Convincing a Park Manager to allow caches

[+J-Way]

I know about local volunteer reviewers however I am not familiar with local administrators.

 

How do we go about determining who our local admin is? It sure would be helpful if this process were more widely known outside these fourms.

I think the "local admin" is someone who administers/maintains/organizes their local caching club. Someone with time to spend meeting with park officials to tell them about geocaching. Someone who can be the official or unoffical contact that a land manager can call if there is a cache-related incident.

[+Team Cotati]

I know about local volunteer reviewers however I am not familiar with local administrators.

 

How do we go about determining who our local admin is? It sure would be helpful if this process were more widely known outside these fourms.

I think the "local admin" is someone who administers/maintains/organizes their local caching club. Someone with time to spend meeting with park officials to tell them about geocaching. Someone who can be the official or unoffical contact that a land manager can call if there is a cache-related incident.

 

Man, this is getting exhausting. I don't think that we have a local geocaching 'club' in my area. So I guess that that means that the local geocachers will still be required to 'wing it' when placing geocaches in the state, city and county parks and such.

 

There's got to be a better way. And to answer your question, no, I don't have the requsite time myself or I'd do it. Happily I'd do it.

 

I wonder if one of our local volutneer reviewers knows of someone who might be a good candidate for this type of thing? I think that I'll drop him a line and see.

 

Thanks.

[+Big Bear TC]

Boy this is getting real good. I wonder when the caches are going to hit the fan.

 

 

Seriously everyone. There are rules out there and if we follow them we would not have the problems that are going on right now. Yes there are parks that don't want them because they don't know what it is. Do things for the parks and that can help. Show them you can place one without tearing up the enviroment.

[+ReadyOrNot]

Boy this is getting real good. I wonder when the caches are going to hit the fan.

 

The real truth is that most caches are placed on public lands without explicit permission and the vast majority do not cause any problems. The problems usually start when a well-meaning cacher who thinks they are being a goody-good-boy decides to take it upon themselves to force a government beurocracy to make a "yes" or "no" decision on whether they can place the cache. If you want to place a cache in a little municipal park or greenspace, just do it for goodness sakes...

[+Miragee]

Boy this is getting real good. I wonder when the caches are going to hit the fan.

 

 

Seriously everyone. There are rules out there and if we follow them we would not have the problems that are going on right now. Yes there are parks that don't want them because they don't know what it is. Do things for the parks and that can help. Show them you can place one without tearing up the enviroment.

I agree . . . however in the situation that developed here, with the 600,000 acre California State Park, we were following Guidelines provided to our local Reviewer by Park Staff. And we have a twice-yearly CITO Event along a section of highway that goes through the Park.

 

For some unknown reason, they just do not like Geocaching. No amount of begging, pleading, or negotiating will change their mind. They removed, and did not return, containers that had been in place for more than seven years that received fewer than six visitors per year, so the impact caused by cachers was negligible.

 

However, if you want to go 4-wheelin' in a street legal vehicle over the more than 500 miles of roads in the Park, there's no problem.

[+Team Cotati]

Trailgators' post #41 there seems to be the prudent approach. Fear of land manager's reaction to geocaching just won't work going forward. We see that quite frequently these days and there is no indication that that is going to improve any time soon.

[+TrailGators]

Trailgators' post #41 there seems to be the prudent approach. Fear of land manager's reaction to geocaching just won't work going forward. We see that quite frequently these days and there is no indication that that is going to improve any time soon.

We should all try to learn something from the banning of geocaching in other parks around the country. I think if we could turn the clock back we could have had regular communication with the right people from our side (very rational calm cool diplomatic types) and these reps might have been able to identify the park's concerns and allow us to be more proactive to address those concerns. Proactive always works better than reactive.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Proactive always works better than reactive.

There is always a balance.

All the the land managers I work with do not care to worry about or regulate geocaching. I have one land manager that I'm still wondering about the approach to take since they would work with law enforcment and law enforcement (or at least one officer) has taken to chastizing cachers on lands they manage. I just started working with him on a separate project and I'm still getting a feel for his take on things.

 

Nitpicky, anal retentative, in rour face full of concerns about the grave consequences of caching, cachers who proactivly annoy the folks who choose not to regulate caching would have them asking me questions where the best answer is to roll my eyes in a conspiratorial "yes, even we cachers have to deal with those types". Of course others may come to me with a list as long as my arm about various concerns from Earnie Eagle Beak the caching overlord, and want me to address them one by one... Where EEB is the go to person. Egads, perish the thought.

[+Totem Clan]

The real truth is that most caches are placed on public lands without explicit permission and the vast majority do not cause any problems. The problems usually start when a well-meaning cacher who thinks they are being a goody-good-boy decides to take it upon themselves to force a government beurocracy to make a "yes" or "no" decision on whether they can place the cache.

 

First of all I tend to agree with you in regard to small city parks. I think the Frisbee rule applies there pretty well. There still may be some special use areas where more permission would be needed but for the typical local urban park/playground, I say hide it until you here otherwise

 

But for large municipal park and state parks where there is a definite land management agency I see it different from the other side the fence. As a land manager you must protect the land and allow access to that land by the public in a way the best serves both. Having people coming into the area that you're charged to keep and unknownly place objects on that land and then seeing new trails cut because of the traffic or seeing habits trampled can't be seen as anything but a problem. Why would any land manager not view that as a bad thing. However when a responsible, reasonable person comes and shows them benefits of caching to their park they should see that as a blessing. In fact it can be a tool they can use to improve the park.

[+Renegade Knight]

...But for large municipal park and state parks where there is a definite land management agency I see it different from the other side the fence. ...

 

There is a lot of variation here. I've seen some differences in park managers. Idaho tends to have more recreational state parks and not so much preservation style parks. Washington has 5x the population and it really seems the more population the more preservation becomes an issue (since more people have more impact and make it more of an issue). As an example. Massacre Rocks State Park. Most of the park is free flow. You can hike anywhere and go anywhere. Except a single small posted area where they are working on some erosion problems created by hikers getting to a nearby rock formation. Meanwhile across the interstate is more of the park but completely undevleoped. No hikers, nothing. They were glad to see a cache there to see any use at all.

 

Overall recreational parks tend to welcome recreational activites. It's hard to know the exact moment when all of the sudden they flipped the switch to allowing some specificlly approved activites and start banning others. Preservation parks are also recrational parks, but with a preservation component since the recreation is enjoyment of what they are trying to preserve. That's a park that has a much more active interest in the nuances of what's going on in their park since things can have an impact and they do have to monitor it. It comes back to the balance.

[+Totem Clan]

 

I agree . . . however in the situation that developed here, with the 600,000 acre California State Park, we were following Guidelines provided to our local Reviewer by Park Staff. And we have a twice-yearly CITO Event along a section of highway that goes through the Park.

 

For some unknown reason, they just do not like Geocaching. No amount of begging, pleading, or negotiating will change their mind. They removed, and did not return, containers that had been in place for more than seven years that received fewer than six visitors per year, so the impact caused by cachers was negligible.

 

However, if you want to go 4-wheelin' in a street legal vehicle over the more than 500 miles of roads in the Park, there's no problem.

Of course I've never dealt with anyone from the CA parks department so I can't speak for or against what they did. However there often are things that the public may not know about an area or whatever. Having said that it does seem strange that they would have a blanket policy against caching in a park that large. I could maybe see how much or even most of the park could off limits due to ecological concerns, but the whole park being off-limits is strange.

 

I don't know what good it might do but here's a in that caching already has with the CA State Parks Department. Maybe the example of one park doing it right can help your case. Maybe?!

 

And others

 

A Parks Planning Division Publication

 

California State Parks’ Central Valley Vision Summary Report FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS which mentions caching.

 

I'm sure I could find more. The point is, approach it from the angle of, look what we can do to help you, and look what the other parks are doing. Then again you are dealing with humans and as this forum clearly demonstrates some of them are *family friendlies* just for the fun of it.

 

Edit to add...

 

Here is the GC account profile for above mentioned park. Maybe they could help point you in the right direction.

Edited April 17, 2008 by Totem Clan

[+Totem Clan]

 

There is a lot of variation here..... <snipped for brevity>

Thank you. Excellent point and examples.

 

Most cachers see a park as a park as a park. There are so many more issues at work here. We can't understand what the issue are for every cache location we pick. Work with the park managers not against them.

[+TrailGators]

...Proactive always works better than reactive.

There is always a balance.

Of course, that's why I recommended having a competent rep to keep abreast of any concerns or issues.

[+team lagonda]

im all for them competent reps though thier pretty hard to find..

[+TrailGators]

im all for them competent reps though thier pretty hard to find..

We have some good people out here. It also helps if they have connections. An ideal situation is to have a ranger that's a geocacher. That is what helped us in one large park out here four years ago. Edited April 18, 2008 by TrailGators

[+Renegade Knight]

Rule one to working with parks. Positive Mental Attitude. Don't start the meeting by giving them a negative postion on a silver platter.

 

Ladies and gentlemen thank you for coming to my caching presenation. The goal being to "convince you to allow caching". Whoops, I've already seeded them with an anti caching stance. Man I hate when that happens.

 

Strangly most of the "explicit, signed, sealed and notarized permission types" are already so anti caching that it's scary.

[+TrailGators]

Rule one to working with parks. Positive Mental Attitude. Don't start the meeting by giving them a negative postion on a silver platter.

 

Ladies and gentlemen thank you for coming to my caching presenation. The goal being to "convince you to allow caching". Whoops, I've already seeded them with an anti caching stance. Man I hate when that happens.

 

Strangly most of the "explicit, signed, sealed and notarized permission types" are already so anti caching that it's scary.

This is why you need good reps!

[+ReadyOrNot]

Rule one to working with parks. Positive Mental Attitude. Don't start the meeting by giving them a negative postion on a silver platter.

 

Ladies and gentlemen thank you for coming to my caching presenation. The goal being to "convince you to allow caching". Whoops, I've already seeded them with an anti caching stance. Man I hate when that happens.

 

Strangly most of the "explicit, signed, sealed and notarized permission types" are already so anti caching that it's scary.

This is why you need good reps!

 

So what do you do when the reps fail and geocaching gets banned in a location where it was otherwise allowed?

[+Miragee]

Rule one to working with parks. Positive Mental Attitude. Don't start the meeting by giving them a negative postion on a silver platter.

 

Ladies and gentlemen thank you for coming to my caching presenation. The goal being to "convince you to allow caching". Whoops, I've already seeded them with an anti caching stance. Man I hate when that happens.

 

Strangly most of the "explicit, signed, sealed and notarized permission types" are already so anti caching that it's scary.

This is why you need good reps!

 

So what do you do when the reps fail and geocaching gets banned in a location where it was otherwise allowed?

You cry . . . as I did when this cache was removed. It had been in place for more than seven years and caused no impact, compared to the hundreds of other people who visit that area of the desert.

 

I also tried something new to encourage cachers to visit one area of the desert, even though there aren't any physical caches there anymore . . . we'll see if it catches on.

[+TrailGators]

Rule one to working with parks. Positive Mental Attitude. Don't start the meeting by giving them a negative postion on a silver platter.

 

Ladies and gentlemen thank you for coming to my caching presenation. The goal being to "convince you to allow caching". Whoops, I've already seeded them with an anti caching stance. Man I hate when that happens.

 

Strangly most of the "explicit, signed, sealed and notarized permission types" are already so anti caching that it's scary.

This is why you need good reps!

 

So what do you do when the reps fail and geocaching gets banned in a location where it was otherwise allowed?

There is no such word as failure. We can't cache there until the reps succeed. Unfortunately, it may take the reps a long time to turn the tide depending on the park management. Edited April 18, 2008 by TrailGators

[+Team Cotati]

Rule one to working with parks. Positive Mental Attitude. Don't start the meeting by giving them a negative postion on a silver platter.

 

Ladies and gentlemen thank you for coming to my caching presenation. The goal being to "convince you to allow caching". Whoops, I've already seeded them with an anti caching stance. Man I hate when that happens.

 

Strangly most of the "explicit, signed, sealed and notarized permission types" are already so anti caching that it's scary.

This is why you need good reps!

 

So what do you do when the reps fail and geocaching gets banned in a location where it was otherwise allowed?

 

You stop placing and hunting for geocaches there.