Jump to content

AT Caches Archived!


whistler & co.

Recommended Posts

At what point did NPS assume control over lands they don't own? :D

The A.T. is actually the Appalachian National Scenic Trail and is part of the NPS(U.S. Dept. of the Interior). Although the trail is a patchwork of over 200 separate jurisdictions, the NPS does own a fair amount of the land (e.g., Great Smokey Mountain National Park) along the 2178 mile trail. They have agreements with many land owners as well. The National Forests the trail goes through (U.S. Dept. of Agriculture) have different objectives, one being multiple use, and the rules can conflict.

 

Renegade Knight-"You do realize this is backwards. The NPS is archiving caches wholesale and leaving it to the owner to show they are good where they are.... "
I understand what you're saying but to be correct, Groundspeak is archiving caches wholesale at the 'request' of the NPS. The net effect is the same.
Link to comment

You do realize this is backwards. The NPS is archiving caches wholesale and leaving it to the owner to show they are good where they are. What the NPS should be doing is doing their homework to archive the caches they have the authority to archive and not the ones they don't. Cache owners in good standing should not have to lift a finger to fix a problem they don't have. The onus is on the NPS, not ownes in good standing.

 

While I agree with you that cache owners whose caches are not under NPS jurisdiction and were wrongly archived ideally shouldn't have to expend time and energy to get their caches reinstated, I can also understand why Groundspeak would immediately comply with the request of the NPS. However, I think the best action would have been to proceed a bit more slowly and with some dialog between cache owners, Groundspeak, and the NPS. The cache owners could have been contacted and told about what was about to happen and why, and then given a period of time (even just two weeks may have been sufficient) to explain why their individual caches should not be archived. It has long been in the guidelines that caches cannot be hidden on NPS land, but many of those that were ruthlessly archived apparently were on other lands under local or state management. I wonder...will people be allowed to appeal this on a case by case basis, or are these archivals carved in stone?

Link to comment

A quick Internet search for "appalachian trail geocaching" also shows one heck of a lot of websites that are gong to have to be changed!

 

Bordered by the Appalachian Trail, this 8-mile loop trail follows the ... Geocaching is a great new outdoor activity that resembles that of a high tech ...

www.maineoutfitter.com/adventures/hiking.html

 

Geocaching and Letterboxing in Virginia are the ultimate treasure hunt and can add excitement and fun ... Virginia's Appalachian Trail · Virginia's Caverns ...

www.virginia.org/site/features.asp?FeatureID=193

 

Geocaching is a fun activity that requires only a GPS and a sense of adventure. ... A 5 stage cache with many variations located on the Appalachian Trail ...

www.georgiahikes.com/geocache/

 

Etc, etc, etc.

Edited by knowschad
Link to comment

At what point did NPS assume control over lands they don't own? :D

The A.T. is actually the Appalachian National Scenic Trail and is part of the NPS(U.S. Dept. of the Interior). Although the trail is a patchwork of over 200 separate jurisdictions, the NPS does own a fair amount of the land (e.g., Great Smokey Mountain National Park) along the 2178 mile trail. They have agreements with many land owners as well. The National Forests the trail goes through (U.S. Dept. of Agriculture) have different objectives, one being multiple use, and the rules can conflict.

 

So my question remains... at what point did NPS assume control over lands they don't own? State parks belong to the states, not the NPS. Private lands allowing AT thru-hikers control their lands. Parks "near" the AT are not controlled by the NPS. So how are they making a sweeping mandate affecting the entire trail?

 

edit to add: owning a "fair amount" is not the same thing as owning the AT.

Edited by fox-and-the-hound
Link to comment
The A.T. is actually the Appalachian National Scenic Trail and is part of the NPS(U.S. Dept. of the Interior). Although the trail is a patchwork of over 200 separate jurisdictions, the NPS does own a fair amount of the land (e.g., Great Smokey Mountain National Park) along the 2178 mile trail. They have agreements with many land owners as well. The National Forests the trail goes through (U.S. Dept. of Agriculture) have different objectives, one being multiple use, and the rules can conflict.

That's the problem. There are so many different agencies and people involved. Some of the effected caches are actually in private land trusts where permission was given by land managers for placement of the caches.

 

One cacher went before the board of directors of one land trust group a couple times to explain geocaching. Turns out the board wanted more people to visit their lands and gave them permission to place caches in any of the areas they managed.

 

I understand why GC did what they did as far as a blanket archive of the caches. That's really the most efficient approach, but hopefully, caches in areas like land trusts and places like that will be able to get them unarchived.

 

Edit to add that under the NPS policy, it states that when park managers want to monitor GPS activies, they may "Confirm that the cache has not already been approved by the park through another division or a park representative." Section D.1. So, if the cache is on private land such as a land trust, they should be checking with the land trust first, and if it's been approved, the cache should be allowed to stay. This might offer some recourse if a cache owner wishes to contact GC about having a cache unarchived.

 

One question. In areas where the AT runs through public land like state forests and parks, who has ultimate authority over the rules & regulations? It seems like a conflict of interest if a state allows caching on public land, but the NPS doesn't because the AT runs through a particular park.

Edited by Skippermark
Link to comment

It seems to me that the NPS will not change with the times. I remember reading an article about NPS run campgrounds and banning RVs. The article stated that the parks are losing money every year to privatly run campgrounds but they refuse to update to accomodate RVs. They have even started banning RV's all together in some of there parks making a similar argument as banning geocaching. To me I think the the NPS is being run by stuck in the past mentality. There mission should be to open up the parks to as many activates they can as long as the land is not abused.

 

This came fromQUOTE(Skippermark @ Sep 18 2008, 10:20 AM)

 

Okay, before things start getting heated, I thought a link to the NPS official rules regarding GPS based Recreational Activities would be good to post.

 

That was obtained from obtained from this thread, which took place here in the forums back in November of 07.

 

This might be the biggest group of caches archived, but it's no the first. A bunch were archived in CT back in mid-June.

 

 

Geocaching usually involves placing in a remote area a physical cache containing a variety of

objects in a weatherproof container. According to the geocaching.com web site, the basic idea is

to have individuals and organizations set up caches all over the world and share the location

coordinates of these caches on the internet. Hand held GPS devices can then be used to find the

caches. Geocaching is viewed as a type of “treasure hunt” where participants search for hidden

caches using hand held GPS devices. The notion of a “treasure hunt” immediately sets off an

alarm for NPS managers because it implies that the “hunters” will be placing caches in

unapproved areas, digging up park resources and damaging the park environment. Obviously,

much as we want park visitors to enjoy their experience, we cannot allow a GPS activity if it

would lead to destructive behavior. Burying caches would generally violate 36 CFR 2.1(a), and

could violate other regulations, as well.

 

WOW!! “hunters” and "digging up park resources and damaging the park environment" this is what they think? We need to remember that the NPS is a government run agency as such the people hold the power. The misinformed need to be informed. Maybe its time Groundspeak starts lobbying DC becomes more political.

Link to comment

Groundspeak archived two caches in a large section of state park in Virginia near where the ATC crosses I-66. The NPS apparently asked for the caches to be archived because the Appalachian Trail runs through the state park. As far as I know, the park is managed by the state. One cache is at least a quarter of a mile from the Appalachian Trail, and the other one is almost two miles from it. Access to these caches would not have been over the Appalachian Trail, so it seems a bit over-reaching to me for NPS to claim that no cache placements can be made in any state park that the AT runs through.

 

I know the NPS prohibits cache placements on the AT, and I understand they wanted to prohibit placements on lands adjacent to the AT that might encourage hikers to use the AT to reach the caches. For these two caches, however, nothing suggests that these placements have ANY connection with the AT. That strikes me as the wrong outcome here, and I am disappointed that Groundspeak is automatically agreeing to all of these archive requests without even looking at the map.

 

I understand that Groundspeak wants to be a good "neighbor" to the NPS and every public park, but I think a more appropriate response to these blanket requests would have been "Dear NPS: Thank you for your request. Please identify the caches that you believe are actually within the AT Corridor and we will archive those immediately. We will promptly review the other caches on your list to determine the appropriate steps to take with those placements." That strikes me as a very cooperative and polite response that still indicates some willingness to stand by the individuals that placed these caches on state land where they were presumably approved or at least not prohibited.

 

Instead, Groundspeak has apparently archived all of the caches targeted by the NPS, and NOTHING in the forum posts explaining why the cache was archived suggests that the issue is open for further reconsideration and review. So we can opine in the forums that we hope Groundspeak is willing to revisit this issue, but I wish they had shown at least the same consideration and courtesy to the cache owners that they did to the NPS. In fact, I think the individuals that placed the caches and supported this site with memberships should have gotten the benefit of the doubt here.

 

I favor working with the state and municipal parks that permit cache placements more than I support appeasing the NPS to remove caches on land it does not own or control. To the extent that Groundspeak wants to allay concerns about placements near the AT Corridor, it could adopt a policy prohibiting placements within a tenth of a mile, or a quarter-mile of the park boundary.

Link to comment

 

One question. In areas where the AT runs through public land like state forests and parks, who has ultimate authority over the rules & regulations? It seems like a conflict of interest if a state allows caching on public land, but the NPS doesn't because the AT runs through a particular park.

 

As it's been explained to me by the NPS, in most cases the land owner's policy trumps the NPS policy. The AT in Pennsylvania runs through a number of state parks which are owned by DCNR. DCNR has its own permit process to manage geocaches, so any caches on DCNR land in the AT corridor have already been vetted by the DCNR permit process and NPS would rarely take issue with that. I'm not saying that the NPS would *never* take issue with that, but usually they default to the land owner's policy.

 

In cases where the land owner has no permit process or policy (such as State Game Lands) the NPS agreement with the landowner comes into play and the NPS may use their given authority to control the AT corrdior. If the Game Comission had its own policy, the NPS would probably treat it the same way as they did DCNR.

 

There's a lot of confusion caused when 2 or more governing bodies have control over the same tract of land. In many cases, the ATC, the NPS and the Land Owner all have a say as to what goes, so there are really 3 entities asserting their authority over a specific chunk of property.

Link to comment

Instead, Groundspeak has apparently archived all of the caches targeted by the NPS, and NOTHING in the forum posts explaining why the cache was archived suggests that the issue is open for further reconsideration and review. So we can opine in the forums that we hope Groundspeak is willing to revisit this issue, but I wish they had shown at least the same consideration and courtesy to the cache owners that they did to the NPS. In fact, I think the individuals that placed the caches and supported this site with memberships should have gotten the benefit of the doubt here.

 

 

I agree that it would be nice for Groundspeak to vocalize a bit here and explain the situation and why it was handled the way it was. It's possible there's more to this story than we know, but as an affected cache owner I'd really appreciate some official word on how my archived-but-lawful cache can be restored. This whole issue is being handled above the "reviewer" level so my usual point of contact can't help me with this one.

Link to comment

 

One question. In areas where the AT runs through public land like state forests and parks, who has ultimate authority over the rules & regulations? It seems like a conflict of interest if a state allows caching on public land, but the NPS doesn't because the AT runs through a particular park.

 

As it's been explained to me by the NPS, in most cases the land owner's policy trumps the NPS policy. The AT in Pennsylvania runs through a number of state parks which are owned by DCNR. DCNR has its own permit process to manage geocaches, so any caches on DCNR land in the AT corridor have already been vetted by the DCNR permit process and NPS would rarely take issue with that. I'm not saying that the NPS would *never* take issue with that, but usually they default to the land owner's policy.

 

In cases where the land owner has no permit process or policy (such as State Game Lands) the NPS agreement with the landowner comes into play and the NPS may use their given authority to control the AT corrdior. If the Game Comission had its own policy, the NPS would probably treat it the same way as they did DCNR.

 

There's a lot of confusion caused when 2 or more governing bodies have control over the same tract of land. In many cases, the ATC, the NPS and the Land Owner all have a say as to what goes, so there are really 3 entities asserting their authority over a specific chunk of property.

 

That matches my experience on such things. It can get pretty complicated. Especially when more than tupperware is involved. :anibad:

Link to comment

You do realize this is backwards. The NPS is archiving caches wholesale and leaving it to the owner to show they are good where they are. What the NPS should be doing is doing their homework to archive the caches they have the authority to archive and not the ones they don't. Cache owners in good standing should not have to lift a finger to fix a problem they don't have. The onus is on the NPS, not ownes in good standing.

 

While I agree with you that cache owners whose caches are not under NPS jurisdiction and were wrongly archived ideally shouldn't have to expend time and energy to get their caches reinstated, I can also understand why Groundspeak would immediately comply with the request of the NPS. However, I think the best action would have been to proceed a bit more slowly and with some dialog between cache owners, Groundspeak, and the NPS. ...

 

Agreed. While I don't like the archive first ask questions later policy, I can't fault them for using that model. Besides I don't have ideas that would work better overall to maximize the land manager satisfaction with caching as a whole.

Link to comment

GRADING THE NPS:

 

I thought I would just Grade the NPS based on their own Guiding Principles(obtained from their own webpage):

 

The National park Service preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the national park system for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations. The Park Service cooperates with partners to extend the benefits of natural and cultural resource conservation and outdoor recreation throughout this country and the world.

 

To achieve this mission, the National Park Service adheres to the following guiding principles:

 

Excellent Service: Providing the best possible service to park visitors and partners. -

 

FAILED! This is what they call providing the best possible service, forcing the removal of of these caches without explanation or cooperation with those that utilize them as a form of recreation and a means of bringing others to interesting locations. I really don't think so. There are better means by which any concerns could have been adressed.

 

Productive Partnerships: Collaborating with federal, state, tribal, and local governments, private organizations, and businesses to work toward common goals.

 

FAILED! - Where was the collaboration and/or cooperation. I guess this government organization sees Dictorial Direction as being collaboration. I am sure, if any concerns were brought to the Caching Community that some reasonable measures could have been agreed upon to address these concerns without this sweeping cache archival.

 

Citizen Involvement: Providing opportunities for citizens to participate in the decisions and actions of the National Park Service.

 

FAILED! - Where was the citizen involvement here? Did you only involve citizens who have a negative outlook on geocaching? It certainly does not appear that anyone in the geocaching community knew or knows why this is happening.

 

Heritage Education: Educating park visitors and the general public about their history and common heritage.

 

On the Verge of Failure - How do you intend to educate people by trying to keep them away from our national park areas?

 

Outstanding Employees: Empowering a diverse workforce committed to excellence, integrity, and quality work.

 

FAILED! - At least the employees who were invovled in this decision. You work for us remember. It was our money that was used to set asside these lands for the enjoyment of Us. Many parks lands were donated by private citizens.

 

Employee Development: Providing developmental opportunities and training so employees have the , "tools to do the job" safely and efficiently.

 

No comment other then the only tools I see being used are fear and intimidation.

 

Wise Decisions: Integrating social, economic, environmental, and ethical considerations into the decision -making process.

 

FAILED! - This is what the government sees as being a wise decision? This looks like typical environmental Whacko hysteria.

 

Effective Management: Instilling a performance management philosophy that fosters creativity, focuses on results, and requires accountability at all levels.

 

FAILED! - Who is being held accountable here? Who are they accountable too? You just screwed one of the largest groups of people who utilize our National Parks and other open areas without so much as the consideration of explaining why or presenting, or allowing to be presented, other options that may have provided the same benefits without such drastic measures and without consideration of those that placed these caches outside the bounds of your juridiction. You condemed without explanation or proof of reason.

 

Research and Technology: Incorporating research findings and new technologies to improve work practices, products, and services.

 

No grade here, but when was the last time you improved your product or services

 

Shared Capabilities: Sharing technical information and expertise with public and private land managers.

 

FAILED! - Why wasn't anything shared with the people/group that is being affected here.

 

Sorry if I hurt anyone's feeling here, but I am tired of seeing the government and it's employees just do whatever the H... they feel like doing without so much as a drop of consideration for the people that it is affecting. I'm not saying that maybe this didn't need to be done, but I dadgum well know that it could be done in a much more friendly manner. At a minimum at least give us a reason for why this is being done. Where is the press release explaining why the NPS is forcing caches, not on NPS land, to be removed, or and explanation of how or why they feel they have the authority to force the removal of these caches. I certainly understand why Groundspeak would not try to fight it, but I do have a problem with the fact that the NPS feels they can just do this. I've experience BigBrother pushing the little guy around. Bullies have always pissed me off. So Please, forgive me and allow me this opportunity to blow off some steam. :anibad:B):ph34r::huh:

 

Thanks

Edited by BambamNJ
Link to comment

Instead, Groundspeak has apparently archived all of the caches targeted by the NPS, and NOTHING in the forum posts explaining why the cache was archived suggests that the issue is open for further reconsideration and review. So we can opine in the forums that we hope Groundspeak is willing to revisit this issue, but I wish they had shown at least the same consideration and courtesy to the cache owners that they did to the NPS. In fact, I think the individuals that placed the caches and supported this site with memberships should have gotten the benefit of the doubt here.

 

 

I agree that it would be nice for Groundspeak to vocalize a bit here and explain the situation and why it was handled the way it was. It's possible there's more to this story than we know, but as an affected cache owner I'd really appreciate some official word on how my archived-but-lawful cache can be restored. This whole issue is being handled above the "reviewer" level so my usual point of contact can't help me with this one.

 

I just looked at a cache I found a few years ago in an undisclosed mid-atlantic state that I thought would have been axed for sure. It's not far off the AT, in a State forest, I believe. No need to go on the AT, but apparently that doesn't mean too much. But the cache is untouched. Anyways, I agree with DocDitto, it would be nice to hear from the Lily Pad here. :anibad:

Link to comment

Anyone heard from the lilly pad?

 

:anibad:

 

I emailed yesterday, no response here.

 

I believe a number of the lackeys are heading out of town this weekend. In fact, based on an out-of-office email response I got, they're probably already on their way. The message did say that this one person in particular would return on either Sunday or Monday (I forget which) so I don't expect a response before then, if at all. I'm guessing that Groundspeak has probably been contacted quite a bit in the last day or so.

Link to comment

 

One question. In areas where the AT runs through public land like state forests and parks, who has ultimate authority over the rules & regulations? It seems like a conflict of interest if a state allows caching on public land, but the NPS doesn't because the AT runs through a particular park.

 

As it's been explained to me by the NPS, in most cases the land owner's policy trumps the NPS policy.

That's generally what I've heard too but wanted to make sure.

Link to comment

Mine were archived and mine were the "required" distance off of the trail. B) What a shame. It's sad because at least with caches like this you got to actually hike to find them rather than P&G on private property. Maybe the next thing that should happen is an across the board ban on hide-a-keys on private property. I'm guilty these myself, but.... oh forget it, what's the use. :anibad:

 

Wait, maybe Sarah Palin can help.... oh wait, no that won't work either....

Edited by The Blind Acorn
Link to comment

Are we all starting to see how helpful it is to get the Land Manager's permission? And all of those "Gee, let's get the local newspaper to do a story about geocaching" ideas. Oh yeah, and let's all do a "Geocaching 101" event so that everyone knows about our little activity.

 

Sorry... I just had to archive a very elaborate cache today because of park micro-management that may have never existed if it hadn't been for publicity about caching. Guess I will have to switch from carefully crafted caches in plain sight to pill bottles stuffed into hollows in rotten trees just because we tried to include everyone.

Link to comment

Just a thought here as I don't live near the AT at all. I hoped to come and hike some of in the the next couple of years and do some caching on it. I think for me that would be a great vacation. Hiking and caching and camping alone the AT. Now well, I would still consider going and enjoying the hiking but the caches along the way would have been a great thing for me, and this kind of puts the idea of looking for a differnet place to go in my head.

 

But let's say GS did get a e-mail asking that caches be removed from the area. (Which has obviously happened). Could this just be they are playing it safe and archiving them all and hoping to work things out with them and maybe just establish a policy on placing caches on the AT? (I don't know what the current one is if there is/was one) I'm sure this is a political thing now. I'm sure G.S. is trying to act in the best interest of the players. (At least I hope).

 

I don't think bugging the reviewers will help any as it seems to be coming from above them. I'm sure a lot of owners are e-mailing G.S. directly looking for answers which I think would be the proper channel for this. And maybe the ones that are located on state land instead of NPS land can be reinstated but it will take a bit of time to go over every listing.

 

So give G.S. a little bit of time and hopefully soon they will respond and give us a little insite on what's going on.

 

Good luck to all that had caches archived on them and hopefully this mess will have a positive outcome yet!!! :anibad:

Link to comment

And here's some quotes from an unnamed state Department of Environmental Protection website:

 

"Description: The letterbox lies in the xxxxxx of the xxxxxx State Forest, within the town of xxxxx. This letterbox is the only one located along the Appalachian Trail! The hike is approximately 4,000 feet, one way (3,550 feet is on a state forest road. The remaining few hundred feet is on and adjacent to the Appalachian Trail.)......

 

Continue up the main road another 2,450 feet (a little under a half-mile) to the point where the AT crosses the road. You will see the white-painted blazes on either side of the road, marking the trail, as well as a wooden backpacker sign. Take a left onto the trail and do what hundreds of “thru-hikers” do for 5-6 months of their lives annually: Follow the white blazes! You are now on the Appalachian Trail.....

 

The total distance to the letterbox from the AT is about 95 feet. Note that this hiding spot can collect rainwater, so be sure to keep the letterbox securely bagged. Also, help us by covering it a little with leaves to hide it from someone who might accidentally stumble across it."

 

'Course it probably is not the only letterbox located along the AT. But, it's the only one that was PLACED and is maintained by the State DEP. Wonder if they got a request to remove it from the NPS :anibad:

Edited by cliff_hanger
Link to comment

Here is some additional information relating to the recent archival of geocaches along the Appalachian Trail.

 

Communication Received

Groundspeak received the following correspondence from the National Park Service. This email has been edited to remove specific individual contact information.

 

“Here is a list of existing geocaches which need to be archived and removed as soon as possible. The majority of geocaches on this initial list are located on NPS managed AT Corridor lands as well as some which were identified as being on state managed lands that the A.T. passes through where geocaching is prohibited.

 

Regarding Va. Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries:

Geocaching is not an approved activity on wildlife Management Areas. We appreciate your assistance in informing the public that this activity is not allowed.

 

As for MA DCR managed lands:

Under Mass DCR Geocache Policy, there will be a registration and review process for approval and proper placement. Geocaches will NOT be allowed in the following places, including the A.T. Corridor.

 

Caches are not approved for the following locations:

• Sensitive archaeological sites.

• Locations that would encourage disturbance or dismantling of historic buildings, structures, or rock walls.

• Priority Habitat as identified by the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program

• Wetland resources protected under the Code of Massachusetts Regulations (310 CMR 10)

• Areas that could potentially cause danger to visitors trying to locate the cache (e.g., cliff faces; upper branches of trees; inaccessible terrain, or in areas with heavy vehicular traffic.

• Locations where cache-related foot traffic may create confusion, public safety concerns or impacts to significant ecological or cultural resources.

• Underwater.

• Caves or dens.

• Appalachian Trail Corridor. (1)

• Restricted access areas in the Quabbin Reservoir, Ware River, Wachusett Reservoir, and Sudbury Reservoir Watersheds.

• Other locations that are deemed inappropriate by the facility manager, their designee, or the Department.

 

(1) Per the MA A.T. Memorandum of Understanding, the AT Corridor is defined as: 1,000-foot corridor (500 feet either side of A.T. footpath) across lands administered by MA DCR”

 

What Occurred Next

As a standard practice, when Groundspeak receives notification of an inappropriately placed geocache, that geocache is archived or disabled immediately pending further review. In this instance, and prior to the archival of geocaches, Groundspeak reached out to the land management agencies directly, offering education, tools and support to assist their staff.

 

After speaking with the parties involved, it is now our understanding that, according to the NPS:

- Simply moving a geocache a few hundred feet from the AT does not change the fact that "bad things" can occur, like unacceptable social trails.

- Geocaches placed on NPS managed property is against the law. It is a non-negotiable and potentially subject to fines and federal tickets.

- Any geocache where a primary access point is needed along corridor lands should not be published. Again, the creation of social trails is a potential issue.

- Regardless of resources offered, they do not believe in cultivating relationships with people that they perceive are knowingly breaking the law.

 

While their interpretation of matters may be viewed as quite strict and their view of the lands in which they manage is broad, we realized that in order for Groundspeak, geocaching organizations and local geocachers to make a positive impact in this region, we must first try to address the instances in which they claim Geocachers were breaking the law. Hence, the immediate archival of the identified geocaches as requested by them, was out primary priority.

 

In Groundspeak’s view:

- We were assured that the geocache list for archival had been researched and confirmed; the geocaches listed were recognized as significant legal issues. If these geocaches were not removed, geocachers could be subject to fines and Federal tickets.

- We believe that in complying with their initial requests, our actions serve as an olive branch in an ongoing attempt to create lasting, working relationships with these land managing agencies.

- We are committed to being positive stewards of the geocaching activity on a global scale. We believe geocachers are well intended, outdoor enthusiasts who are committed to sharing unique locations and experiences in a family friendly, legal manner.

 

Next Steps

- Groundspeak acknowledges that mistakes happen and that the list provided by the NPS may be subject to error. It is also possible that the NPS made additional considerations for archival that were not disclosed to Groundspeak. Therefore, we will be sending a list of geocaches to the NPS that seem to be of no legal or environmental concern. If you have a known example, please email contact@geocaching.com with details you feel are appropriate, including specific contact information received for permission for placement of the particular geocache.

- Although incidences like these can be frustrating, please understand that it is in everyone’s best interest to react in positive ways that will improve the perception of the activity and of the worldwide geocaching community.

 

We hope this information helps to provide additional context regarding these recent events. We intend to continue working on behalf of the geocaching community in order to provide for the continued existence and global enjoyment of geocaching. Thank you for your ongoing commitment and support.

Link to comment

• Areas that could potentially cause danger to visitors trying to locate the cache (e.g., cliff faces; upper branches of trees; inaccessible terrain, or in areas with heavy vehicular traffic.

 

Sorry for going off-topic here, but...WOW! That's disturbing! Who exactly has decided what is "accessible"? Who is to say I cannot choose to go into the "upper branches of trees" if I so decide? Can non-cachers go into these places, to perhaps take photographs or to get from point A to point B in an area with heavy vehicular traffic if they can't afford gas for their car? Is rock climbing allowed? I am flabbergasted by these Massachusetts restrictions targeting the caching community...

 

Back on-topic: Thanks for the official response and additional info. I am very glad to see there is an appeals process in place for those who feel they were treated unjustly in this matter.

 

(Edited becuase I misread the post I was quoting and used the wrong state!)

Edited by whistler & co.
Link to comment

If even the thought of a cache detracts from the wilderness experience for some people, then why are they even on the AT? Its a marked trail, that in its own right is a detraction from the wilderness experience.

 

I'll accept the NPS doesn't want them on its lands, the AT or the ATC but to declare state park XYZ off limits just because the AT goes through it is getting extreme.

Link to comment

This is a shame. One of the wonders if geocaching is that I think it is getting more people outdoors and enjoying our natural wonders than ever before (or at least in the "hi tech" era), especially people who are/would be "bored" by just hiking, birdwatching, etc. and would otherwise be sitting at home watching TV or playing a video game. Adding this "purpose" to a hike opens their eyes to the beauty of our planet and gets them clamoring for more. And there are many places that one would not go to on a typical hike that are discovered because someone who knew of such "special place" put a cache there to make sure that others get to find and enjoy it.

 

Thankfully (even if they also have some restrictions) most states in their own parks have not taken this to the degree of the NPS, if they did, in a few years (or less) caching would be limited to urban "park and grabs" (unless/until the day comes that that gets restricted) or small parks in towns and cities.

Link to comment

I can understand why GC rolled over on this issue. They are, first and foremost, just a listing service, that takes a proactive role in cultivating working relationships with land managers. As such, they would tend toward the side of caution, going through the motions dictated by said land managers, fixing any errors later. Hopefully, once the facts are in, GC will allow those caches that are outside the AT's area of control. If not, there are other listing sites.

 

Like it? No.

Understand it? Yes.

Link to comment

Here is some additional information relating to the recent archival of geocaches along the Appalachian Trail.

 

...

We hope this information helps to provide additional context regarding these recent events. We intend to continue working on behalf of the geocaching community in order to provide for the continued existence and global enjoyment of geocaching. Thank you for your ongoing commitment and support.

 

Excellent summary.

 

Some comments on this section of the NPS intent:

After speaking with the parties involved, it is now our understanding that, according to the NPS:

- Simply moving a geocache a few hundred feet from the AT does not change the fact that "bad things" can occur, like unacceptable social trails.

- Geocaches placed on NPS managed property is against the law. It is a non-negotiable and potentially subject to fines and federal tickets.

- Any geocache where a primary access point is needed along corridor lands should not be published. Again, the creation of social trails is a potential issue.

- Regardless of resources offered, they do not believe in cultivating relationships with people that they perceive are knowingly breaking the law.

 

Following each point in order.

 

The NPS authority insofar as caches ends at the edge of the AT lands that they manage. Ideally they negotiated enough ROW so that they have the buffer they wanted on their side of the line where they have both authority and control. The truth of that claim should be part of the environmental document. The environmental document should be available to the pubic for review.

 

Caches placed on NPS property are not against the law. They have laws and regulations that may or may not apply. I’m not aware that the potential interpretations have been tested in court. I also have not seen a legal opinion on the issue that would guide NPS actions. To make caches against the law they would have to propose a rule then put that out for comment (where we cachers could comment) and follow a few other steps. That the NPS doesn’t want caches is their preference and their prerogative but it’s not the law as it stands. If the NPS has a differing internal legal opinion they should share it with the caching public.

 

This is an opinion that the NPS wants Groundspeak to buy into voluntarily. They will probably not be able or willing to offer official guidance on how to limit legitimate access to non AT lands. How do you say “No hiking allowed” on a hiking trail? Access points are subject to current regulations. The NPS should not create defacto new rules and restrictions without following the rule making process where the public (us cachers included) can comment on it. There is also the issue that if legitimate access is banned the NPS has in effect created a land take. The federal rules on land takes are fairly stringent. The NPS would be remiss not to follow them as other federal agencies have to do when it comes to taking access from a land owner. Again the potential for social trails etc. should be part of the environmental document which should be available for pubic review. Their point of concern would be addressed. Cache finding for caches not on the trail is indisguishable from hiking to local points of interest that would be near the trail.

 

The NPS should cultivate relationships with all folks enjoyig our parks in good faith. They cultivate relationships with volunteers who break laws and rules who are acting in good faith don't they? There are a lot of rules after all.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment

• Areas that could potentially cause danger to visitors trying to locate the cache (e.g., cliff faces; upper branches of trees; inaccessible terrain, or in areas with heavy vehicular traffic.

 

Sorry for going off-topic here, but...WOW! That's disturbing! Who exactly has decided what is "accessible"? Who is to say I cannot choose to go into the "upper branches of trees" if I so decide? Can non-cachers go into these places, to perhaps take photographs or to get from point A to point B in an area with heavy vehicular traffic if they can't afford gas for their car? Is rock climbing allowed? I am flabbergasted by these Massachusetts restrictions targeting the caching community.....

 

Seeking a cache is nothing more than interacting with a point of interst. Something that happens regularly and which the NPS has experience with and which they already regulate as appropriate.

Link to comment

I appreciate the fact the Groundspeak spoke up and provided this information. Thank you Shauna.

 

Would you mind answering a couple questions?

 

1) How many caches were on the list provided by the NPS?

 

2) Is Groundspeak doing its own internal review of "mistakes"? From what I've seen, the NPS used quite a wide brush when then developed the list, and frankly, they really overstepped their bounds in a number of instances. Honestly, I don't trust them to check their own work.

 

3) Any idea how long it might be until caches which were archived in error are restored?

Link to comment

 

Regarding Va. Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries:

Geocaching is not an approved activity on wildlife Management Areas. We appreciate your assistance in informing the public that this activity is not allowed.

 

 

The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries used to have a link about geocaching, including a link to geocaching.com itself. Can't find it now. I wonder what changed. It's not as if, there are a whole bunch of geocaches on those lands. I only have to believe that it's the influence of the NPS pushing their uninformed position on geocaching.

Edited by reedkickball
Link to comment

 

Regarding Va. Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries:

Geocaching is not an approved activity on wildlife Management Areas. We appreciate your assistance in informing the public that this activity is not allowed.

 

 

The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries used to have a link about geocaching, including a link to geocaching.com itself. Can't find it now. I wonder what changed. It's not as if, there are a whole bunch of geocaches on those lands. I only have to believe that it's the influence of the NPS pushing their uninformed position on geocaching.

 

http://74.125.45.104/custom?q=cache:IVTh4o...;cd=1&gl=us

 

Found it in the google cache, guess they've had a change of heart since April. No geocaching incidents since then. Hmmm, I wonder who's made them change their mind.

Link to comment

 

http://74.125.45.104/custom?q=cache:IVTh4o...;cd=1&gl=us

 

Found it in the google cache, guess they've had a change of heart since April. No geocaching incidents since then. Hmmm, I wonder who's made them change their mind.

 

The referenced link doesn't state anything about their policy regarding geocaching, only that it exists. The entire page is devoted to GPS info, so I don't think that page can be construed as them permitting geocaching on their lands.

Link to comment

 

Regarding Va. Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries:

Geocaching is not an approved activity on wildlife Management Areas. We appreciate your assistance in informing the public that this activity is not allowed.

 

 

The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries used to have a link about geocaching, including a link to geocaching.com itself. Can't find it now. I wonder what changed. It's not as if, there are a whole bunch of geocaches on those lands. I only have to believe that it's the influence of the NPS pushing their uninformed position on geocaching.

 

It will be a curiosity to see how many caches fall under this realm as well... back to looking under guardrails and lampposts I guess. :)

Link to comment

 

http://74.125.45.104/custom?q=cache:IVTh4o...;cd=1&gl=us

 

Found it in the google cache, guess they've had a change of heart since April. No geocaching incidents since then. Hmmm, I wonder who's made them change their mind.

 

The referenced link doesn't state anything about their policy regarding geocaching, only that it exists. The entire page is devoted to GPS info, so I don't think that page can be construed as them permitting geocaching on their lands.

 

I agree, think there's other pages that I can't find. However, from actively advertising geocaching to banning it to having NPS act on your behalf (probably without their knowledge) to pressure geocaching.com; I can see which agency is responsible, and what their ultimate agenda is.

Link to comment

Shauna,

 

I know who you've been working with at the NPS as well as some of the individuals you've spoken with directly here in central PA regarding this matter. You see, over a year ago, we met directly with the NPS in response to some other caches a local cacher had placed which were in the A.T. corridor and needed to be removed. Based on comments made by a specific individual during those meetings, I can't say I'm surprised at the archival requests. In fact, I'm surprised they took this long to get around to it. However, I am surprised and disappointed in the way Groundspeak handled the list they received and the vetting process which was used in combination with the heavy-handed tactics. You failed at customer service for your customers -- you remember us don't you? Not so sure.

 

Here are a few observations:

“Here is a list of existing geocaches which need to be archived and removed as soon as possible. The majority of geocaches on this initial list are located on NPS managed AT Corridor lands as well as some which were identified as being on state managed lands that the A.T. passes through where geocaching is prohibited.

Yep, I understand the issue with respect to caches on the A.T. and within the corridor. No one argues that point (disagrees with the policy perhaps, but doesn't dispute it).

 

Of note here are four things ... First, that many people did not (and still do not) understand that the A.T. is part of the National Park System (obviously this fact eludes many reviewers as well since they approved caches in these lands despite a GC ban on National Park caches). Second, that the NPS either owns the land over which the trail runs or has been given a corridor (which varies in width) thru mostly public held lands -- very little if any of the trail now runs over privately held lands -- and that in the event of a conflict between NPS policy and local land manager policy, that of the local land manager prevails unless they specifically gave up those rights in their right-of-way agreement (usually as a result of a lease arrangement). Third, on the part of the NPS, that we do not control or coordinate the actions of other individuals associated with Geocaching -- a bad placement is bad judgement by a specific individual, not by "all geocachers". And lastly that despite statements to the contrary, the NPS does indeed have a policy exception and has provided park rangers/superintendents with guidelines on how to permit geocaching in their parks (they have to specifically exclude geocaching from the "abandoned property" regulation in Title 36 of the CFR -- which is the section they use to prevent you from leaving an "unattended container in the woods" under threat of a fine (the same applies to a forgotten picnic basket for that matter -- leave it behind and they could fine you -- of course most rangers aren't unreasonable, so they rarely enforce the fines and instead just remove and discard forgotten property).

 

What I don't understand nor agree with is the second sentence of this statement.

 

The NPS does NOT have jurisdiction over lands outside of it's control and boundaries. Those involved even conceded that point. The fact that a cache is placed on land which they "believe" is not legal, but which is outside of their control is perhaps noteworthy, but not actionable. They are not the authority, nor do they know the specifics which a particular cache owner may have arranged with the rightful land manager. They can of course work with the surrounding land manager if a specific cache is creating an impact on NPS property (some agreements they have with public agencies state that the agency will take action to minimize impacts if notified).

 

GC should have politely told the NPS to limit their list now and in the future to those which are placed on NPS controlled lands. The caches which are at the heart of the most vocal of complaints from cache owners are those which were legitimately placed outside NPS lands -- and in several cases locally which I am aware of the specific details around -- were placed in a specific manner so as to avoid the creation of so called "social trails" (for example, one placement is accessible via the A.T. and then following a blazed side trail to well outside the A.T. corridor -- and involves two serious elevation changes of a couple hundred feet. Or ... the seeker could simply follow the nice LEVEL rail trail to the cache site across State Game Lands where Geocaching is not forbidden).

After speaking with the parties involved, it is now our understanding that, according to the NPS:

- Simply moving a geocache a few hundred feet from the AT does not change the fact that "bad things" can occur, like unacceptable social trails.

- Geocaches placed on NPS managed property is against the law. It is a non-negotiable and potentially subject to fines and federal tickets.

- Any geocache where a primary access point is needed along corridor lands should not be published. Again, the creation of social trails is a potential issue.

- Regardless of resources offered, they do not believe in cultivating relationships with people that they perceive are knowingly breaking the law.

Yep... keep hearing about those evil social trails and "bad things". Are you sure you're talking to the chief ranger for the A.T. and not someone who has a personal agenda? You see, moving a cache a few hundred feet from the AT DOES change things -- if it's the right few hundred feet. Again, we spoke previously with the chief ranger about this -- down a legitimate blazed side trail well clear of the A.T. boundary -- no NPS issue. Of course, just moving it a a few hundred feet doesn't always fix the problem ... it has to be in a manner which doesn't cause the side trails.

 

Second items is flat out false as well. See my previous comments regarding NPS policy delegation to local rangers and park managers. Current A.T. policy does not permit "leaving an unattended container" behind. It doesn't and can't prohibit Geocaching across their marked trails -- Geocaching in that definition is nothing more than hiking with a GPSr. Stepping off the trail and creating a side trail within NPS corridor -- again, they do have a say there, but need to work with the surrounding land manager to mitigate the problem -- not "blame the geocacher" for a trail which many times has nothing to do with Geocaching.

 

Third seems to conflict with specific statements made by the head ranger for the A.T. in a previous conversation. Virtual caches are allowed and any use of the land which is consistent with it's primary purpose (which is hiking) is totally legitimate. They just don't want situations where side trails form. So, if it encourages "bushwhacking" from the A.T., that's obviously a problem. If it clearly states ... follow the marked trail to the marked side trail, to a point specific point outside the A.T. corridor ... well, the last time we had a conversation on this, the ranger seemed to think that was a good way of insuring no one misunderstood how to avoid creating an issue.

 

As for the last one, that's accusing someone of being guilty by association. I believe that's also a basis for infringing on an individual's rights ... and something which I believe the Federal government specifically frowns upon. I would encourage the chief ranger to reign in the individual making those broad assertions before they get themselves accused of some form of discrimination. OK ... I hear your "olive branch" argument ... so maybe you just exercise a little bit of extra caution and perhaps vet things with the head ranger directly before acting upon anything just to be sure someone isn't overstepping their authority in terms of NPS desires.

- We were assured that the geocache list for archival had been researched and confirmed; the geocaches listed were recognized as significant legal issues. If these geocaches were not removed, geocachers could be subject to fines and Federal tickets.

Bad info I'm afraid. Look at all the complaints you received. Your quality customer service metric for this month just took a steeper dive than the stock market did earlier this week.

- Groundspeak acknowledges that mistakes happen and that the list provided by the NPS may be subject to error. It is also possible that the NPS made additional considerations for archival that were not disclosed to Groundspeak. Therefore, we will be sending a list of geocaches to the NPS that seem to be of no legal or environmental concern. If you have a known example, please email contact@geocaching.com with details you feel are appropriate, including specific contact information received for permission for placement of the particular geocache.

- Although incidences like these can be frustrating, please understand that it is in everyone’s best interest to react in positive ways that will improve the perception of the activity and of the worldwide geocaching community.

Well at least you're trying to make amends with frustrated cache owners who have legitimately placed caches. You should have sought a less heavy-handed approach to resolving the issue with the NPS instead of mass archivals, one which engaged the cache owners directly particularly for those outside NPS jurisdiction..

 

And lastly, I would still like you to return my call. There are issues at work here of which I am certain you are not aware and which should impact how (and who) you work with in the NPS. Not everyone is looking to encourage more utilization of the trail system nor necessarily acting in good faith I believe.

Link to comment

Why are caches not on NPS land, far from the AT, being archived?

 

1) Why is the NPS lying about having authority these caches?

 

2) Why is Groundspeak rolling over and playing dead and not investigating the caches first?

 

The ATC/NPS has authority in the AT corridor, which includes lands not owned by the NPS that the AT runs through. Typically the corridor is 400 feet wide, but that varies depending on the land owner the ATC/NPS has the agreement with.

 

Groundspeak received a request by a federal law enforcement body. While I can't speak for them, I'm guessing its their policy to honor the request and sort out the details later. Technically, anyone who owns a cache in the AT corridor could face fines for abandoning property there. While this may be unlikely, it's possible. Groundspeak is probably trying to protect us from further penalties by cooperating. Not to mention that being uncooperative with a federal agency isn't going to bode well for future relations. I'd like to see a rapid review of these archivals, especially the questionable ones. However, I also believe that cooperating with law enforcement is always a good idea. There will be time for questions later, I hope. Obviously the NPS has overstepped their bounds a bit on some of these caches, I'm hopeful that Groundspeak will call them on it.

 

Hello all,

 

I just ran into this problem with the ATC and Groundspeak this past week. I tried to place a cache off the AT by 100 -200 feet near Pulpit Rock, PA. My cache was not published until I did the following:

 

Called the ATC as I'm an ATC Member and asked about AT easements concerning the AT and private property. Yes my cache is on private property. If you try to place a cache on NPS property, it won't work as the NPS will not approve any "normal" cache. I'll get back to normal later. I then received the approval of the land owner or its board to place my cache on their property. Now I again called the ATC and asked about easement distances concerning the AT. I was told to contact the only AT NPS ranger in town. I called a Mr. Todd Remaley and we talked for a half hour on this subject! It seems that the AT has experienced

damage from illeagal caches on the AT. Mr. Remaley stated that Groundspeak wasn't cooperating with the NPS and that leagal action against Groundspeak might be the only course of action left. He did state that "Earthcaches" seem like a great idea and that the NPS might consider allowing them placed near or on the AT in the future.

 

WA3WSJ

Link to comment

I called a Mr. Todd Remaley and we talked for a half hour on this subject! It seems that the AT has experienced

damage from illeagal caches on the AT. Mr. Remaley stated that Groundspeak wasn't cooperating with the NPS and that leagal action against Groundspeak might be the only course of action left. He did state that "Earthcaches" seem like a great idea and that the NPS might consider allowing them placed near or on the AT in the future.

 

 

Groundspeak being uncooperative? Hardly. This most recent sweep of caches certainly proves Groundspeak is being quite cooperative with the NPS. At the risk of ticking off and losing customers, they've archived every cache the NPS specified without question. How is that being uncooperative? My frustration with the NPS continues to grow, especially since one of my caches was an "innocent victim" of this recent "crackdown".

 

I'm trying to be patient, civil, understanding, and cooperative. However, I'm going to fight for the re-reinstatement of the cache that I lost. I'd encourage others who have lost legitimately placed hides to do the same.

Link to comment

It seems that the AT has experienced damage from illeagal caches on the AT. Mr. Remaley stated that Groundspeak wasn't cooperating with the NPS and that leagal action against Groundspeak might be the only course of action left. He did state that "Earthcaches" seem like a great idea and that the NPS might consider allowing them placed near or on the AT in the future.

 

Does Mr. Todd Remaly realize that there ARE other listing sites, for both geocaches and letterboxes, besides this one? To immediately assume that all cache-like containers found on or near the AT are geocaches approved by Groundspeak may be erroneous.

 

Also, what exactly does he mean by "illegal"? Many of the targeted caches are on state gamelands where caching is not prohibited. How can NPS jurisdicton extend to those parcels of land or the caches therein? by what criteria would the SGL caches be deemed "illegal"?

Link to comment

Does Mr. Todd Remaly realize that there ARE other listing sites, for both geocaches and letterboxes, besides this one? To immediately assume that all cache-like containers found on or near the AT are geocaches approved by Groundspeak may be erroneous.

 

Also, what exactly does he mean by "illegal"? Many of the targeted caches are on state gamelands where caching is not prohibited. How can NPS jurisdicton extend to those parcels of land or the caches therein? by what criteria would the SGL caches be deemed "illegal"?

 

That's what at the core of our frustration. Now, you see, it's possible that an illegally placed cache could be resulting in damage. It's also entirely possible -- and probably more likely with some of the "way out in the middle of no where" caches -- that the trails found have absolutely nothing to do with the cache. And, it's further possible that even for those more active caches that the "trail" found pre-existed the cache placement and the individual who hid their cache simply followed an existing side-trail.

 

To blame geocachers for this -- well, let's just say it's unlikely that the burden of proof would be met if we were dealing with a court of law.

 

I believe what truly is happening here is that Todd is unfortunately being played by some within the NPS and ATC that have motives which are questionable at best. So, he's being told Groundspeak is being uncooperative without talking to them himself ... and that there all these caches out there have large amounts of damage being done to the trail (but without any concrete evidence of such -- or someone is replaying a previously archived cache that was indeed improperly placed and has been gone a long time). Of course, the minute he notified someone about it at Groundspeak, they went overboard to try to be accomodating. Now of course, if someone showed up from the ATC and whined "the trail is mine, get all caches on it out" and didn't provide any information on what those caches were, what do think Groundspeak might have done? They probably said, give us a list of caches -- and the ATC person probably whined about being too busy. You see ... it just possible that neither party could act because tge ATC and NPS failed to provide a cache list or some way for Groundspeak to determine where the trail corridor runs. Is it just possible that he's getting bad information from some people who work for the ATC and perhaps have a "protect us from ourselves and ban everyone from the trail" mentality? You betcha.

 

This is all very frustrating and unfortunately every time I hear from somebody new on this topic who has had direct contact with one of the individuals involved, it's amazing how the story seems to keep changing.

Edited by Lasagna
Link to comment

I can't entirely fault Groundspeak, they have history of working with land managers in this type of issue. I do wish they had researched which caches were not on the AT carefully, however it is up to the cache owner to rectify this situation as it applies to their cache.

 

Given the draft policy from the ATC it sounds like they are doing everything they can to keep caches off "their trail". The draft glossed over the fact that that there are number of state agencies that work with Geocachers to allow reasonable access. The NPS has had a history of telling their staff that Geocaching damages its surroundings and I think people with agenda within the ATC and NPS may have used this to their advantage. The fact that Todd Remaly claims that Groundspeak was uncooperative is completely out line with Groundspeaks operations. I'm sure Groundspeak has the capability to document these claims on the part of the NPS, if they choose.

 

What is really tragic is that the ATC and the NPS could have worked with the Geocaching community and added more stewards to protect the trail. Instead they chose to act selfishly to protect an agenda. It is unfortunate that in this type of situation that Geocaching is such an easy target because of the cache containers and website. Unlike other activities, legal and illegal that occur on the trail that make it harder to point a finger at a specific group.

Edited by magellan315
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...