Jump to content

The Great Wednesday Massacre


Klatch

Recommended Posts

Wow, lots of classic caches (Pulpit Rock, e.g.) being archived by Groundspeak at the request of the NPS. All with the same line:

 

"The National Parks Chief Ranger has identified this geocache as one that is currently placed on National Park Service managed Appalachian Trail Corridor lands and/or state lands where the Appalachian Trail passes through (my emphasis). Geocaching is not permitted on these lands. Consequently, Groundspeak is archiving this geocache. Please ensure that the geocache and all contents are removed from its location immediately."

 

So far in Dauphin, Lebanon and Berks counties. Edit to add Perry County, also.

Edited by Klatch
Link to comment

Wow, lots of classic caches (Pulpit Rock, e.g.) being archived by Groundspeak at the request of the NPS. All with the same line:

 

"The National Parks Chief Ranger has identified this geocache as one that is currently placed on National Park Service managed Appalachian Trail Corridor lands and/or state lands where the Appalachian Trail passes through (my emphasis). Geocaching is not permitted on these lands. Consequently, Groundspeak is archiving this geocache. Please ensure that the geocache and all contents are removed from its location immediately."

 

So far in Dauphin, Lebanon and Berks counties. Edit to add Perry County, also.

 

A) Geocaching is permitted. It's the caches they don't like. It's an important distinction because there is nothing that a seeker of a cache does that's prohibited in any way by any NPS rule. (That's because caching is an excellent activity).

:lol: The NPS agreements giving them authority to manage lands would have to also allow (by removing the local authority to allow a cache and giving it to ghe NPS) the NPS to regulate caches. The odds of this being a line item in the agreement are very small. Thus it would be some other indirect authority.

C) The NPS of course has authority on it's own lands.

D) Groundspeak would archive first and leave it to the cache owners to ask questions later.

E) Mopar makes a good point below.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment

Wow, lots of classic caches (Pulpit Rock, e.g.) being archived by Groundspeak at the request of the NPS. All with the same line:

 

"The National Parks Chief Ranger has identified this geocache as one that is currently placed on National Park Service managed Appalachian Trail Corridor lands and/or state lands where the Appalachian Trail passes through (my emphasis). Geocaching is not permitted on these lands. Consequently, Groundspeak is archiving this geocache. Please ensure that the geocache and all contents are removed from its location immediately."

 

So far in Dauphin, Lebanon and Berks counties. Edit to add Perry County, also.

Can we make a list? I know the last time this was done, a few archived here in CT were not actually on NPS land at all. They just happened to *mention* the AT. :lol:

Link to comment

We had several here in Central PA get archived ... two of which I specifically know are NOT on NPS property, are not in the AT corridor, are not accessed via the AT (you'd have to be pretty stupid to approach them from such a direction), and are seemingly selected at random for proximity to some kind of route.

 

I'm not arguing about NPS lands ... I'm disappointed in Groundspeak's reaction to these archival requests without even challenging them for validity.

 

I know of one archived here on a rail trail ... the AT is over 1/2 mile away at the top of the mountain. The cache is located on State Game Lands and is placed well outside the easement corridor. The only approach to the cache is via the nice LEVEL rail trail unless you count the marked (blazed) side trail that comes down the mountain from the AT to the rail trail (including at several hundred foot drop in elevation). Hardly a circumstance where the "side trail" argument holds any merit.

 

This is nothing more than a government agency abusing it's power and attempting to bully it citizenry. Everyone should write their congressman and complain.

Edited by Lasagna
Link to comment

I'm curious why Groundspeak has not inquired with the reviewer that published the cache. I'm sure all of the appropriate leg work has gone into making sure these caches were legit to begin with.

 

I'm sure all of the AT bookmarks on those pages aren't helping the situation. :lol:

Link to comment

So how long until I get an e-mail from Groundspeak asking for this back?

 

eab9e008cc954b49bed5f81ik6.jpg

 

Seriously though, this looks like both a tragedy, and an unexcusably broad and undiscriminating stroke.

 

EDIT to add: I may be mistaken, but it looks like several are missing from the Jersey side of the Delaware Water Gap Nat. Recreation Area. High Point looks safe though, as does Wawayanda... and they missed one of my favorite hiking caches right off the trail that I wouldn't name now under pain of death.

Edited by MountainRacer
Link to comment

This thus not surprise me in the least:

 

- Same people who give you a speeding ticket for going 5 mph over the limit on a downward sloped hill in National Parks.

- Same people who sell off all backcountry permits for 15$ and then when you are the first in line the day you want to camp you are told all backcountry permits have already been taken. Thought they are only supposed to reserve a few?

- Same people who have a National Parks Pass for 80$ yet force you to pay for parking at Mount Rushmore and Sandy Hook

- Same people who tell you to leave the park since there is no place to camp and you cannot sleep in your car after you have paid the entrance fee at 11PM at night while driving near burning forests

 

All of the above has happened to me... I am not surprised by this new atrocity.

Link to comment

After reading this (link below), I figure it's a response to side trails. That would explain why some caches that are quite a ways away were axed. If the easiest way to get to a cache on a State Gamelands is by first hiking along the AT then cutting off for the last .15, of course that's how people will go there, and that will create a discernible trail.

 

Here's the rather interesting report:

AT MEGA Transect

Link to comment

After reading this (link below), I figure it's a response to side trails. That would explain why some caches that are quite a ways away were axed. If the easiest way to get to a cache on a State Gamelands is by first hiking along the AT then cutting off for the last .15, of course that's how people will go there, and that will create a discernible trail.

 

Here's the rather interesting report:

AT MEGA Transect

 

A few geocachers a month finding a cache and making a discernible trail - how is this different from a deer trail? Should we extend hunting season and kill more deer to ensure there are no discernible trails? Also, if a cache is 0.15 or more away... what are the odds that the same path will be taken? I would probably same slim..

Link to comment

I had two caches of mine along the AT in New Jersey recently archived.

 

GCEAFE has been there for over 5 years! GCY9BB was there 2 years. It's disappointing to see them go after so many have enjoyed them over the years. This section of the AT is maintained by local volunteers and there is an MOU by the NPS that the NJDEP admininster and manage these lands.

 

from the MOU...

 

A. The New Jersey State Department of Environmental Protection

 

Agrees

..................................................

 

3. To apply and enforce the State Park Code, N.J.A.C. 7:2, as same may from time to time be amended, supplemented, modified, or changed, on all lands owned and administered by the State of New Jersey that are part of the Appalachian Trail Corridor and managed pursuant to this agreement. NJDEP shall be responsible for the conduce and coordination of law enforcement, fire control and search-and-rescue activities on such lands in accordance with applicable policies and procedures established by the State of New Jersey and shall advise the NPS immediately or in any event within 24 hours of major emergencies or controversial events.

Link to comment

After reading this (link below), I figure it's a response to side trails. That would explain why some caches that are quite a ways away were axed. If the easiest way to get to a cache on a State Gamelands is by first hiking along the AT then cutting off for the last .15, of course that's how people will go there, and that will create a discernible trail.

 

Here's the rather interesting report:

AT MEGA Transect

 

In the case of the 3 caches Klatch mentioned above (one of them is mine) they are ALL located along blazed, legit trails other than the AT. All of them are accessible without ever even touching the AT. Yes, unblazed side trails off the AT are a concern for the NPS, but none of these fit into that category. I think the NPS simply made a mistake... and I'd bet these aren't the only mistakes they made.

 

I contacted Groundspeak and requested the my cache archival be reviewed. The list of caches to be archived was provided to Groundspeak by the NPS, and Groundspeak acted on all of them accordingly, based on the word of the NPS alone. Obviously mistakes were made and will need corrected, but that will probably take some time.

 

I've not yet decided whether to contact the NPS to request that they remove my cache from the hit list, but I'm considering doing so. Might be better to just let Groundspeak deal with this rather than us individually.

Or maybe not... ?

Link to comment

After reading this (link below), I figure it's a response to side trails. That would explain why some caches that are quite a ways away were axed. If the easiest way to get to a cache on a State Gamelands is by first hiking along the AT then cutting off for the last .15, of course that's how people will go there, and that will create a discernible trail.

 

Here's the rather interesting report:

AT MEGA Transect

 

A few geocachers a month finding a cache and making a discernible trail - how is this different from a deer trail? Should we extend hunting season and kill more deer to ensure there are no discernible trails? Also, if a cache is 0.15 or more away... what are the odds that the same path will be taken? I would probably same slim..

 

And if a side trail leads off the NPS property they should have absolutely zero say in where it goes or what is at the other end. Maybe next week they will be blasting away waterfalls on private property because people leave the trail to view them.

Link to comment

I just counted 19 caches in my area of Pennsylvania (Monroe County and surrounding areas) that had been archived because of this.

(And there's probably more).

 

Holy cow!! If there's 19 in that area, this is going to be big. Really, really big. It'll probably be the Thursday and Friday massacre as well, with boatloads of caches not on NPS land getting axed.

Link to comment

After reading this (link below), I figure it's a response to side trails. That would explain why some caches that are quite a ways away were axed. If the easiest way to get to a cache on a State Gamelands is by first hiking along the AT then cutting off for the last .15, of course that's how people will go there, and that will create a discernible trail.

 

Here's the rather interesting report:

AT MEGA Transect

 

A few geocachers a month finding a cache and making a discernible trail - how is this different from a deer trail? Should we extend hunting season and kill more deer to ensure there are no discernible trails? Also, if a cache is 0.15 or more away... what are the odds that the same path will be taken? I would probably same slim..

 

I haven't seen these trails in over 700 cache hunts. At least not in the woods. Maybe 10 feet from a parking lot. Fact is that these caches don't get enough visits to create any trails. It's a made up argument.

 

Why don't they spend their resources going after the ATVers who are ripping up sections of the trail? Going after a tupperware container that gets maybe 5 visits a year is absurd.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

 

I haven't seen these trails in over 700 cache hunts. At least not in the woods. Maybe 10 feet from a parking lot. Fact is that these caches don't get enough visits to create any trails. It's a made up argument.

 

Why don't they spend their resources going after the ATVers who are ripping up sections of the trail? Going after a tupperware container that gets maybe 5 visits a year is absurd.

 

I think it's because we're easy. It would take work and manpower to nail that ATV rider. All it takes to nab us is a couple hours on a web site. I wonder whether they've spent the same amount of effort targeting caches listed on other sites or letter boxes?

Link to comment

After reading this (link below), I figure it's a response to side trails. That would explain why some caches that are quite a ways away were axed. If the easiest way to get to a cache on a State Gamelands is by first hiking along the AT then cutting off for the last .15, of course that's how people will go there, and that will create a discernible trail.

 

Here's the rather interesting report:

AT MEGA Transect

 

In the case of the 3 caches Klatch mentioned above (one of them is mine) they are ALL located along blazed, legit trails other than the AT. All of them are accessible without ever even touching the AT. Yes, unblazed side trails off the AT are a concern for the NPS, but none of these fit into that category. I think the NPS simply made a mistake... and I'd bet these aren't the only mistakes they made.

 

I contacted Groundspeak and requested the my cache archival be reviewed. The list of caches to be archived was provided to Groundspeak by the NPS, and Groundspeak acted on all of them accordingly, based on the word of the NPS alone. Obviously mistakes were made and will need corrected, but that will probably take some time.

 

I've not yet decided whether to contact the NPS to request that they remove my cache from the hit list, but I'm considering doing so. Might be better to just let Groundspeak deal with this rather than us individually.

Or maybe not... ?

I think the right answer is to make as much noise about this as possible.

 

Each and every cache owner with a legitimate placement should file a complaint with Groundspeak informing them of the error and requesting unarchival. Further they should recommend that Groundspeak perhaps exercise a bit more due-diligence in the future with respect to validating the legitimacy of a claim.

 

Premium members should express their frustration and concern with these "napalm" tactics. Make it abundently clear that your ready to speak with your feet on this matter and not renew your membership if necessary.

 

Call the local AT NPS office. Call the national AT NPS office. Call the NPS office. Complain and complain loudly. These people, while they often forget it, work for YOU, the American taxpayer. A complaint about how to NPS is representing your interests to your senator and congressman probably wouldn't hurt either (probably won't help either, but hey, they're not doing anything else in Washington D.C. these days, so maybe we'll get lucky).

 

If you obtained permission from a state agency to place a cache which was targeted. Complain to them about the NPS infringing on your rights and their jurisdiction over their lands.

Link to comment

"It is a made up argument"

 

Geocaching is a pretty innocuous pursuit. I agree that this is a made up argument. I note that there is a similar situation working in the Maryland area, wherein a call is being made for a change of container type. To a transparent container type. In my limited and non scientific experience such containers ofter are flimsy plastic containers that are ill suited to woods use. But what is not stated anywhere is the identified problem that regulation is attempting to address. There was some specious mention of the post 9/11 world, which was ludicrous on its face.

 

If there is no problem our government should not be addressing artificial issues. Our public employees are for the most part not permitted to regulate individually, that is a legislative function. So if Congress has through the NPS deemed the activity banned, then it would be proper to address your local representative and identify the fallacy of the "made up arguments" and how we have lent our hand to improvements in the local area. Be sure to point out your involvement in trail maint, CITO, volunteerism and the like.

Link to comment

I can understand them if they don't allow geocaches to have the ones near the trail archived but to me there is no reasonable explanation for the one that's 2.3 miles. If they had that one archived how many more mistakes are there that may not have been noticed?

 

I can understand why Groundspeak archived them but I hope in the end these caches are brought back.

 

I still hope that in the end that something could be worked out that would allow geocaches in some form on the trail.

Link to comment

"It is a made up argument"

 

I suspect that it is.

 

Has there ever been a study on the environmental impact of Geocaching?? Is there a study underway??

Without a study, it is really just a case of our word against theirs.

Google revealed a lot of opinion and chest beating out there but I could find no science and fact.

Link to comment

When NY State implemented its Permit Policy a few years back, I vowed to NEVER renew my Empire Pass, and to not pay any monies to NY State parks again.

 

Maybe now I will have to cancel my ATC membership, with a little note that not only dues, but all the little extras I used to send them will now be given to my local clubs.

 

Or maybe not.

Link to comment

 

I haven't seen these trails in over 700 cache hunts. At least not in the woods. Maybe 10 feet from a parking lot. Fact is that these caches don't get enough visits to create any trails. It's a made up argument.

 

Why don't they spend their resources going after the ATVers who are ripping up sections of the trail? Going after a tupperware container that gets maybe 5 visits a year is absurd.

 

Good point! Most of those caches are not heavily visited, and the few that are tend to be very close to public roadways where noncachers or AT hikers (i.e. the general public) tend to venture.

 

In fact, we were once looking for Tuffy (one of the archived caches) near the AT south of Stroudsburg, and a carload of drunken locals pulled off the road, staggered into the woods at the end of the trail, and proceeded to "water" all the rare and precious plants and geologically significant rocks they could reach. They did not, however, locate the cache.

Link to comment

"It is a made up argument"

 

I suspect that it is.

 

Has there ever been a study on the environmental impact of Geocaching?? Is there a study underway??

Without a study, it is really just a case of our word against theirs.

Google revealed a lot of opinion and chest beating out there but I could find no science and fact.

 

There's this: Draft ATC Policy for Geocaching along the AT

Link to comment

With TWO of three caches archived, for no apparent reason, I WILL be letting the ATC know why my dues are not coming in next year.

 

BOTH caches are well within PA SGL # 168 and the only thing dealing with the NPS and their "corridor" is the views on the way.

In fact, one is accessed EASIER by walking (or driving) a fire lane running along SGL #168 and not even spotting the AT from cache site unless you walk WAY passed it.

 

My biggest problem is Groundspeak...

We made sure to take pics, since we have a VERY thorough reviewer in our area and knew he'd ask about location.

I guess they didn't ask him...

We really try to create an experience for fellow cachers and put these in places of value. We made sure ALL was just right.

They sure didn't ask us...

 

I'm very upset that we were disregarded so easily.

 

"I" don't go paperless and don't access caches from "my" cell phone (that's CJ's thing.)

Now I'm not sure what my "premium" membership is really going to...

Link to comment
I had two caches of mine along the AT in New Jersey recently archived.

 

GCEAFE has been there for over 5 years! GCY9BB was there 2 years. ..

 

Wow, those where archived last Friday (9/12) by our local reviewer.

 

How long has this been brewing?

 

I have a feeling there is a lot more to this story that is being told.

 

My biggest problem is Groundspeak...

We made sure to take pics, since we have a VERY thorough reviewer in our area and knew he'd ask about location.

I guess they didn't ask him...

We really try to create an experience for fellow cachers and put these in places of value. We made sure ALL was just right.

They sure didn't ask us...

 

I'm very upset that we were disregarded so easily.

 

Agreed, this is very odd.

 

For once, the CO's don't look suspicious and appear to have done everything right. But everyone else involved (especially the departments that are taking my tax money and donations) look bad.

 

This makes me very sad. :D

Edited by ekitt10
Link to comment

"It is a made up argument"

 

I suspect that it is.

 

Has there ever been a study on the environmental impact of Geocaching?? Is there a study underway??

Without a study, it is really just a case of our word against theirs.

Google revealed a lot of opinion and chest beating out there but I could find no science and fact.

 

There's this: Draft ATC Policy for Geocaching along the AT

 

I saw that document and found only one hard fact presented - that there are more Geocaches in the world today than there were in 2006. The document then asserts the opinion that Geocaching is responsible for the "growth" of social trails/damages/etc. This document does not present any solid evidence supporting this assertion, especially with respect to the AT.

 

Solid evidence would include:

- the number of caches along the AT in 2006.

- the number of caches along the AT in 2008.

- that x of y social trails found leading to a geocache in 2006.

- and i of j social trails found leading to a geocache in 2008.

 

In this way we can put the word "growth" above into some sort of context.

 

It would be interesting to see how may social trail lead to trash piles or were created by ATVs, etc. I mean if the goal is to reduce/eliminate social trails, etc., lets see who is really responsible. The problem of social trails will not be eliminated by banning Geocaching. I suspect that it may have been an issue even before 2000.

Link to comment

 

It would be interesting to see how may social trail lead to trash piles or were created by ATVs, etc. I mean if the goal is to reduce/eliminate social trails, etc., lets see who is really responsible. The problem of social trails will not be eliminated by banning Geocaching. I suspect that it may have been an issue even before 2000.

 

As a woman, let me add that probably more than a couple of these trails lead to very big rocks or trees with sodden heaps of TP behind them!

Link to comment

New York State parks require permits to place a cache in a state park and that is great as far as I'm concerned because the park manager has the final say about where you place the cache and in effect the placement is agreed upon so that hopefully everyone can be happy about it. If the rangers want to keep cachers away from sensitive areas... they can just deny placement in that area or ask the owner to relocate the cache. I'd rather have that than have a complete ban on all geocaching.

 

I think what irks me from reading these posts is the feeling that the AT doesn't seem to get that cachers are hikers and outdoors people. Somehow we've been reduced to irksome gameplayers that should have no part in use of the trails or enjoyment of the outdoors. That said, in the past I have felt that Groundspeak needs to stress the concepts of leave no trace and respect for the environment a little more on the website.

 

I remember reading in the forums the story of someone who used to hike the trails and was a backwoodsman. Although he loved doing that he stated that geocaching added so much more to his hiking experience because of the added challenge of looking for the cache as well as the interaction with other cachers and cache owners on the internet and at events.

Link to comment

"It is a made up argument"

 

I suspect that it is.

 

Has there ever been a study on the environmental impact of Geocaching?? Is there a study underway??

Without a study, it is really just a case of our word against theirs.

Google revealed a lot of opinion and chest beating out there but I could find no science and fact.

 

There's this: Draft ATC Policy for Geocaching along the AT

 

I saw that document and found only one hard fact presented - that there are more Geocaches in the world today than there were in 2006. The document then asserts the opinion that Geocaching is responsible for the "growth" of social trails/damages/etc. This document does not present any solid evidence supporting this assertion, especially with respect to the AT....

 

The assertion of opinion as fact when it comes to environmental impact is a common problem. It's nothing more than speculation. I try to cull the speculation out of environmental reports that cross my desk. Some opinions are better than others. The good ones are not speculation, but also don't have more than their own internal voice of expereince to draw from. There is a balance between the two.

Link to comment

It appears most of this batch was between just out of Delaware Water Gap (but well past NPS) to Lehigh.

From Lehigh to Harrisburg, most seem to be picked at random.

TWO caches I know you can SEE from the AT are STILL there.

One cacher, known for his AT (and surrounding) caches had none touched.

I don't get it...

 

Love to know the GC.com acct. all this "info" is coming from. They weren't simply "found."

Just wanted to e-mail to explain why they weren't making my "friends" list.

Link to comment

It appears most of this batch was between just out of Delaware Water Gap (but well past NPS) to Lehigh.

From Lehigh to Harrisburg, most seem to be picked at random.

TWO caches I know you can SEE from the AT are STILL there.

One cacher, known for his AT (and surrounding) caches had none touched.

I don't get it...

 

 

Seeing has how some of the archived caches are 2 miles from the AT, I've got to question whether the folks who compiled the list even know where their precious trail is. :anibad:

Link to comment

...

Seeing has how some of the archived caches are 2 miles from the AT, I've got to question whether the folks who compiled the list even know where their precious trail is. :anibad:

Was it the NPS or volunteers who are doing the actual contacting? I would expect the NPS to be one heck of a lot more competant than volunteers may be.

 

My understanding from talking to the Chief Ranger is that the list was compiled by the ATC (which probably means volunteers) and then provided to Groundspeak. More than one person had a hand in compiling the list so it's possible that NPS folks were also involved. I know for a fact that whoever compiled the list used GIS software to identify the trail and various land boundaries. However, judging from my own firsthand knowledge of some of the archived caches and the areas they're hidden in, I'd say either the GIS data isn't 100% accurate or the person using the computer misinterpreted some of the information.

(Or both the NPS and the PA Game Comission actually believe they each own the same piece of land. B) )

Link to comment

...My understanding from talking to the Chief Ranger is that the list was compiled by the ATC (which probably means volunteers) and then provided to Groundspeak. More than one person had a hand in compiling the list so it's possible that NPS folks were also involved. I know for a fact that whoever compiled the list used GIS software to identify the trail and various land boundaries. However, judging from my own firsthand knowledge of some of the archived caches and the areas they're hidden in, I'd say either the GIS data isn't 100% accurate or the person using the computer misinterpreted some of the information.

(Or both the NPS and the PA Game Comission actually believe they each own the same piece of land. :) )

The NPS employees would do a better job. Volunteers try hard but vary in skill. You take what you can get. GIS data is subject to error, both in the data source and the importing process. GIS is a tool, you just have to know the limits. Plus if the AT trail is old enough there would be plenty of probems trying to figure out the real boundy.

Link to comment

The question arises as to where this all orginated. That is pretty easily answered , it was not with the NPS, it was with the ATC. In 2007, the ATC held a conference, at Ramapo College in Mahwah, NJ. The host organization was the NYNJTC (Trail Conference) . At that meeting the subject of Geocaching was brought up and subsequently tabled with the provision that it would be addressed at a closed panel policy making meeting later in that fall. The preliminary views shown clearly indicated that Geocaching as a sport, hobby and outdoor recreational pursuit was not a favored activity. Perhaps falling higher on the list than Mt. Biking and ATV'ers, but nevertheless anathema to "purist". The following links are provided for your viewing, but what is clear at this point is that the panel that pushed this agenda was most clearly aligned with the

"Leave NO Trace " ethic, if not organization. The so called stewardship council had more than several members who belonged to that organization. You as geocachers need to know that there exist within these organizations those persons who would restrict the use of public land to the barest minimum of impact or no impacts at all. The NYNJTC, in my view has played a role in this type of thinking and I believe them to have been involved in the overbroad restrictions imposed in places like Sterling Forest--acquired with public funds but limited to use by the real public. The organization has been against many types of use, particularly Mountain Biking. So I am not at all surprised at the views expressed regarding geocaching.

 

 

http://www.appalachiantrail.org/atf/cf/%7B...hing_Policy.pdf

 

 

 

http://www.appalachiantrail.org/atf/cf/%7B...Summer07PDF.pdf

 

Geocaches— This issue paper was discussed at the spring Mid-Atlantic RPC and

Stewardship Council meetings. As geocaches are increasingly appearing, both along the

Trail and in reports from corridor monitors, further RPC discussion this fall is

anticipated.

Wind towers—In an unusual development, Maine’s Land Use Regulation Commission

 

 

http://www.appalachiantrail.org/site/c.jkL...hip_Council.htm

 

These people believe that they have the right to keep the public out of and from using public lands, because they have a more "noble" purpose in life than you do.

Edited by Packanack
Link to comment

 

The NPS employees would do a better job. Volunteers try hard but vary in skill. You take what you can get. GIS data is subject to error, both in the data source and the importing process. GIS is a tool, you just have to know the limits. Plus if the AT trail is old enough there would be plenty of probems trying to figure out the real boundy.

 

I don't see why this process should have been so hard to get right. One would think that the NPS could have provided Groundspeak with a data file that contains the route of the actual AT. In turn, Groundspeak could have run a query of all caches within a specified distance of that route to obtain a list of questionable hides.

 

The results could have been reviewed by the NPS and/or Groundspeak to sort out the bad from the good. Rather than having "pockets" of the AT targeted, the entire trail could have been checked. I see caches that are still questionable that went untouched. I know of caches that are perfectly legit that were archived.

 

Because there are still caches along the AT that were missed, the NPS is probably not going to be happy with the final results of this latest hit. Because there were caches that were archived in error, geocachers certainly aren't happy with the results of this either.

 

No process is ever going to be 100% perfect, but come on... the way caches were picked for this list appears almost random. I actually think the NPS relied on public bookmarks of AT caches for a lot of their data -- that's what they've been known to do in the past. Did they even try to get Groundspeak's help? I'm pretty sure Groundspeak would have cooperated.

Link to comment

Sent ATC an e-mail stating a few of the "fact/fiction" areas of their views on geocaching...

(digging, "sensitive" areas, etc.)

 

Also, made sure to include the idea of CITO. A fact no where in their figures.

How many times have YOU come accross through-hikers burning their garbage and leaving the plastic and aluminum in the fire rings or stuffing woodpecker holes with their trash? - I've lost count.

WE clean up after THEM.

 

The ATC really needs as many HIKERS who also cache email and/or call, letting them know how ludicrous their outdated/uninformed views are.

 

Oh, almost forgot... I also let them know that they are no longer receiving any funding from me.

I, as well as MILLIONS others, can access the AT for free.

 

Cache safe.

Link to comment

I,too, am drafting a letter (not an email) to the ATC, as well as my local State Senator, and my local state represenative. I am chosing traditional mail as well as email.

 

I intend to mention CITO; I intend to mention ATV use, and illegal hunting, and illegal camping.

 

My letter to the ATC will include a note canceling my membership effective immediately.

 

 

It is odd that while many state and local organizations have thoroughly embraced the sport of Geocaching and all that is has to offer (gatherings, public awareness, CITO), at the same time other organizations completely shut us out.

Link to comment

Geocaching does not have an advocacy program. Years back, the Mountain Bikers mounted a plan and they got together and promoted the sport. When you walked into a bike shop and bought a Mtn Bike you were handed a membership application for IMBA or JORBA or some other group.

 

ATC and NYNJTC have been around for a dogs age and have established themselves as advocacy groups, often to the detriment of the public interest in favor of their parochial interest. Sterling forest remains the biggest source of evidence of that power gone wrong.

 

Geocachers have none of that. It starts grass roots, cachers should become members of their local groups and should become advocates. But that also means running CITO, not once ever 4 years but perhaps 4 time a year, and cleaning out abandoned caches and having peer review to let those who have "bad" hides know that they should re think their hides. If we are to grow and prosper we are going to have to be able to show our responsibility and we need to be able to show land managers where they are incorrect in their assessment.

 

We kind of have to be able to show that we are here to stay .

Link to comment

Although I don’t agree with the heavy handed way this policy was carried out, I think we should all re-read the ATC’s draft policy. There are quite a few unproved assumptions which won’t hold up but I see it as mostly positive for geocaching.

 

Since the NPS instituted their no caches policy, caches were prohibited on the AT as it is National Park Service land. Some slipped by the reviewers for one reason or another. This new policy allows geocaching on the trail providing certain guidelines are met. It’s not much different from the regulations imposed by some States and Counties. I don’t like them but making rules and regulations to protect the resource is part of a land manager’s job. The ATC policy may also be a first step towards allowing caches back into the National Parks.

 

Not all caches on the trail have been archived and with only a few exceptions, no caches near, but not on the trail or corridor have been touched. I suspect that those exceptions were due to someone’s personal agenda, but I don’t know that for sure. It’s also important to remember that the trail corridor varies. In some places it may only be a few hundred feet but it can also be much wider.

 

I think any letters to the ATC should also stress that geocaching has succeeded in getting families and young children out on the trails. Something most trail organizations have been trying to do with little success for as long as I’ve been hiking.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...