Jump to content

Geocaching and the Forest Service :angry:


Recommended Posts

When you say most, would that be closer to 51% or 99%? I've been a cop since '82, which means I've dealt with many different law enforcement agencies for the last 26 years or so. Probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 different departments. None of them use badge numbers. That puts my ratio at 0%. Of course than means there are still gazillions of agencies out there which I haven't had personal contact with. Maybe those are the ones still using the antiquated badge number system?

(On a side note, many of the cops I know, who are exasperated at having to explain that badge numbers went out with Hawaii 5-0, will give citizens their employee ID number when asked for a badge number, rather than attempt to educate someone whose mind is already made up. Personally, I think this only exacerbates the problem, as the citizen will walk away from the encounter thinking that there really is such a thing as badge numbers)

 

I rarely get involved in these types of discussions. I usually just shake my head and move on... But this just seems like such an odd issue to have caused people to have become "exasperated." The patrol officers where I work have badge numbers. So do all the surrounding cities and counties. My badge had a number too, until I promoted. Now my badge has my rank insignia.

 

I also happen to know that Los Angeles PD, the California Highway Patrol, and the New York PD all have numbers on their badges (I have seen them). Maybe they are just backward and antiquated departments though.

 

But to get back to the OP’s topic, Rangers, just like police and sheriffs deputies, are people. We all have baggage, and sometimes it spills over into our work lives. That being said, it does not excuse poor behavior.

 

I like to assume the best of people. In law enforcement we tend to see people at their worst. Let’s face it, no body calls the police when the love of their life proposes marriage, or their first child is born. Then call us when their drunk husband is breaking down the door, or their kid is wrecking the living room.

 

I’ll be the first to admit, it gets to you, and every so often you can’t help but unload on some poor person who has gotten them selves into a mess and wants me to get them out. Again, that does not make it right. But we are all people.

 

In the case of the casual cachers? Who knows. While this may be the first time you have run into this particular ranger, it may be the 200th time the ranger has had to explain that park rules prohibit caching. Again, unloading on someone who has nothing to do with the previous 199 cachers is not productive, but it happens, because rangers are people too.

 

There are just some professions where "we are people too" doesn't cut it. A doctor who is having a bad day shouldn't decide "well, I just lost 4 patients in a row, so why should I bother with this operation, he is only going to die anyway" or "i just got punched in the mouth by one of my patients husband, so I am not going to give the best care possible." Law enforcement should follow the same concept. I understand the job is more stressful than most. You see crap everyday that makes you question humanity's nature. I have friends who are police officers in Philadelphia and the stories they tell me can bring you to tears. But it still does not excuse you to go wail on anyone you choose just because you see bad things. If a ranger has to deal with a bunch of drink rednecks hunting in the woods, and snide teenagers skinny dipping in the lake, then a rude driver going to fast on the access roads, that doesn't give him the right to go get nasty and intimidating with someone else in the park who is doing something completely legal and bothering nobody. I am sorry if I am coming off angry about this, but I do not want to hear excuses for the behavior and conduct of some meathead who is too ignorant to do some research on a subject before he starts paying lip service to a law abiding citizen. We pay too much taxes, have to put up with too much government, and deal with too much crap to have to have our day and hobby ruined by some power abusing meat head. Again, no excuses.

Edited by nthacker66
Link to comment

When you say most, would that be closer to 51% or 99%? I've been a cop since '82, which means I've dealt with many different law enforcement agencies for the last 26 years or so. Probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 different departments. None of them use badge numbers. That puts my ratio at 0%. Of course than means there are still gazillions of agencies out there which I haven't had personal contact with. Maybe those are the ones still using the antiquated badge number system?

(On a side note, many of the cops I know, who are exasperated at having to explain that badge numbers went out with Hawaii 5-0, will give citizens their employee ID number when asked for a badge number, rather than attempt to educate someone whose mind is already made up. Personally, I think this only exacerbates the problem, as the citizen will walk away from the encounter thinking that there really is such a thing as badge numbers)

 

I rarely get involved in these types of discussions. I usually just shake my head and move on... But this just seems like such an odd issue to have caused people to have become "exasperated." The patrol officers where I work have badge numbers. So do all the surrounding cities and counties. My badge had a number too, until I promoted. Now my badge has my rank insignia.

 

I also happen to know that Los Angeles PD, the California Highway Patrol, and the New York PD all have numbers on their badges (I have seen them). Maybe they are just backward and antiquated departments though.

 

But to get back to the OP’s topic, Rangers, just like police and sheriffs deputies, are people. We all have baggage, and sometimes it spills over into our work lives. That being said, it does not excuse poor behavior.

 

I like to assume the best of people. In law enforcement we tend to see people at their worst. Let’s face it, no body calls the police when the love of their life proposes marriage, or their first child is born. Then call us when their drunk husband is breaking down the door, or their kid is wrecking the living room.

 

I’ll be the first to admit, it gets to you, and every so often you can’t help but unload on some poor person who has gotten them selves into a mess and wants me to get them out. Again, that does not make it right. But we are all people.

 

In the case of the casual cachers? Who knows. While this may be the first time you have run into this particular ranger, it may be the 200th time the ranger has had to explain that park rules prohibit caching. Again, unloading on someone who has nothing to do with the previous 199 cachers is not productive, but it happens, because rangers are people too.

 

There are just some professions where "we are people too" doesn't cut it. A doctor who is having a bad day shouldn't decide "well, I just lost 4 patients in a row, so why should I bother with this operation, he is only going to die anyway" or "i just got punched in the mouth by one of my patients husband, so I am not going to give the best care possible." Law enforcement should follow the same concept. I understand the job is more stressful than most. You see crap everyday that makes you question humanity's nature. I have friends who are police officers in Philadelphia and the stories they tell me can bring you to tears. But it still does not excuse you to go wail on anyone you choose just because you see bad things. If a ranger has to deal with a bunch of drink rednecks hunting in the woods, and snide teenagers skinny dipping in the lake, then a rude driver going to fast on the access roads, that doesn't give him the right to go get nasty and intimidating with someone else in the park who is doing something completely legal and bothering nobody. I am sorry if I am coming off angry about this, but I do not want to hear excuses for the behavior and conduct of some meathead who is too ignorant to do some research on a subject before he starts paying lip service to a law abiding citizen. We pay too much taxes, have to put up with too much government, and deal with too much crap to have to have our day and hobby ruined by some power abusing meat head. Again, no excuses.

 

Perhaps... if we as a society could put our "self centered egos" on a back shelf along with the "attitude" that comes along with most of them and not feed off of or belittle another's "ego" just to empower our own, live and let live...just "be" in the moment, then maybe, just maybe, we would find ourselves living in a world of true peace with each other.

 

In order to truly understand this concept you must first let go of your "ego". :unsure:

Link to comment

... it still does not excuse you to go wail on anyone you choose just because you see bad things.

I agree. And maybe I was not clear, I was never talking about assaulting or intimidating someone, I was talking about telling people they just did something stupid without using all the current politically correct jargon that keeps some stupid people feeling warm and rosey inside.

 

If a ranger has to deal with a bunch of drink rednecks hunting in the woods, and snide teenagers skinny dipping in the lake, then a rude driver going to fast on the access roads, that doesn't give him the right to go get nasty and intimidating with someone else in the park who is doing something completely legal and bothering nobody. I am sorry if I am coming off angry about this, but I do not want to hear excuses for the behavior and conduct of some meathead who is too ignorant to do some research on a subject before he starts paying lip service to a law abiding citizen. We pay too much taxes, have to put up with too much government, and deal with too much crap to have to have our day and hobby ruined by some power abusing meat head. Again, no excuses.

I think I said this, didn't I? I think I said "that does not make it right", and that it "is not productive". I don't disagree with what you have said. And we do pay WAY too much money for WAY too much government. But I think you miss the point. If you have some evidence to show that rangers are not people I would love to hear it. I'm almost positive that all the rangers I have encountered were real live people. Some of them were nice, others I could tell probably had failed the background and/or psychological testing for police/sheriff jobs. But they were all people.

Link to comment
Who said anything about being intimidated?

Good point. I have never been intimidated by "authority" figures, although there have been many times when we did not see eye to eye. Often I ended up being in the right. Sometimes I was wrong. In all cases I tipped my hat, bid them "Adieu" and resolved the issue later, without conflict. It has nothing to do with intimidation.

Unfortunately, I think most people, whose encounters with LEO are often in the realm of traffic stops and such, ARE intimidated by "the badge." (with or without a number) :unsure:

 

In general, cops expect this and generally let the rude comments of the general public "roll off." Very seldom does an LEO respond in kind, but rather they respond "Sir... Ma'am" in a very respectful manner.

 

I have seen the world from both sides (as have most LEO) and when I have an encounter with LEO there is at the same time a "camaraderie" and a little intimidation. the intimidation is human nature. The citizen, whether he/she has knowingly done anything wrong or not, still envisions losing their freedom in the next few minutes, perhaps for something they did not even do or know they did.

 

A simple case in point is the innumerable fish and wildlife regulations that vary all over the place from different jurisdictions and even different seasons or times of day. Thes regs are typically extremely technical and to be expected to know and understand them all is ridiculous, especially for an out-of-towner.

Edit clarification:I am not referring to the regulations that apply to the sport you are doing... If you are fishing or hunting it is VERY reasonable to expect you to know what the specific regs are for your sport. rather I am referring to those regs that ASSUME you are hunting or fishing if you posses certain items under certain conditions or at certain times... like ferinstance "spotlighting" regulations that might be encountered by a night time cacher.

 

So the ranger stops you and starts asking questions. The general thought is "let's reassure him/her that we are doing nothing wrong and the quicker he/she moves on the better. We don't want him going through our backpacks and finding those small plastic zip-lock bags or whatever else might be there that runs afoul of some unknown and most likely ridiculous regulation imposed to stop some rarely encountered offense like killing a fly with an atom bomb."

 

I believe it is the common (mis?)conception that if an LEO looks hard enough, they can ALWAYS find something to arrest you for. Therefore people who "have nothing to hide" generally tend to be somewhat intimidated. Their right to hide what is not necessary to be hidden is the essence of our 4th and 5th amendment rights. Thank God (and our forefathers, military service persons, and LEOs) that we have those constitutional protections.

 

There was a commercial once that advised booking a room for the out-of-town auditor in an inferior hotel so he would keep his visit SHORT. "He's an AUDITOR, we don't want him to have the comfort of (the good hotel name), we WANT him to leave."

 

That's the kind of intimidation we feel.

Edited by Confucius' Cat
Link to comment

If a ranger has to deal with a bunch of drink rednecks hunting in the woods, and snide teenagers skinny dipping in the lake, then a rude driver going to fast on the access roads, that doesn't give him the right to go get nasty and intimidating with someone else in the park who is doing something completely legal and bothering nobody. I am sorry if I am coming off angry about this, but I do not want to hear excuses for the behavior and conduct of some meathead who is too ignorant to do some research on a subject before he starts paying lip service to a law abiding citizen. We pay too much taxes, have to put up with too much government, and deal with too much crap to have to have our day and hobby ruined by some power abusing meat head. Again, no excuses.

 

I think I said this, didn't I? I think I said "that does not make it right", and that it "is not productive". I don't disagree with what you have said. And we do pay WAY too much money for WAY too much government. But I think you miss the point. If you have some evidence to show that rangers are not people I would love to hear it. I'm almost positive that all the rangers I have encountered were real live people. Some of them were nice, others I could tell probably had failed the background and/or psychological testing for police/sheriff jobs. But they were all people.

It's cool. DIdn't mean to debate or argue either way any my rant is not so much aimed at you but more at the thought that some people think that "we are only human" is a valid excuse fo when we do something wrong WHEN it applies to professions that such an excuse is just not acceptable. Law enforcement is one of them. To give someone the right to enforce the law, carry a gun and have the ability to take someone's freedom away is one of a privelage and honor. The standards as such, SHOULD be held higher than most. The fact that it seems these standards have been diluted to the degree that you get these beefcake meatheads who shave their heads to look like a marine drill instructor and who seem to have the attitude such as "i am the law" that the power seems to corrupt their ood judegment. Mix in a "bad day" and you have a lit match to the fuse of a powder keg. I think #1 - Officers should be paid much more #2 - With the responsiblity should come higher stanards to earn the badge. I beleive ALL law enofrcement should have at the very minimum of 2 years of college in some sort of study related to law enforcement (crimina justice, sociology, etc.) WITH the promise that they will finish a 4 year degree (paid for by the department) or a 4 year degree in said study. I think the BLET programs shouldfocus more on the laws they are trying to enforce (perhaps extednign the training programs to accomodate this). Then once they graduate from BLEY/Academy they should have half time OJT and then half time learning the local laws (if it is a ranger become an encyclopedia about the park you are trying to enforce law in) after which they can be fully certified to enforce their jurisdiction. But education should not end there. They should be mandated to continue to take courses at colleges (of their own choice) mandated to hae additional training being updated on any changes to the law in their jurisdiction, mandated to cfontinue raining in public relations (basically teaching them the equivelant to bedside manners). There shoud be small changes such as toning down the attitude. Mandatding appearce (such as not allowing them to look like drill instructors)changes. And have some sort of annual training on how to conduct their duties without treating everyone as if they were suspects or doing something illegal.

With all of that being said, understand this. I am very much in favor of what our LEO's do. As I have said, have several very close friends that I have known since childhood for nearly 30 years now. When I get to see them hen I visit my old home field, I make sure that I ask them if they are keeping themselves safe. Then, when I leave them, I gvie them a hug, tell them I love them and make sure to watch themselves on the streets (these are philly cops). Because the last thing I want to do is get that call to come up because one of them got killed in the line of duty. I commend them and all LEO's fo doing such a dangerous job for little pay and less gratitude. I am grateful that we have a good law enforcement system that I know I can rely on to keep me and my family safe. I am grateful that when I am speeding and I get pulled over because I did't realize how fast I was going, that it knocks some sense back into me to pay closer attention to my speed. I am grateful that when I drive up to Philly, I see several state troopers along the way, makin sure the roads stay safe.

But, do not mistake my gratitude to their servitude for giving them a blank check to do whatever whenever they like. They too need to have oversight and checks and balances constantly because when thei power goes unchecked (i.e. he blue brotherhood) then bad things happen. After all, THEY ARE only human.

 

I am done with this topic of the thread. I apologize if I offend anyone, but I will not apologize for what I beleive.

 

Let's get back to doing what we all love to do - caching!

Link to comment
The standards as such, SHOULD be held higher than most.

Agreed!

Let's get back to doing what we all love to do - caching!

Agreed!

 

And who said we couldn't find anything to agree about ;-)

 

Keep up the good work and be safe on the streets man! And perhaps we will bump into one another someday out caching (so long as you don't shoot me ;-) )

Link to comment
The standards as such, SHOULD be held higher than most.

Agreed!

Actually, the standards ARE held higher than most and always have been. The big problem is that human nature does not lend itself easily either to measuring or predicting compliance with such standards.

 

Despite the fact that every officer has to meet very strict physical and psychological standards to be hired in the first place and then required training to keep the job, we still hear the many sensational cases of cops that kill their wives, steal from the department or the FOP, run drugs on the side, and those that throw away their careers over prostitutes.

 

Obviously the reason these cases ARE sensational and newsworthy IS because we DO hold LEOs to a high standard.

 

I would grant that these sensational cases are FAR less frequent among LEOs than in the general population and that incidents like the OP are also very rare, but there is little anyone can do to improve the situation.

 

The standards are already high. Being "human" does not excuse the bad behaviour, it only explains it. It is also a good argument for the diminishing returns of further restrictive standards on LEO.

Edited by Confucius' Cat
Link to comment

 

http://forestry.about.com/od/mappinggis/p/fed_geocache.htm should have some good answers and jumping points to start from. These are NOT the guidelines however of the forestry service. Best for the owners of the cache to check with the local forest rangers office and if the answers there are not satisfactory, take it to the next level.

 

dialing back to the original topic... that about.com article isn't very good (about par for about.com). its got one flat wrong entry (NPS websites specifically state all geocaching anywhere in any National Park is against federal law), and its got two contradictory paragraphs about NFS, so I dunno what to believe.

Link to comment
I just always assumed geocaching was illegal. Now that I suspect it's not, that takes a lot of the fun out of it...dadgummit!

 

And here I thought I was sticking it to the man!!

 

dialing back to the original topic...

 

Dial? What year is this? I often wonder what teenagers think when the phrase "dialing the phone" of "dialing the number" is still used, but dials, for the most case, are not.

 

Now if we could only dial down our frustrations....kay?

Link to comment
...its got one flat wrong entry (NPS websites specifically state all geocaching anywhere in any National Park is against federal law)...

I've obviously missed any mention of geocaching being forbidden in National Parks in any federal statute. Could you link me, please?

 

Apparently it has to do with "unattended property" on federal land. It appears the park superintendant may allow property to be left unattended at his/her discretion. Here's a quote from one NPS site (highlights are mine):

 

"36 CFR Section 2.22 - Property

Property may not be left unattended for periods longer than 24 hours.

*NOTE:

This is the section where the new trend of “Geocaching” would violate federal regulation when articles at the geocache site are left for over 24 hours. The superintendent may allow geocaching by listing the activity here, and setting conditions for the unattended property associated with the geocache. Requiring a permit cannot be a condition, as this regulation does not specifically authorize the issuance of permits. However, pursuant to §1.5(a), if it is necessary to establish a public use limit in order to adequately manage this activity, then a permit may be imposed.

 

here's the link

Link to comment
Your best bet is to be polite and ask for the officers badge number and then take it up with his/her supervisor.

I think badge numbers went out around the early 60's. Perhaps you could just read their nametag? It tickles me to no end when some squawker starts demanding my badge number. I take my badge off my shirt and hand it to them, telling them we don't have badge numbers, but if they can find a number on it, they are more than welcome to write it down. Then I offer to show them my Sheriff's Office ID, in case they think my nametag is a fake. To date, every single one of them has scrutinized my badge, searching for the number I already told them doesn't exist. I reckon they don't trust authority either. :huh: The most common response to this action is them stating words to the effect of, "I know you've got badge numbers. I've watched ____________ " (<--- insert lame 60's era cop show here) :)

 

Back on topic: Be polite, read their nametag, talk to their boss. Some forestry folks don't use nametags, so just ask them their name.

 

CHP (California Highway Patrol) have badge numbers so there are still some out there. My son has had two different individuals ask for his name and badge number. Both of them sent highly complimentary letters to his superiors. It isn't always bad when someone asks for your badge number.........

 

I've never been questioned by a park ranger but I have been questioned by city police in two different towns and also by two different CHP officers. I carry the folding geocacing card and haven't had a bad experience so far. Each of the times I was questioned ended quickly and amicably. Of course I always make sure I'm not breaking the law when I geocache.

Edited by Thrak
Link to comment
Of course than means there are still gazillions of agencies out there which I haven't had personal contact with. Maybe those are the ones still using the antiquated badge number system?

North Charleston PD still uses badge numbers. The numbers aren't actually on the badge, though, as badge numbers change every so often. Why? Don't ask me. I've only gotten shrugs when I ask.

 

Still use ten-codes, priority codes, and signals, too.

I'm pretty sure that the NYPD and LAPD also still use badge numbers (that are on the actual badge), as does Nashville/Davidson County Police, California Highway Patrol, and probably a honking lot of other departments.

Link to comment

It is amazing how far afield these threads can go. We seem to have gotten fixated on the badge number debate and the reason for the OP has gotten pushed to the side. I don't think any officer would argue much about what they call the id number. The point is that the OP was treated bad by this particular officious jerk on this particular occasion.

 

At this point I think the OP would be best to check with the owners or local reviewer to see if the caches in question need to have explicit permission. It would be nice to make sure before another cacher runs into this guy. If he wants to complain about how he was treated that is his business.

Link to comment

Apparently it has to do with "unattended property" on federal land. It appears the park superintendant may allow property to be left unattended at his/her discretion. Here's a quote from one NPS site (highlights are mine):

 

"36 CFR Section 2.22 - Property

Property may not be left unattended for periods longer than 24 hours....

 

hmm. I guess I got the idea it was flat prohibited by http://www.geocaching.com/about/hiding.aspx ...

 

You will be in violation of federal regulation by placing a cache in any area administered by the National Park Service (US). The National Park regulations are intended to protect the fragile environment, and historical and cultural areas found in the parks.

 

also the two NPS parks I most frequently visit, Death Valley NP and Yosemite NP both have statements to that effect in their literature. DV's park compendium states: “Geocaching” articles left at a geocache site unclaimed for over 24 hours will be considered abandoned property and impounded." which concurs with your section/quote above.

Link to comment
The standards as such, SHOULD be held higher than most.

Agreed!

Actually, the standards ARE held higher than most and always have been. The big problem is that human nature does not lend itself easily either to measuring or predicting compliance with such standards.

 

Despite the fact that every officer has to meet very strict physical and psychological standards to be hired in the first place and then required training to keep the job, we still hear the many sensational cases of cops that kill their wives, steal from the department or the FOP, run drugs on the side, and those that throw away their careers over prostitutes.

 

Obviously the reason these cases ARE sensational and newsworthy IS because we DO hold LEOs to a high standard.

 

I would grant that these sensational cases are FAR less frequent among LEOs than in the general population and that incidents like the OP are also very rare, but there is little anyone can do to improve the situation.

 

The standards are already high. Being "human" does not excuse the bad behaviour, it only explains it. It is also a good argument for the diminishing returns of further restrictive standards on LEO.

 

Well, the problem isnt that those standards already ARE high, it is in fact that they seem to be a one time deal. I think such standards should be "living" rather than dormant. I am certified in many aspects of what I do and most of those certifications must be renwed every 2 years to keep my knowledge of my field up to date. Some of those certs require more than just taking a test, rather demonstrating hands on knowledge. Doctors are required to renew their license to practice every 5 years I believe (correct me if I am wrong). All of these reviews are very difficult to maintain as they should be. While I understand that some LEO's do have to re-certify in some aspects of their jobs, I do not think they go far enough. Because of tax cuts that people love so much, that means such programs in these departments get cut. Do you lay off 4 police officers or lay off one psychologist who works directly with a department just for those officers. We cannot fully blame the good eggs gone bad because they were not psychologically fit to begin with (so we hope). Perhaps revamping the psychological testing and frequently re-testing would help. But again, if we do not provide the money to our public servents, how do we expect them to perform to their potential?

 

We could go into a deep rathole about this subject so I will leave it at that. But I think we can all agree on, arrogance, rudeness, superiority complexes and ignorance all have no place in law enforcement.

Link to comment
...its got one flat wrong entry (NPS websites specifically state all geocaching anywhere in any National Park is against federal law)...

I've obviously missed any mention of geocaching being forbidden in National Parks in any federal statute. Could you link me, please?

 

Apparently it has to do with "unattended property" on federal land. It appears the park superintendant may allow property to be left unattended at his/her discretion.

I was being a little bit facetious, though it was possible that statutes could have changed.

 

Actually, (working off previous knowledge, mind you) there are at least three different federal laws geocaching activities could fall under for someone to be charged. All of them though have a little clause that states to the effect "unless approved by superintendent." Meaning that it is not an outright prohibition. It is left to the judgment of the appropriate local authorities. I mean otherwise, I guess a few rangers would be loosing their jobs because they have given permission for caches in their parks.

 

Note: None of this applies to NFW land especially refuges. They come a completely different department and are much more restrict in what activities they can approve for their lands. I was told pretty much that local NFW authorities have little to no discretion in such matters.

 

The NPS prohibition is commonly misunderstood permission issue.

Link to comment
hmm. I guess I got the idea it was flat prohibited by http://www.geocaching.com/about/hiding.aspx ...

 

You will be in violation of federal regulation by placing a cache in any area administered by the National Park Service (US). The National Park regulations are intended to protect the fragile environment, and historical and cultural areas found in the parks.
also the two NPS parks I most frequently visit, Death Valley NP and Yosemite NP both have statements to that effect in their literature. DV's park compendium states: “Geocaching” articles left at a geocache site unclaimed for over 24 hours will be considered abandoned property and impounded." which concurs with your section/quote above.
National parks and national forests are different things.
Link to comment

Well, the problem isnt that those standards already ARE high, it is in fact that they seem to be a one time deal. I think such standards should be "living" rather than dormant.

 

Please visit the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) web page at http://www.post.ca.gov/. Along the top you will see a tab for training. Take some time and look through the catalog of both voluntary and mandated continual training that officers receive. I have completed my Bachelors degree, just as many others have. Yet I still attend several of the mandated courses you can find on the POST web page. It is a requirement to keep my job, but I enjoy learning new things too.

 

But I think we can all agree on, arrogance, rudeness, superiority complexes and ignorance all have no place in law enforcement.

 

I think that this had been agreed upon several times, over and over and over again. It's amazing to me that people still miss this. :anibad:

Link to comment
...its got one flat wrong entry (NPS websites specifically state all geocaching anywhere in any National Park is against federal law)...

I've obviously missed any mention of geocaching being forbidden in National Parks in any federal statute. Could you link me, please?

 

Apparently it has to do with "unattended property" on federal land. It appears the park superintendant may allow property to be left unattended at his/her discretion. Here's a quote from one NPS site (highlights are mine):

 

"36 CFR Section 2.22 - Property

Property may not be left unattended for periods longer than 24 hours.

*NOTE:

This is the section where the new trend of “Geocaching” would violate federal regulation when articles at the geocache site are left for over 24 hours. The superintendent may allow geocaching by listing the activity here, and setting conditions for the unattended property associated with the geocache. Requiring a permit cannot be a condition, as this regulation does not specifically authorize the issuance of permits. However, pursuant to §1.5(a), if it is necessary to establish a public use limit in order to adequately manage this activity, then a permit may be imposed.

 

here's the link

That's not specific to geocaching. The NPS now allows caching to be decided at each park. Since one park can allow it and another not. It sort of proves the point that caching itself is not against any law. Rather that the NPS (and any other land manager for that matter) can spin the existing laws to cover caching if they choose to do so, while at the same time saying they don't need to do so.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment

Unfortunately, I have run into Forest Service employees who have known about Geocaching and have had the same attitude as the Ranger the OP ran into. :anibad:

 

I find it unbelievable that parts of our National Forest lands can be virtually destroyed by clear cutting or mining, but Forest Service employees get all upset about a few people wanting to hunt for Tupperware . . . :)

exactly. someone might have had a bad day :)

Link to comment

I've had no problems here in Louisiana with USFS LEO's or even LDWF Enforcement Agents (Game Wardens)or other LEO's. GC's seem most numerous on Kisatchie National Forest. There are even three located on the LDWF Wildlife Management Area I am assigned at. One of the technicians formerly assigned was a real obnoxious person at times. I always try to go out and "greet and meet" fellow geocachers at Actually, I Get It? GCZBPB, which is at the front of our compound. Personally, I haven't had problems of any type with LEO's once I explain what I am doing( Even before I was a state employee).

Link to comment

I know the Boston Harbor Islands recently removed all geocaches as one of mine went down upon request fromt the NPS. I was also recently in the Pemi wilderness in New Hampshire's White mountains and there were none there and a specific rule about it. I understand it under certain circumstances. Unfortunate that we lost virtuals and mystery virtuals to Waymarking :lol:, but the argument was made at the time by many that as more people and organizations became aware of geocaching that rules against traditionals would also pop up. It was obvious to those of us in urban areas where everything is watched.

 

Always being right....this is my gift, this is my curse.

Link to comment

I'm still new at this, but I've already had my first run-in with a Park Ranger.

I was looking for a devious cache that I only managed to find on my 3rd try...and only because the CO showed up for a maintenance visit the last time I was there (She said I should log the find but I said I didn't find it so only logged a note). She had to tell me that I had the cache in my hand at one point but had tossed it aside in my search :lol:

Anyway...on my first try I was there searching for about 2 hours and it started getting dark on me. A Park Ranger showed up (Parked his Jeep next to mine)...I guess he watched me doing the drunken bee dance for a minute before calling out to me, "Geocaching?" I laughed and said yes and then asked if he had a hint for me. Unfortunately, his response was, "I didn't know we had one." ...I said, "Bummer"

He than said he'd go close the gates at a couple of other parks before coming back to make sure he wasn't locking me in.

A rather positive LEO encounter IMO.

 

I've read a lot on here about what people say to muggles and LEOs. Personally, I would never try to make something up. People (especially LEOs) are not evil and I don't think they should be lied to.

Maybe having been on both sides of the badge has skewed my perspective, but really I do believe that honesty is the best policy (Does that make me a sap?).

 

Link to comment

...I've read a lot on here about what people say to muggles and LEOs. Personally, I would never try to make something up. People (especially LEOs) are not evil and I don't think they should be lied to.

Maybe having been on both sides of the badge has skewed my perspective, but really I do believe that honesty is the best policy (Does that make me a sap?).

 

[/color]

 

Honesty works well for me. There is enough real riff raff in the world to where it pays to be being a refreshing change from the LEO's perspective. I've never seen a situation where being polite made things worse.

Link to comment

It would be nice if this site printed up Geocacher ID cards. :anibad:

Just something official looking to show muggles, rangers, police, ect. They probably would sell pretty good..

When being questioned by someone in authority handing them fake "official" ID is not likely to help!

Theres nothing fake about showing a card identifying yourself as a geocacher.

 

Now if a muggle found it, they could cause mayhem.. :blink:

A geocaching card that explains the game is a wonderful idea - my issue was with the phrase "official looking to show muggles, rangers, police, ect." which is a whole 'nother thing.

 

Huh? If it's a "Official Geocacher ID" then it's official looking to the extent that it's an "Official" geocacher ID. I didn't see 4wheelin_fool mention forgery in their post???

Link to comment

 

It would be nice if this site printed up Geocacher ID cards. :anibad:

Just something official looking to show muggles, rangers, police, ect. They probably would sell pretty good..

 

Print yourself up a business card sized information card about Geocaching that includes your username, a contact number, your email, and the Geocaching website url. Carry that and an information pamphlet.

 

I had Waymarking cards made up for me. The only thing I stress when I give the card is that I do NOT work for Groundspeak. It's a hobby and I participate for fun. I give people my business card (I'm a photographer) and when we talk about Waymarking, I hand them the Waymarking card so they can check out the site and identify which waymarks are mine when they do a zipcode search.

 

For Geocaching, I just give them my actual business card but can see a use for Geocaching card that serves the same purpose.

 

Just mind the legal terms and conditions of using Groundspeak's stuff on things you have printed up, even for non-commercial purposes like that.

 

- Elle

Edited by HauntHunters
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...