Caching in Parks

[+critterator]

I'm a park worker. Usually, people around here caching in parks stick to park etiquette guidelines, and I've never bothered with worrying about them. At a park I recently switched to, we have a big problem with people making there own trails. Some of them are so well used that they look park maintained. The park is fairly cache heavy and though I haven't fhad the chance to find it yet, one cache inparticular states that it's along one of these paths. I brought it up to a co worker and she said the week before I arrived, she and the bossman found some folks coming uot of one of these paths. When questioned they said they were geocaching (this being the first time the two park workers had heard about it). The Bossman told them to go remove the cache, which of course they didn't. Removing someone elses cache is just rude. But for us, and especially me, it's now become a liability issue (since we know about a reason to go off trail that could easily be removed) So here's my question to you? what would be the most appropriate way to approach people and tell them that there cache placement isn't park friendly.

 

I've herd of other rangers in other parks doing thing like leaving notes in the cache telling te owner to remove it, which doesn't seem effective or just removing it, which I wouldn't want to do since I'm a geocacher myself. Would it be appropriate to make an account under the parks name (with the park managers permission of course) and send them an email explaining what's wrong with it and asking them to move it or disable it?, or would this be considered inpropper use of an account? should I contact them as myself and risk having local geocachers think I'm a tattle tale?

 

Other people have also pointed out in the logs (somwhat subtly) that the cache is inappropriatley placed, but there are also logs like this. The hider has responded saying the path hasn't grown since the cache was placed...of course it hasn't disapeared either, which is what the park wants. But there are still logs like this:

 

Missed the faint trail leading into the woods. Bushwhacked around until we found the right spot

 

We are also planning on baracading all user made paths in the parks, since natural barriers haven't been working.

 

And finally a quick plee to all other folks, for the sake of your parks and the safety of your cache (from evil park rangers such as myself), please place your cache on trail. Those fun little side paths may seem great, but they reate headaches for park managers and ecosystems worldwide.

[Keystone]

If there's a cache in a park that's causing an issue for the park managers, here are some suggested courses of action:

 

1. If the park has a Geocaching.com account, place a "needs archived" log on the cache page. This will attract the attention of the cache owner and of the Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer for the local area. Or, you could simply send an e-mail through the Geocaching.com e-mail system to the owner of that cache. Click on the owner's name on the cache page to go to their profile, then click on the e-mail link. Sometimes moving a cache to a better spot will solve the problem. It helps a lot if the account name clearly identifies it as official, like "Anytown Parks Department."

 

2. If the park doesn't have a Geocaching.com account, write an e-mail to Groundspeak and ask them to notify the cache owner about the issue. The address to write to is contact @ geocaching.com. Provide as much information about the cache and the park as is available. GPS coordinates are best. Knowing the cache name is helpful. Even the name and address of the park and a description of the area where the cache is hidden is usually enough to figure out which cache it is. It is helpful if the e-mail originates from the park system's or other governmental e-mail domain. Explain in the message that the writer is acting in an official capacity.

 

I recommend one of these methods instead of simply confiscating the cache. If nobody knows what happened, people will continue to search for the now-missing cache. The possibility of adverse environmental impact is magnified when searchers can't find the cache in an obvious spot and instead start turning over rocks, rolling logs, etc.

[+team lagonda]

this thread sounds like a argument in favor of well placed clandestine micros hidden on already well trodden paths for parks..

Edited May 18, 2008 by team lagonda

[+Ambrosia]

I would suggest writing to Groundspeak, as Keystone said. I've had people post bogus logs to some of my caches trying to say that they were official people, and telling me that I needed to archive my cache. The couple times that this happened, I was 99% sure that they were trolls, and so I didn't take out my caches (I consulted with Groundspeak to make sure I was making the correct choice). I'm only mentioning this, because cache owners may look at these cache notes as bogus or harmless and ignore them. But if you are able to show your authenticity to Groundspeak so that they can take care of the cache, the end result may be handle better and more quickly.

 

I think that this is a good reminder to people, that even if an off trail looks "well maintained", it might not be there with the blessing of the park. When placing a cache, it's best (of course) to ask the park if it's alright to be walking there/placing a cache there. Hopefully, if it's that much of an issue for the park, they'll have signs posted warning people to stay on the main trail, and/or block the side trail.

[+Shop99er]

I have caches in two State Parks. Along with the required permit, I also had the Park Managers pick the location that suited them best. They weren't what I wanted, but that's OK. I can adapt.

[+Morning Dew]

Keystone gave an excellent reply but his hand (not suprisingly) is little too tipped towards Groundspeak for my tastes.

 

I'd simply cut and paste exactly what you typed, add a link to this thread in an email through this site to the cache owner and take it from there. I think just balant honesty is the best approach.

 

I bet he/she moves it a little and all will be fine and you might make a new geocaching friend.

 

If they give you flak or do nothing, slowly begin to turn up the heat using some of Keystones' suggestions.

Edited May 18, 2008 by Morning Dew

[+Dread_Pirate_Bruce]

While Morning Dew has a good thought, namely writing the owner first, that requires being logged in, either on one's own account or a factitious one. I'm dead against factitious accounts used just to remain anonymous. And, doing it under one's own account may be asking for trouble. Therefore, I'd go with Keystone. First go through channels. That's what they are there for.

[+Confucius' Cat]

I am sorry you are having problems with park visitors going off trail. But you indicated the social trails existed independently of geocaching. So do you really expect to accomplish a lot by getting rid of the caches?

 

Placing caches on trail pretty much guarantees their short lifespan. If you want caching to continue in your park, it might be good to consider a short distance off trail that would be acceptable- like 25 feet or so?

 

Anyway:

Once you have made contact and have gotten the offending caches removed or relocated to an acceptable location, i would recommend making a "permit" system and requiring new caches to be cleared by park management prior to placement. Once your management has decided on their rules, make these rules known to the local reviewers. The local reviewers refer to all known park manager restrictions when approving caches. When your specific requirements are made known to the reviewers, they will be enforced going forward.

 

And finally a quick plee to all other folks, for the sake of your parks and the safety of your cache (from evil park rangers such as myself), please place your cache on trail. Those fun little side paths may seem great, but they reate headaches for park managers and ecosystems worldwide.

That is a REALLY broad brush!

 

Many parks and public lands do not limit use by the public to "on trails only." And "park managers and ecosystems worldwide" differ widely in their sensitivity and rules.

 

Park geocaching as we know it would soon go by the wayside if ALL parks required all caches to be on trail.

Edited May 20, 2008 by Confucius' Cat

[CoyoteRed]

The Bossman told them to go remove the cache, which of course they didn't. Removing someone elses cache is just rude.

I don't consider it rude. Not in the least.

 

First, your boss is the boss of the land over which he or she is paid to oversee. I'm assuming you're talking about the person who the highest ranking individual of that park. The cache, apparently, is there without permission. Your boss has every right to remove any cache he or she sees fit. Period.

 

Caching only exists by the good graces of the folks who manage the land on which we place our caches. There is no reason to plea to the geocaching community to do anything. Either we do it or we're out. That's the choice of your boss.

 

If I were approached by someone who is an obvious authority figure and requested I remove another person's cache I'd do it in a heartbeat simply to try to keep the good will of the park manager. Refusing to remove the cache is setting us up for getting kicked out of the park.

 

While Keystone did give some good advise on contacting Groundspeak in getting the situation resolved, I'd go ahead and remove the cache. Post an SBA note on the cache page that you've removed the cache and request the cache listing be set to unavailable for a couple of weeks. This will still allow those who aggregate caches get the notification that the cache is removed. Those who don't aggregate probably don't pull down unavailable caches so it won't show up anyway.

 

There's a couple of things that comes into play here by picking up the cache and requesting the listing be set to unavailable. There is the "soft hammer" of you removing the cache that gets the attention of the cache owner--the SBA also gets a reviewer invovled. It also allows the listing to be changed if you can work out a solution of moving the cache to a new location within the normal boundaries of cache movement.

 

Sometimes you need that soft hammer to get the attention of the cache owner and get some momentum going. Otherwise, some folks tend to sit on it and let the problem continue until they feel like doing something. By posting to the cache page that the cache is not there, folks seeking the cache will get notified. This is versus simply archiving the listing. They might still visit, but once they come up empty and start checking the cache page they'll see it's no longer there and not tear up the area. Especially when they see an SBA log.

 

By leaving the cache listing as unavailable you keep the door open for the cache to be moved to a better place within a certain distance of the original location. If the cache owner wants to work with you then fine. If not, that's fine, too. Just toss the cache in the trash if it's not picked up within a prearranged time frame.

 

Then finally, if the community wants to work with you on the social trail issue, great! Most caching communities will be more than willing to work with you on getting a fair permit scheme going if the alternative is an outright prohibition. If not, pick up all of the caches and notify Groundspeak of the restriction. I'm willing the bet the community will then change their tune.

 

Good luck.

[+critterator]

I am sorry you are having problems with park visitors going off trail. But you indicated the social trails existed independently of geocaching. So do you really expect to accomplish a lot by getting rid of the caches?

 

Placing caches on trail pretty much guarantees their short lifespan. If you want caching to continue in your park, it might be good to consider a short distance off trail that would be acceptable- like 25 feet or so?

 

Anyway:

Once you have made contact and have gotten the offending caches removed or relocated to an acceptable location, i would recommend making a "permit" system and requiring new caches to be cleared by park management prior to placement. Once your management has decided on their rules, make these rules known to the local reviewers. The local reviewers refer to all known park manager restrictions when approving caches. When your specific requirements are made known to the reviewers, they will be enforced going forward.

 

And finally a quick plee to all other folks, for the sake of your parks and the safety of your cache (from evil park rangers such as myself), please place your cache on trail. Those fun little side paths may seem great, but they reate headaches for park managers and ecosystems worldwide.

That is a REALLY broad brush!

 

Many parks and public lands do not limit use by the public to "on trails only." And "park managers and ecosystems worldwide" differ widely in their sensitivity and rules.

 

Park geocaching as we know it would soon go by the wayside if ALL parks required all caches to be on trail.

 

This is true to some degee, very high use day areas, and urban or city parks, are often an exception (but not always). The sensativity of an ecosystem, the level of use, and the park maagers job all play a role in how they treat off trail activity. In the far reaches of the backcountry, where there are no trails, people are encouraged to spread out rather han centralize their impact.

 

I like the idea of cache permits, or having a clear set of rules. I realize it can be a pain in the but for those who are placing a cache. Parks Canada, and as shop99er stated, some state parks, have some fairly sticky rules about where a geocache can go (parks Canada even requires that the cache be educational). Getting something a bit more formal for cahcing in parks has been something I've been wanting to do. Both provincial parks and regional parks in my area have no system set up and the result is some ineffective management practices. Park systems everywhere just need more geocachers v

 

As for our off trail paths...no I'm not blaiming geocaching for there existance. Actually, the trail probably started off as a game trail, which a few people decided to go up, then a few more, then a few more. Now, we have people walkeing around uing flagging tape to mark these trails and remoing natural barriers we put up. The cache owner and cachers who find it probably don't even know that we don't maintain or encourage these trails. Nevertheless, there presence is definately not helping the problem. As I said before, most cachers use there sense when placing a cache. I'd be hard pressed to find a cacher who wants to increase their impact.

 

Anyway, I've decided just to contact them myself explaining the situation. If that fails, I guess we'll send a message to Groundspeak. Thanks for the advice folks.

Edited May 20, 2008 by critterator

[+Confucius' Cat]

I have thought about this thread a lot today whilst driving 500 miles and i would like to raises an issue.

 

Let me first say, I recognise the right of the appointed or elected management PTB to regulate their assigned park as they see fit persuant to the laws and regulations they are given. That being said, here is my issue:

 

Basically, I think the use of a park- any park- comes down to the basis and purpose for which the park was established. I will consider two basic categories:

1. a park whose purpose is to preserve a certain natural environment to prevent the expiration of some endangered species or some such concern.

 

2. a park whose basis and purpose is for the enjoyment of the citizens who perhaps actually own and pay for the park.

 

In case #1, VERY strict regulation of visitors is warranted, if indeed visitors are allowed at all. In these cases natural and man-made barriers should be used, along with appropriate signage to limit human intrusion onto the protected environment. It helps a LOT in these cases if the visitors know WHY they are so severely restricted such as, "Endangered plant life- please stay on trail."

 

In case #2, If a social trail has developed which "looks like the parks department maintains it," I would ask, "why DOESN'T the parks department maintain it?" Is the unofficial trail more damaging than the official trail? In any given case this may be true, but if it is not...

 

My position on this is that, unless it is truly a rare species, a basic wild plant which exists in great numbers without cultivation or other human intervention is just a basic wild plant- in the common vernacular, a "weed." I fail to see why the weeds that were killed BY the parks department to build an official trail are of any more or less value than the weeds that were killed "for" the parks department by the deer and the park visitors.

 

The fact that trails, official or otherwise, exist actually preserves the weeds in general because most people walk on the trails rather than trampling the weeds randomly. Thus the ONLY weeds that are killed are those on the trails.

 

if the park visitors ENJOY walking where the "unofficial" trails are, does not that fit the basis and purpose assumed in my premise? If so, wouldn't it be the simplest thing just to make the "unofficial" trails "official?"

 

A common sense approach often used in architecture is to place walkways where people prefer to walk... this prevents people from taking "shortcuts". I.E. a wise builder will figure out where the NATURAL paths are and use these paths for the walkways. It seems to me this would be a good approach for park managers also.

 

Basically what i am saying is why make a big deal out of an extra trail or two if there are no endangered plants there and if the people using the park are enjoying the use of THEIR park (which is the reason the park exists) in a way that does no more harm than the official trails do?

</ serious post>

 

And since the deer are making unofficial trails, we'd best get busy SHOOTING them- for the good of the chiiiildren!. Venison for everyone! (Or maybe just put up signs, "Deer Keep Out!")

[+Totem Clan]

I agree with the basic ideas of the above post. Yes in the typical city park social trails are not a big deal. In more remote parks, State Parks and the like, in the high traffic areas, such trailswill exist. The land managers, if theydeserve the title, will have taken that in to account when such areas were designated.

 

Now here's where I have to add something that I don't think you covered. A point #3 if you will. In fact it is a little of both your examples.

 

In one of parks that I coordinate geocaching for here in North Dakota, we had to remove a cache that was only a yards off a approved park trail. (First of all let me state that the cache was placed without approval to begin with.) The reason the cache site was not good even though it was close to the trail was due to erosion. The trail was on level ground a few feet from the slope and running parallel to the slope. This means that the trail will not act as a conduit for runoff. The geo-trail that would have formed leading down the slope would have caused erosion problems. Also the cache was placed within yard of a nesting area for waterfowl. The main trail stays far enough away as not to disturb the nesting habitat. This made the cache a problem even though it was in a public access area not to far from the trail.

Now if that same cache had been placed only a couple hundred feet down the trail (and the proper paperwork filled out) the cache would still be there.

 

As geocachers we can't know all the factors that would make a site good or bad when we enter these areas. That is why we need to work with land managers. Yes I know in some cases it has backfired, but looking at it from the park's side of the fence, I see it as a win-win situation. The parks get geocaching visitors and none of the damaging geo-trails.

[+Renegade Knight]

While Morning Dew has a good thought, namely writing the owner first, that requires being logged in, either on one's own account or a factitious one. I'm dead against factitious accounts used just to remain anonymous. And, doing it under one's own account may be asking for trouble. Therefore, I'd go with Keystone. First go through channels. That's what they are there for.

The first channel is the owner. Never confuse the listing site for the person who ownes the cache. You should always give owners a chance to do the right thing. There are a few reasons for this including the owner can meet with the park face to face and interface with the rest of the local caching community.

 

critterator already has an account so contacting the owner is easy.

[+Renegade Knight]

...

I like the idea of cache permits, or having a clear set of rules. I realize it can be a pain in the but for those who are placing a cache. ....

Anyway, I've decided just to contact them myself explaining the situation. If that fails, I guess we'll send a message to Groundspeak. Thanks for the advice folks.

 

First excellent on contacting the owner directly. As for cache permits and rules I have some suggestions.

 

Permits and rules imply enforcement and time and effort spend reviewing and approving. If you have a highly sensitive park...maybe that's important. If you have a regular park, most caches would be fine and a couple of locations are worth watching. The existing guidelines serve as a good set of rules already. Plus the regular park rules that already exist.

 

It would be simpler to sit down with the local cache group every now and then and take a peek at a map (they would bring it) and talk caches. The informal approach builds community, keeps you better informed than a permit system would and best of all, keeps the work down to a minimum. A real bonus is that the caching community would also learn the cares and concerns of a park system. More so than a permit system.

[+critterator]

*edit* *points way up* this is in response to confucious cat...got a little distracted while writing and new post appeared.

 

We will have to shoot the bears, coyotes and innocent fluffy bunnies as well...we could turn it into a community event...

 

Once again, it comes down to the park. Most parks apart from small urban parks, list both the enjoyment of the people and protection of natural resources in there mission statements. The park system I work for stated goal # 1 as "secure and enhance regionally significant landscapes and critical habitat" followed by providing outdoor recreation and improving quality of life. And yes, we have parts of the park where people aren't allowed. For the rest of the park, it's about finding a balance between the two. In a natural area thats rather close to a large population, its easier said than done.

 

Opening the trail up to the public would take significant resources. Increased use, would create a need to resurface the trail, maps reprinted, signs changed and added, bear-proof garbages installed (which are surprisingly pricey), and allow for staff time to patrol the trail. Of course, after all this, all the fun of one of those side trails is gone. If we don't do trail improvements it becomes a liability issue. It's the problem with a natural area so close to high populations. Now you say "what do you think people are stupid?" well not most people...but for the same reason coffee cups say "warning:contents may be hot", and peanut packets say "may contain traces of peanuts", we have to remove potential dangers from high use trails.

 

While I personally love the smaller, less maintained trails, and am always annoyed by the need to denaturalize nature, the best place to experience them is in the backcountry, or at least a bit further from high population densities where fewer users mean a bit more freedom, and a far better wilderness experience. Lots of land (well at least around here) that is not managed by a parks system and open to the public is full of great trails that will satisfy the adventure seekers needs.

Edited May 21, 2008 by critterator

[+Confucius' Cat]

*edit* *points way up* this is in response to confucious cat...got a little distracted while writing and new post appeared.

 

We will have to shoot the bears, coyotes and innocent fluffy bunnies as well...we could turn it into a community event...

 

Once again, it comes down to the park. Most parks apart from small urban parks, list both the enjoyment of the people and protection of natural resources in there mission statements. The park system I work for stated goal # 1 as "secure and enhance regionally significant landscapes and critical habitat" followed by providing outdoor recreation and improving quality of life. And yes, we have parts of the park where people aren't allowed. For the rest of the park, it's about finding a balance between the two. In a natural area thats rather close to a large population, its easier said than done.

 

Opening the trail up to the public would take significant resources. Increased use, would create a need to resurface the trail, maps reprinted, signs changed and added, bear-proof garbages installed (which are surprisingly pricey), and allow for staff time to patrol the trail. Of course, after all this, all the fun of one of those side trails is gone. If we don't do trail improvements it becomes a liability issue. It's the problem with a natural area so close to high populations. Now you say "what do you think people are stupid?" well not most people...but for the same reason coffee cups say "warning:contents may be hot", and peanut packets say "may contain traces of peanuts", we have to remove potential dangers from high use trails.

 

While I personally love the smaller, less maintained trails, and am always annoyed by the need to denaturalize nature, the best place to experience them is in the backcountry, or at least a bit further from high population densities where fewer users mean a bit more freedom, and a far better wilderness experience. Lots of land (well at least around here) that is not managed by a parks system and open to the public is full of great trails that will satisfy the adventure seekers needs.

Excellent post!

Nothing to argue here.

(bolded) So I see you gots lawyers up there, too.

Isn't it a shame we have to base so much of our lives on "liability issues?"