appropriate. Even geocaching.com’s own written policy supposedly claims that cachers need to get permission from landowners before placing a cache. As you say, the behind the scenes “little secret” is that many cachers place geocaches wherever they want and let the landowner deal with it later, or not at all. Well, here in Anza-Borrego we are dealing with it. The magnitude calls for a clean-up. The notice went out a month ago, and geocachers have been issued a notice to retrieve there boxes from park lands....

 

This quote and especially the bold part tells you exactly what kind of person you are dealing with.

The part in italics tells you how far they are willing to bend rules to achieve their goals.

The rest gives you an idea of the depth to which the new policy has grown roots.

[+Kit Fox]

 

Whoa...

 

Have you shared this information with the folks involved in the situation at Anza-Borrego? I haven't seen any of this shared in the thread you mentioned. And I went to double check just to make sure my memory wasn't failing me. I hope I am wrong, but I have all sorts of red flags going up right now.

 

I just received the info today. That is only half of Mr. Jorgenson's replies.

[+FireRef]

Permission issues aside, this guy is completely clueless about the geocaching community as a whole. On the permission issue, he is correct. However, designating an area as an archeological site because it has 50 year old garbage and then protecting it, but complaining about some ammo boxes and tupperware containers left in places where they are generally out of sight and out of mind, except for the geocaching community, is ludicrous.

 

The concept of sensitive areas is also a little silly to me sometimes. We have farmers who can't use huge chunks of their land because they were designated as wetlands after the farmer purchased them. This is taking huge chunks of public, state or federal parks, and saying "we can't let people go into this public place"... that doesn't make sense either.

 

But life is unfair... so much for a free country.