Jump to content

AT Caches Archived!


whistler & co.

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Thank you for the informative post, Shauna.

 

Why was the specific contact information redacted?

 

Why is Groundspeak hiding that pertinent fact in this discussion?

Link to comment

Since the AT powers-that-be apparently have changed policy, how exactly is that policy change reached? Since their quoted information shows clearly that they are misinformed (talking about how caches are "buried") and their decision is obviously based on bad information, how was the decision reached? Who approved this decision? Who can we write to petition against this decision? If the NPS/AT personel begin to receive a couple hundred thousand emails on the subject, they might just be a little more aware of the impact of this decision. :laughing:

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....

 

I've love to take a tour of damage found by the NPS. He's also wrong in tha caches are not illegal. That would take a law. One that doesn't exist. I'm not sure this person is fully informed (mushroom theory of organizations), understands caches, or the law.

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.

 

Thank you for the informative post, Shauna.

 

Why was the specific contact information redacted?

 

Why is Groundspeak hiding that pertinent fact in this discussion?

 

Probably so the person at NPS doesn't get bombarded with e-mails that only make the NPS even more difficult to work with. More than likely the person who sent the e-mail and the people who instituted this policy about AT caches are not the same people.

Link to comment

I've been reading this thread from here, across The Pond, with interest. My only knowledge of the Appalachian Trail comes from reading Bill Bryson's very entertaining book "A walk in the woods", however, it's always sad to read of such a broad sweep of archiving in the World of Geocaching.

 

To help me get some further perspective on this matter, could anyone give me a (rough) estimate of how many caches were archived, please?

 

MrsB :o

Link to comment

I've been reading this thread from here, across The Pond, with interest. My only knowledge of the Appalachian Trail comes from reading Bill Bryson's very entertaining book "A walk in the woods", however, it's always sad to read of such a broad sweep of archiving in the World of Geocaching.

 

To help me get some further perspective on this matter, could anyone give me a (rough) estimate of how many caches were archived, please?

 

MrsB :o

 

I've created a public bookmark list with all the ones I know of -- which is probably nowhere close to accurate since there's no easy way to view archived caches any longer. I have 43 caches on my list -- the majority of which are in Pennsylvania. If anyone knows of others not on my "NPS Hit List" bookmark, feel free to email me the waypoints and I'll add them. If Groundspeak would like to simply tell us the number as I'd asked in an earlier post, that would be fine too. :)

Link to comment

I've been reading this thread from here, across The Pond, with interest. My only knowledge of the Appalachian Trail comes from reading Bill Bryson's very entertaining book "A walk in the woods", however, it's always sad to read of such a broad sweep of archiving in the World of Geocaching.

 

To help me get some further perspective on this matter, could anyone give me a (rough) estimate of how many caches were archived, please?

 

MrsB :o

 

I've created a public bookmark list with all the ones I know of -- which is probably nowhere close to accurate since there's no easy way to view archived caches any longer. I have 43 caches on my list -- the majority of which are in Pennsylvania. If anyone knows of others not on my "NPS Hit List" bookmark, feel free to email me the waypoints and I'll add them. If Groundspeak would like to simply tell us the number as I'd asked in an earlier post, that would be fine too. :)

 

Hmm ... any time someone hides or attempts to hide information, it can only mean that suspect purposes are at work. Come on Groundspeak ... open up and disclose the full nature of what's going on and let us be the judge as well as exercise our rights as citizens to tell this government agency that they are not acting on behalf of our interests despite what being told.

 

As for the majority seemingly being in PA, that convinces me that I know the real person and the misguided beliefs and motives behind this. In fact, I bet I'd know the exact cache they would cite as "causing damage" if pressed (one that was indeed in the AT corridor and causing an issue -- placed well before anyone knew the NPS had anything to do with the AT -- and which was archived over two years ago PROMPTLY when the owner was made aware of the regulations -- in fact the owner was having a health issue at the time and some other local cachers actually met with the local NPS ranger to discuss the matter face to face, retrieve the cache container, and arranged to remove a second cache which would have had similar issues as well as get clarity on exactly what land the NPS owned around the AT and how to avoid encroachment issues). It would be interesting to revisit that site again and see just how much "permanent" damage was done ... I think I'm going to have to take little road trip with my camera.

Link to comment

at least two caches from Virginia should make the list. The two archived caches are GCGVQB (Primal Instinct) and GCZ3CW (Stonewall's Revenge).

 

I have been told that a number of caches were archived from Maryland last week in response to the NPS directive.

 

Perhaps Groundspeak could make the full communication and list available to its members to save folks the time and expense of getting this information released from the Dept. of the Interior under a Freedom of Information Act Request. Given that this was some kind of agency request from NPS to Groundspeak about cache listings that were (are still are) listed on a public web site, it seems likely to me that the entirety of the communication would be available under FOIA.

 

I guess we could start here:

 

NPS FOIA OFFICES and CONTACTS

Headquarters

Diane Cooke

(ORG CODE 2550)

Office of the Chief Information Officer

1849 C Street NW

Mail Stop: 1201 Eye Street, NW, 8th Floor

Washington, DC 20240

202-354-1925

Fax: 202-371-5584

 

* The Department of the Interior FOIA Office toll-free telephone number is 1-888-603-7119.

 

This is from the FOIA FAQ:

 

# Can I request records under the FOIA over the telephone?

 

No. A request for documents under the FOIA must be in writing. You may submit a request through the postal mail, by email, or by fax. In accordance with the DOI regulations, you must provide a return address. Additionally, if you modify your request, you must verify the change in writing to the appropriate FOIA office processing the request. Otherwise, processing will not begin.

 

# What information do I need to include in my FOIA request?

 

1. A description of the records

2. Where you believe the records are located (if possible)

3. A statement of your willingness to pay fees or a complete fee waiver justification

4. Your fee category, i.e., commercial use; scientific/educational; news media or other

5. Your postal address (this IS REQUIRED in order to mail documents to you)

Edited by zgrav
Link to comment

 

As for the majority seemingly being in PA, that convinces me that I know the real person and the misguided beliefs and motives behind this.

 

The majority on my list are in PA only because my notifications and pocket queries are based there. It's biased against surrounding states because I live in PA. Don't read anything into that; I don't have all the info.

 

In fact, I bet I'd know the exact cache they would cite as "causing damage" if pressed

...

It would be interesting to revisit that site again and see just how much "permanent" damage was done ... I think I'm going to have to take little road trip with my camera.

 

I know the one you're thinking of, and we both know there wouldn't be a side trail there any longer. Trampled weeds would have grown back long ago. However, per the Ranger, geocachers were responsible for painting orange marks on trees in one instance. I have no idea what evidence he has that a geocacher painted the marks, but that was one thing in particular he mentioned. If that is true, then that certainly gives us a black eye. We didn't get into details so I don't know how sure he is that the paint was put there by a geocacher. Why would any of us need to paint trees? Our GPS tells us all we need to know...

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....

 

I've love to take a tour of damage found by the NPS. He's also wrong in tha caches are not illegal. That would take a law. One that doesn't exist. I'm not sure this person is fully informed (mushroom theory of organizations), understands caches, or the law.

 

Just to clear something up ... actually there is a law although it doesn't specifically apply to geocaching. According to CFR Title 36, part 2, section 22a -- it is not permissible to "abandon" property in NPS lands. This is what the ranger sites when they say they prohibit geocaching. Section 22b is where the "fine" comes into play -- not really a fine, but a charge for the removal, storage, etc. of said property can be assessed by the NPS. There are also other sections which deal with intentional damage to NPS lands -- which is what the ranger cites when claiming side trails are an issue.

 

The CFR is the Code of Federal Regulations and is what gives the NPS it's right to exist and enforce laws. There's also another section (forget where at the moment, but I tracked it down after the last encounter with the NPS folks) that give NPS rangers status as a "law enforcement" officer on NPS lands.

 

The A.T. is NPS property ... and anything in it is subject to their regulations. They have you on that point and those of us who have been yelling here are not debating that. We're arguing about the heavy handed tactics which inappropriated archived caches outside NPS jurisdiction and the general inference by the NPS that all Geocachers are out to place illegal caches and damage park service lands -- which is patently false.

 

Now, what they don't tell you, is that the NPS has granted each superintendent of a park the right to enact certain additional restrictions as are necessary to protect public safety or protect an endangered species. They have also given this same individual the rights to allow certain activities which could otherwise be interpreted as restricted. AND ... in a recent finding, the NPS specific provided guidance to those individuals that if they thought it appropriate, they could PERMIT geocaching in their park jurisdiction by simply exempting it from the abandoned property rule in the section I cited above. The issue however is that the NPS didn't provide for any way for these individuals to setup a "permitting" or "control" system to insure that caches were placed responsibility (like many state parks do now). So, many given that dilemma will choose not to deal with it (particularly when they get so called "save us from ourselves" types of individuals like some at the ATC whispering in their ear false rumors about the nature of this sport/hobby).

Link to comment

...However, per the Ranger, geocachers were responsible for painting orange marks on trees in one instance....

 

Painting trees with orange would lead me to suspect a surveyor marking boundaries or other points of interest, or a forest service marking trees for a specific purpose. Both legitimate, legal, appropriate and more likely than a cacher toting around a can of orange paint for a purpose that has nothing to do with caching let alone actually using it on random trees.

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....

 

I've love to take a tour of damage found by the NPS. He's also wrong in tha caches are not illegal. That would take a law. One that doesn't exist. I'm not sure this person is fully informed (mushroom theory of organizations), understands caches, or the law.

 

Just to clear something up ... actually there is a law although it doesn't specifically apply to geocaching. According to CFR Title 36, part 2, section 22a -- it is not permissible to "abandon" property in NPS lands. This is what the ranger sites when they say they prohibit geocaching. Section 22b is where the "fine" comes into play -- not really a fine, but a charge for the removal, storage, etc. of said property can be assessed by the NPS. There are also other sections which deal with intentional damage to NPS lands -- which is what the ranger cites when claiming side trails are an issue....

 

Abandoned property laws are broad out of neccesity. They cast a wide net and caches typically do fit the description of abandoned property. Except for the simple fact that they are not abandoned, and you can get ahold of the owner to claim the cache if there is an issue or problem. Neither of which actual abandoned property has going for it. That the NPS reported took the stand where they chose not to bother contacting the owners either had legal reasons for it, or they are ignorant of other laws that would allow them (or even encourge them) to get 'abandoned' property back to it's owner.

 

Rather than using a bunch of laws that don't quite fit to justify their opinion on caches it would far simpler to say. "I'm in charge here, I don't like caches in my park so not only no, but hell know". Then we wouldn't be expecting the NPS to comply with it's mission, it's own rules, or the laws they are subject to.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment

Abandoned Property? Which of you 'abandoned' your cache? You may have left it there, but you're maintaining it, aren't you? You plan to go get your cache now that it's been archived, don't you? I wouldn't say that's 'abandoned'.

 

1 To withdraw one's support or help from, especially in spite of duty, allegiance, or responsibility; desert: abandon a friend in trouble.

2 To give up by leaving or ceasing to operate or inhabit, especially as a result of danger or other impending threat: abandoned the ship.

3 To surrender one's claim to, right to, or interest in; give up entirely. See Synonyms at relinquish.

4 To cease trying to continue; desist from: abandoned the search for the missing hiker.

 

American Psychological Association (APA):

abandoned. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved September 22, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abandoned

Link to comment

Just to clear something up ... actually there is a law although it doesn't specifically apply to geocaching. According to CFR Title 36, part 2, section 22a -- it is not permissible to "abandon" property in NPS lands. This is what the ranger sites when they say they prohibit geocaching. Section 22b is where the "fine" comes into play -- not really a fine, but a charge for the removal, storage, etc. of said property can be assessed by the NPS. There are also other sections which deal with intentional damage to NPS lands -- which is what the ranger cites when claiming side trails are an issue.

 

The CFR is the Code of Federal Regulations and is what gives the NPS it's right to exist and enforce laws. There's also another section (forget where at the moment, but I tracked it down after the last encounter with the NPS folks) that give NPS rangers status as a "law enforcement" officer on NPS lands.

 

The A.T. is NPS property ... and anything in it is subject to their regulations. They have you on that point and those of us who have been yelling here are not debating that. We're arguing about the heavy handed tactics which inappropriated archived caches outside NPS jurisdiction and the general inference by the NPS that all Geocachers are out to place illegal caches and damage park service lands -- which is patently false.

 

And this is the part that confuses me. In many places, the AT is not NPS property. Especially in the Northeast, large parts of the trail are on state-owned land. The NPS is permitted to run the trail across state parkland. The land is still owned by the state, and regulated by the state, not the NPS. And the trail is maintained by local volunteer groups, not the NPS. I see that a few caches I've found on the AT in Pennsylvania, on Pennsylvania State Hunting Lands have been archived. I've encountered hunters on the AT there. I've seen deer stands erected on trees there. It is, after all, State Hunting Land! (I've questioned the sanity of the hunters carrying a deer down Lehigh Gap (near Pulpit Rock). But that's a different story. Hikers are warned not to drink the water in that area because of the zinc pollution that has killed all the trees, from the zinc smelters at Palmerton.) It is NOT NPS property! The NPS corridor across such lands is something like 50', from what I understand. Heck, I've tripped over deer guts on the AT.

I have hiked parts of the AT in NPS owned land. DWG, Shenandoah. The restrictions there are far more stringent than on state owned parts of the AT. That is its prerogative. NPS owns that land. Shenandoah requires camping permits. The requirements for camping permits in the Great Smokies are even more stringent. NPS owns the land, it can make the rules. NPS does not own any land on the AT through Pennsylvania, as far as I can remember, except for a small part near Mount Minsi in the DWG. And that section has some nice powerlines, and microwave towers!

So, I do not understand how the NPS can claim jurisdiction, negating local laws, on land that it does not own.

Link to comment

 

And this is the part that confuses me. In many places, the AT is not NPS property. Especially in the Northeast, large parts of the trail are on state-owned land. The NPS is permitted to run the trail across state parkland. The land is still owned by the state, and regulated by the state, not the NPS.

 

...

 

NPS does not own any land on the AT through Pennsylvania, as far as I can remember, except for a small part near Mount Minsi in the DWG. And that section has some nice powerlines, and microwave towers!

So, I do not understand how the NPS can claim jurisdiction, negating local laws, on land that it does not own.

 

You're right that the NPS doesn't own all the land, but they do own a lot more than you might realize. They own a quite few miles of the AT here near Harrisburg.

 

Where the AT crosses state land, the NPS has signed agreements with the landowners (including DCNR, PA Game Commission, PennDOT, etc) that give the NPS authority over the AT corridor. In the majority of cases in Pennsylvania, the AT corridor extends 200 feet on each side of the trail for a total width of 400 feet. That's not always true, but it is on State Game Lands. There's a whole list of "Memorandums of Understanding" or MOUs that the ATC and the NPS have with these other landowners that define things like the corridor width and what rules apply both in the corridor and outside it on these lands.

Link to comment

- Thought I'd bring this over from "mid atlantic" section to keep everyone on an even track.

 

Want a real kick in the pants ?

 

Just got word from a cacher who hiked/cached his way from Wind Gap to Lehigh...

 

The agency who states that cachers are damaging the trails now have a PIPELINE running by the AT in the Wind Gap area !

Yup, the same folks who are worried about YOU making a non-existant path to the cache.

Hopefully he got pics.

 

Figured it wasn't "just us."

Their ATC van has been parked a few days now at the Wind Gap access ( I drive past it from work.)

- guess we were in the way...

 

BTW, that same cacher, already loaded down with gear, grabbed two of our 50 cal boxes (with log and swag) and hid them close to the road for CJ to pick up !

( I owe you one )

He also describes a bit what he saw on the NEPAG website (nepageocachers.org)

 

Appears Blue Mountain to Palmerton dead zone has something going on too, as they were re-routed from that area.

- well, we know it isn't logging...

 

Cache safe.

Link to comment

Abandoned Property? Which of you 'abandoned' your cache? You may have left it there, but you're maintaining it, aren't you? You plan to go get your cache now that it's been archived, don't you? I wouldn't say that's 'abandoned'.

 

1 To withdraw one's support or help from, especially in spite of duty, allegiance, or responsibility; desert: abandon a friend in trouble.

2 To give up by leaving or ceasing to operate or inhabit, especially as a result of danger or other impending threat: abandoned the ship.

3 To surrender one's claim to, right to, or interest in; give up entirely. See Synonyms at relinquish.

4 To cease trying to continue; desist from: abandoned the search for the missing hiker.

 

American Psychological Association (APA):

abandoned. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved September 22, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abandoned

 

They have that particular nuance covered as well. Interestingly enough it's also what gives them the wiggle room to actually "allow" caching too. Read it for yourself, but at the end of the day, unless or until the park superintendent declares it permitted, it's not. Oh, and thanks DocDitto for filling in the part about the MOU's which establish the corridor across non-owned lands (as he said, that basically gives the NPS rights to enforce it's policy within the corridor and is agreed to by the landowner).

 

Encroachment is a real issue for the trail and NPS lands (someone just cited something in this thread which demonstrates that). And protecting against those kinds of flagrant and obviously massive impacts is something which I would fully support the NPS doing ... but Geocaching hardly falls into that category and to insinuate that it does is irresponsible on the part of those pushing that agenda. (Perhaps if the ATC were out checking the trail more carefully instead of surfing the web looking for geocaches, they might actually have stopped some of what sounds like some major encroachments which were posted in this thread before they occurred?)

 

At any rate, here's an excerpt of the particular section in the CFR Title 36:

 

§ 2.22 Property.

 

(a) The following are prohibited:

(1) Abandoning property.

(2) Leaving property unattended for longer than 24 hours, except in locations where longer time periods have been designated or in accordance with conditions established by the superintendent.

(3) Failing to turn in found property to the superintendent as soon as practicable.

 

(:o Impoundment of property.

(1) Property determined to be left unattended in excess of an allowed period of time may be impounded by the superintendent.

(2) Unattended property that interferes with visitor safety, orderly management of the park area, or presents a threat to park resources may be impounded by the superintendent at anytime.

(3) Found or impounded property shall be inventoried to determine ownership and safeguard personal property.

(4) The owner of record is responsible and liable for charges to the person who has removed, stored, or otherwise disposed of property impounded pursuant to this section; or the superintendent may assess the owner reasonable fees for the impoundment and storage of property impounded pursuant to this section.

© Disposition of property.

Link to comment

Hi Folks. Sorry for the delay in responding to your questions; I have been on the road with limited internet access. The entire list of geocaches that were archived, including the information received from the NPS for each geocache is shown below.

 

As previously mentioned, Groundspeak will be creating and sending a list of Geocaches that seemingly have no legal or environment concern to the local NPS contacts for further review.

 

It is a fact that the NPS contacts in this region thought Groundspeak was uncooperative because we would not immediately archive the geocaches. It is also a fact that these same contacts believed that Groundspeak and Geocachers were breaking the law by honoring the placement of these geocaches. In order to attempt to be of positive influence in this region (remember, they don’t believe in having conversations with violators) Groundspeak chose to honor their explicit request to archive the geocaches below.

 

At this time, we feel that it is important that the local NPS contacts be held accountable to the information sent to Groundspeak as they assured us that the geocaches on this list were of serious legal concern. While we are not releasing individual contact names, (we do not want to intentionally alienate folks) we do believe that perceptions will be changed and lessons will be learned from this process.

 

Groundspeak’s actions in the last week are part of a long-term strategy to cultivate positive working relationships with land managers in this region. The views shared by the local NPS contacts, while a minority and not representative of the region as a whole, will hopefully be positively influenced by the actions of geocachers at every level. We appreciate your understanding and patience on this matter.

 

Geocache ID, Managing Land Agency, Estate Tract #, ATC Region

GCY4XD, NPS-APPA, Fee, 304-22, MARO

GC1CC4P, NPS-APPA, Fee, 04-22, MARO

GCY9BB, NPS-APPA, Fee, 304-22, MARO

GCEAFE, NPS-APPA, Fee, 306-37, MARO

GC504F, NPS-APPA, Fee, 269-18, MARO

GCJ11J, NPS-APPA, Fee, 273-06, MARO

GCGYF6, NPS-APPA, Fee, 283-26, MARO

GCA627, NPS-APPA, Fee, 282-05, MARO

GCH4VD, NPS-APPA, Fee, 380-21, MARO

GC1CEC, NPS-APPA, Fee, 477-16, VARO

GC19R88, NPS-APPA, Fee, 477-13, VARO

GCQ4MW, NPS-APPA, Fee, 476-16, VARO

GCZEHC, NPS-APPA, Fee, 476-16, VARO

GCT3EE, NPS-APPA, Fee, 478-15, VARO

GC108BK, NPS-APPA, Fee, 477-03, VARO

GCV4F0, NPS-APPA, Fee, 473-34, VARO

GCHD3Z, NPS-APPA, Fee, 473-04, VARO

GC1ANXE, NPS-APPA, Fee, 473-15, VARO

GCXMYB, NPS-APPA, Fee, 420-12, MARO

GCHOM8, NPS-APPA, Fee, 418-21, MARO

GC29MD, NPS-APPA, Fee, 415-14, MARO

GCW8Q2, NPS-APPA, Fee, 413-11, MARO

GCZ980, NPS-APPA, Fee, 415-07, MARO

GC5A13, NPS-APPA, Fee, 421-05, MARO

GCTPV9, NPS-APPA, Fee, 347-09, MARO

GCN9KK, NPS-APPA, Fee, 347-07, MARO

GCK382, NPS-APPA, Easement, 341-33, MARO

GCEA1A, NPS-APPA, Easement, 341-01, MARO

GCYHGT, NPS-APPA, Fee, 337-10, MARO

GCQNYC, NPS-APPA, Fee, 336-19, MARO

GCQNYJ, NPS-APPA, Fee, 336-24, MARO

GC131W2, NPS-APPA, Fee, 336-17, MARO

GCYF4K, NPS-APPA, Fee, 325-10, MARO

GC59DA, NPS-APPA, Fee, 325-10, MARO

GCJG7P, NPS-APPA, Fee, 325-10, MARO

GCYF4M, NPS-APPA, Fee, 325-10, MARO

GC1CCZQ, NPS-APPA, Fee, 325-10, MARO

GCTB8C, NPS-APPA, Fee, 325-10, MARO

GCYF4J, NPS-APPA, Fee, 325-10, MARO

GCYF4F, NPS-APPA, Fee Easement, 326-03, MARO

GCYF4G, NPS-APPA, Fee Easement, 326-03, MARO

GCYF4H, NPS-APPA, Fee Easement, 326-03, MARO

GCYF4D, NPS-APPA, Fee Easement, 326-03, MARO

GCYF4C, NPS-APPA, Fee Easement, 326-04, MARO

GCTCZZ, NPS-APPA, Fee Easement, 326-04, MARO

GCPBGF, NPS-APPA, Fee Easement, 326-04, MARO

GC12F43, NPS-APPA, Fee, 328-19, MARO

GCYF4N, NPS-APPA, Fee, 329-02, MARO

GCT7PZ, NPS-APPA, Fee, 329-07, MARO

GCVD1P, NPS-APPA, Fee, 329-07, MARO

GCT7PJ, State of PA, Fee, 329-08, MARO

GC146J4, NPS-APPA, Fee, 330-05, MARO

GC12NB7, NPS-APPA, Fee, 330-05, MARO

GC12NCJ, NPS-APPA, Fee, 330-05, MARO

GC18Z0A, NPS-APPA, Fee Scenic Easement, 331-04, MARO

GCTNTB, NPS-APPA, Fee, 332-13, MARO

GC14224, NPS-APPA, Fee, 333-03, MARO

GCZDX3, NPS-APPA, Fee, 333-02, MARO

GC10GMH, NPS-APPA, Fee, 333-25, MARO

GC1DYGW, NPS-APPA, Fee, 333-05, MARO

GCX7VD, NPS-APPA, Fee, 358-18, MARO

GCPTQG, NPS-APPA, Fee, 359-01, MARO

GCQ6QZ, NPS-APPA, Easement, 360-06, MARO

GC1531, NPS-APPA, Easement, 400-02, MARO

GCJ147, NPS-APPA, Fee, 405- MARO

GC4E52, NPS-APPA, Fee, 111-02, NERO

GC145HB, NPS-APPA, Fee, 241-05, NERO

GC1FG41, NPS-APPA, Fee, 242-07, NERO

GCR5CY, NPS-APPA, Fee, 250-21, NERO

GC6897, NPS-APPA, Fee Scenic Easement, 246-39, NERO

GCQY0Y, NPS-APPA, Fee, 239-08, NERO

GC1F4XY, NPS-APPA, Fee, 245-20, NERO

GCZ65N, NPS-APPA, Fee Scenic Easement, 261-04, NERO

GC178MB, NPS-APPA, Fee Scenic Easement, 261-04, NERO

GCTVH5, NPS-APPA, Easement, 262-03, NERO

GCZ65T, NPS-APPA, Fee, 263-01, NERO

GC1BPXN, NPS-APPA, Fee, 263-01, NERO

GC13JT8, NPS-APPA, Fee, 264-22, NERO

GC14PEA, NPS-APPA, Fee, 265-27, MARO

GC10WAW, NPS-APPA, Fee, 286-01, NERO

GX1A8X6, NPS-APPA, Fee Scenic Easement, 286-32, NERO

GC12DD, NPS-APPA, Fee, 286-16, NERO

 

GCKGTF, NPS-HF NHP, Fee, MARO

GC2DF, NPS-SNP, Fee, MARO

GCYF4B, NPS-DEWA, Fee, MARO

 

GCH20H, MA DCR-Beartown SF, Fee, NERO

GC192E, MA DCR-October Mt. SF, Fee, NERO

GCH2KO, MA DCR-Mt. Greylock SR, Fee, NERO

GC16720, MA DCR-Mt. Greylock SR, Fee, NERO

GC16721, MA DCR-Mt. Greylock SR, Fee, NERO

GCZ2KZ, MA DCR-Mt. Greylock SR, Fee, NERO

GCG3D8, MA DCR-Mt. Greylock SR, Fee, NERO

GC14M73, MA DCR-Mt. Greylock SR, Fee, NERO

GCE3E, MA DCR-Mt. Greylock SR, Fee, NERO

GCWNKV, MA DCR-Mt. Greylock SR, Fee, NERO

GCRD86, MA DCR-Mt. Greylock SR, Fee, NERO

 

GCZ3CW, VA WMA-Geo. Thom, Fee, AT Corridor/Seg. 418

GCH0Q7, VA WMA-Geo. Thom, Fee, AT Corridor/Seg. 418

GCH0M6, VA WMA-Geo. Thom, Fee, AT Corridor/Seg. 418

GCGVQB, VA WMA-Geo. Thom, Fee, AT Corridor/Seg. 418

Link to comment

Here's some interesting reading on how the AT people operate...

 

http://www.landrights.org/OCS/SocioCultura...Inholders_1.htm

 

and another...

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,33338,00.html

 

Wow! The Fox News story is especially alarming. An ammo box is nothing compared to losing 50 acres!

Jack and Margaret Shell didn't want to sell their 50 acres in the North Carolina mountains � but when part of the trail was moved, cutting through nearby land, Forest Service officials told them they needed the Shell property for a buffer. If the Shells didn't sell, the government threatened it would condemn the land.

 

Frightened and worried about their financial future, the Shells gave in � selling the property for about half the going price of other land in the area.

 

"It got to the point where I didn't have any choice," said Jack Shell. "I was tired. I didn't want to mess with them anymore."

 

Link to comment

It is a fact that the NPS contacts in this region thought Groundspeak was uncooperative because we would not immediately archive the geocaches. It is also a fact that these same contacts believed that Groundspeak and Geocachers were breaking the law by honoring the placement of these geocaches. In order to attempt to be of positive influence in this region (remember, they don’t believe in having conversations with violators) Groundspeak chose to honor their explicit request to archive the geocaches below.

 

At this time, we feel that it is important that the local NPS contacts be held accountable to the information sent to Groundspeak as they assured us that the geocaches on this list were of serious legal concern. While we are not releasing individual contact names, (we do not want to intentionally alienate folks) we do believe that perceptions will be changed and lessons will be learned from this process.

 

Shauna, thanks for releasing this information. It sounds like there are a few people within the NPS involved in this situation expected Groundspeak and Geocachers to say "how high" when they said "jump". Good luck dealing with the NPS, I am not all pleased with this "we don't talk to violaters" mentality. I'm not sure how Groundspeak is going to hold them accountable if they don't talk to violaters. If you need people to provide photo dcoumentation of the caches and the locations there would be no problem getting help.

Edited by magellan315
Link to comment

Thank you Shauna!

I have recently had the opportunity to visit the NE and take a short hike on the AT (and find a few geocaches in a cool park I used to access the trail). It was very neat as I often daydream of taking a few weeks off and hiking a section of the trail.

 

It saddened me to read the postings about the caches being archived as I find they are a great way to learn more about an area. And they give me a place to head for when I am on a business trip and don't know where to go hiking.

 

I hope the NPS will become more open about geocaching in the future but for now I only hope that the mis-identified caches can be un-archived and any mistakes resolved.

Jennifer

Link to comment

I found this posted on one of my geocaches on the AT.

 

NOTICE TO VACATE FOR NON-PAYMENT OF RENT

Date: 09/17/2008_______

 

To: Owner of “Geocache”

 

Notice to you and all others in possession that you are hereby notified to quit and deliver up the premises you hold as our tenant, namely: as a “geocache” placed on National Park Service land.

You are to deliver up said premises on or within: 1 day .

This notice is provided due infringement of government regulations. You may never redeem your tenancy of said arrears under the terms of your state and national laws. In the event you fail to remove your belongings and vacate the premises, we shall immediately take legal action to evict you and to recover all damages due us for the unlawful detention of said premises.

 

_______________________________

Chief Ranger – National Park Service

 

Just kidding actually, I live in San Diego, but I wonder how many caches will be archived because of this, I use to hike the AT when I lived on the east coast.

Link to comment

After loading up a track of the AT in Mapsource and mapping out 98 of the archived caches (2 came back as "unpublished" so I don't know where they are) here is a list of those that I'd suggest are worthy of a review. I don't know for sure these aren't in violation (except for 3 in an area I'm very familiar with) but I'd suggest they come under close scrutiny.

 

GCZ3CW & GCGVQB

Both caches are over 1.5 miles from the trail and appear to be hidden

in the G.R. Thompsen State Wildlife Management Area. Whether that's OK

I don't know, but the caches appear to be way out of NPS jurisdiction.

 

GCVD1P, GC146J4, GC1DYGW

All three are at least 8/10 of a mile from the AT on PA State Game Lands and accessible from

blazed trails other than the AT. The NPS was simply wrong about these 3. (One of them is mine).

One of these even has a 650 foot elevation difference from the AT. :ph34r::mad::mad:

 

GC10GMH

Cache is over a half mile from the AT, property ownership unknown

 

GCZDX3

Cache is 3/10 of a mile from the AT, property ownership unknown

 

GCY9BB

Cache is 4/10 of a mile and across a road from the AT, property ownership unknown

 

GC1CC4P

Cache is 3/10 of a mile from the AT, property ownership unknown

 

GC504F

Cache is 3/10 of a mile from the AT and on the opposite side of a lake, property ownership unknown

 

GC10WAW

Cache is 3/10 of a mile from the AT, property ownership unknown

 

GC178MB

Cache is 3/10 of a mile from the AT on the opposite side of a river, property ownership unknown

 

GCZ65N

Cache is about 400 feet from AT on the opposite side of a river, property ownership unknown

(I doubt there are side trails forming across the river)

 

GC1F4XY

Cache is 2/10 of a mile from the AT ON AN ISLAND! Property ownership unknown, but side

trails shouldn't be an issue here.

 

The other caches on the list appeared to be right along the AT so for the sake of argument I just assumed they were legit complaints -- which may or may not be correct.

 

A bookmark list of the 98 archived caches that I could find is right here.

Edited by DocDiTTo
Link to comment

After loading up a track of the AT in Mapsource and mapping out 98 of the archived caches (2 came back as "unpublished" so I don't know where they are) here is a list of those that I'd suggest are worthy of a review. I don't know for sure these aren't in violation (except for 3 in an area I'm very familiar with) but I'd suggest they come under close scrutiny.

 

GCZ3CW & GCGVQB

Both caches are over 1.5 miles from the trail and appear to be hidden

in the G.R. Thompsen State Wildlife Management Area. Whether that's OK

I don't know, but the caches appear to be way out of NPS jurisdiction.

 

GCVD1P, GC146J4, GC1DYGW

All three are at least 8/10 of a mile from the AT on PA State Game Lands and accessible from

blazed trails other than the AT. The NPS was simply wrong about these 3. (One of them is mine).

One of these even has a 650 foot elevation difference from the AT. :ph34r::mad::mad:

 

GC10GMH

Cache is over a half mile from the AT, property ownership unknown

 

GCZDX3

Cache is 3/10 of a mile from the AT, property ownership unknown

 

GCY9BB

Cache is 4/10 of a mile and across a road from the AT, property ownership unknown

 

GC1CC4P

Cache is 3/10 of a mile from the AT, property ownership unknown

 

GC504F

Cache is 3/10 of a mile from the AT and on the opposite side of a lake, property ownership unknown

 

GC10WAW

Cache is 3/10 of a mile from the AT, property ownership unknown

 

GC178MB

Cache is 3/10 of a mile from the AT on the opposite side of a river, property ownership unknown

 

GCZ65N

Cache is about 400 feet from AT on the opposite side of a river, property ownership unknown

(I doubt there are side trails forming across the river)

 

GC1F4XY

Cache is 2/10 of a mile from the AT ON AN ISLAND! Property ownership unknown, but side

trails shouldn't be an issue here.

 

The other caches on the list appeared to be right along the AT so for the sake of argument I just assumed they were legit complaints -- which may or may not be correct.

 

A bookmark list of the 98 archived caches that I could find is right here.

 

Wow. Thank you for the initial help and support - it is greatly appreciated!

 

Cheers,

Shauna

Link to comment

I don't want to get too much into the debate of what is right and wrong...

This whole issue saddens me a lot as Geocaching is what rekindled my love for Nature and ultimately led me to my volunteer role (see below). So I am really torn on what to say:

I am an avid cacher (as you can see by my find count) - I am also a NYNJTC volunteer and the Corridor Steward for the AT in Dutchess County NY between Depot Hill Road and Penny Road.

 

This cache is on NPS property (actually on the property I monitor - and no - I was not involved or consulted in the creation of 'the list'):

GC504F

Cache is 3/10 of a mile from the AT and on the opposite side of a lake, property ownership unknown

 

NPS property in this area includes the whole lake and large acreage on both sides. All trails (Beekman Uplands loop, AT and Nuclear Lake Loop trail are part of the NPS AT Corridor) are inside the corridor.

 

Weather this cache is causing any harm to the AT itself is a very different question - and in this case the answer is clearly 'NO'. Cache is of an approved, marked and maintained side side trail that is not part of the AT....

Edited by geobernd
Link to comment

This discussion provides a good demonstration of how difficult the reviewer's job is. In these complex situations, and with all respect and appreciation for the huge amount of time and effort they put into making our hobby work, it's just not clear how they can figure this out from 100 miles away.

 

The cache that geobernd references provides an example of what is needed - it is best evaluated by a local person who has in depth knowledge of the area, can put boots on the ground, and has connections with the responsible land management officials. Local reviewer's assistants may be a way to deal with this. Reviewer's send them out to check things they can't verify online. Limit the geographic area/driving distance for each one (counties in PA perhaps) and have them report back to the reviewer on what they find. Reviewer still makes the final decision.

 

The alternative seems to be that just to be safe, nothing on land adjoining the AT will be published. The NPS and ATC folks aren't staffed to review caches, it's not their job. Asking permission doesn't help - their policy says no caches on their land and they can't give permission for caches on someone else's land.

Link to comment

Just wondering did they have any kind of permit system in place?

 

Here in Iowa in our state parks we are limited to 2 geo-caches for a park under 500 acres and 3 in a park over 500 acres.

 

The one I have in a state park I worked with the park ranger to place the muti-cache I put in. we kept parts away from the sensitive areas. But he was able to tell me what area's where the "sensitive one's". I kind of had his approval threw the permit that had to be in place before I could have the cache published. But this gave a person that is very familiar with the area a chance to see it first hand before it went to pubic view.

 

These permits have to be re-submitted once a year. Seems like a similar system would be a pain but could help the area out and keep caches they do want off the trail, also it would give them the power to kind of control what and where things are placed.

 

I'm not saying what they did was right at all, but no that they have kicked all of the caches out and have branded geocaching as bad, could this be a good idea to submit to them to help them control what and where everything is placed so they could once again all geo-caches to be placed.

 

Just some thoughts to kick around I guess.

 

Thanks Shauna for explaining what is going on and dealing with the situation. I know the actions taken are going to make a lot of cachers mad but this can give a opening and helping for future relations by showing willingness to corporate. I fully understand why you would go and archive everything on there list and then afterwards review the caches archive at the cache owners request to reinstate the cache once it's made sure it doesn't land on NPS controlled land.

 

Also wondering what does it mean by the MARO and NERO at the end of the listings on the list??

 

Editted to add question at end.

Edited by Parabola
Link to comment

I've often thought it would be a good idea if there could be a specific reviewer for the AT, (or at least a portion of it). Someone who has all the GIS info the NPS has, but who isn't an NPS employee. Someone who would know where the "sensitive" areas are, and who could look at potential placements in the same way an NPS ranger would. Would they ever be open to a dedicated reviewer and/or a permit process? One can only wish...

Link to comment

I'm an AT lover, too-- live within a couple miles of it; walk on it almost daily; hike on and around it frequently; cache along it when I can; envision a series of caches spread out along it; etc.

 

I was outraged to learn of this problem, and still am. I've never been a big fan of Big Brother, you see, and value liberty above all other values.

 

BUT... looking at the distribution of the caches they've insisted "we" archive, makes me wonder whether our beef is with the ATC & NPS, or with a few individuals.

 

The answer to that question might well be useful to us as a community, in deciding how best to deal with the issue. It might also inform us as to how to address our elected and appointed officials on a local level, which may be our most effective recourse.

 

Any thoughts?

Link to comment
looking at the distribution of the caches they've insisted "we" archive, makes me wonder whether our beef is with the ATC & NPS, or with a few individuals.

My guess would be the latter. Perhaps it's just my rampant paranoia kicking in, (Vinny hasn't sent me my meds lately), but I can't help but think this mass geoextinction is agenda driven. There are a few folks in the backpacking community who are way out in left field with their rabid hatred of geocaching, and I'm wondering if one of these extremists managed to get themselves in a position of authority within the AT chain of command. :lol::unsure::ph34r:

Link to comment

First, thanks to DocDitto for putting the effort into mapping out the cache archivals and placement in relation to the A.T. and for maintaining the bookmark list.

 

Shame on Groundspeak for not keeping us informed of what was going on in the first place. As for not releasing names, I understand why. For those of you upset by that, it's not a difficult problem to overcome ... a little time spent on the NPS website will give you all the contact information you need and is clearly in the public forum.

 

To address scubahhh's question ... I truly believe the "we don't deal with violators" kind of mentality and similar documented "big brother" abuse being heaved on adjacent landowners by the NPS is the result of a few overzealous individuals inside the NPS/ATC who's mentality lean toward trying to "protect us from ourselves". Unless or until their influence is removed or congress corrects the NPS's perception of how they should be behaving, we will continue to have this abuse of power. Again these individuals are lumping geocachers into the same category as land encroachment and we all know that is both inaccurate and inappropriate and nothing more than an attempt to forward a radical agenda.

 

So, I have two interesting observations ...

 

First, the NPS seems to imply the cachers are on an intentional mission to break the law and place caches where they aren't permitted. It's interesting in the random sample of the list I just looked at to see that quite a few of these caches have been around for YEARS. This isn't new and it's hardly something which hasn't been well known by the NPS for quite some time. Given the recent acquistion of some of the adjacent land parcels by the NPS, it's entirely possible that some caches when placed were in fact totally legitmate on lands outside NPS jurisdiction. Additionally, as has been pointed out numerous times, quite a few people until recently were even unaware that the NPS had anything to do with the AT. Yes, I know ignorance of the law doesn't matter, but there is a big difference between willful and intentional infringement and a lack of understanding. To accuse all geocachers of the former when it's more likely the latter is just another example of specific individuals inside the ATC who are trying to pursue a radical agenda.

 

My second observation ...

 

Note that all of the following show the land owner as a state agency. Now, as I haven't looked at the specific caches and their proximity, I don't know about their relationship to the AT corridor as it passes thru that tract of land. What I do know however is the if the caches are OUTSIDE of the AT corridor, then it would seem to me that whoever in the NPS compiled the list is clearly outside of their jurisdiction. By their own record, they are NOT the managing agency for the land ....

 

GCH20H, MA DCR-Beartown SF, Fee, NERO

GC192E, MA DCR-October Mt. SF, Fee, NERO

GCH2KO, MA DCR-Mt. Greylock SR, Fee, NERO

GC16720, MA DCR-Mt. Greylock SR, Fee, NERO

GC16721, MA DCR-Mt. Greylock SR, Fee, NERO

GCZ2KZ, MA DCR-Mt. Greylock SR, Fee, NERO

GCG3D8, MA DCR-Mt. Greylock SR, Fee, NERO

GC14M73, MA DCR-Mt. Greylock SR, Fee, NERO

GCE3E, MA DCR-Mt. Greylock SR, Fee, NERO

GCWNKV, MA DCR-Mt. Greylock SR, Fee, NERO

GCRD86, MA DCR-Mt. Greylock SR, Fee, NERO

 

GCZ3CW, VA WMA-Geo. Thom, Fee, AT Corridor/Seg. 418

GCH0Q7, VA WMA-Geo. Thom, Fee, AT Corridor/Seg. 418

GCH0M6, VA WMA-Geo. Thom, Fee, AT Corridor/Seg. 418

GCGVQB, VA WMA-Geo. Thom, Fee, AT Corridor/Seg. 418

 

On such caches, I think scrutiny is certainly warranted. It's moot as to if a particular agency permits geocaching or not. That's an issue between the cache owner and the landmanager -- neither of which is the NPS. If the NPS is not the land manager either directly or via an MOU for the corridor, then it's outside of their jurisdiction and they should focus their efforts on lands they control and leave these other issues to the land manager who has authority. Groundspeak should politely remind the NPS to restrict their list to lands they manage directly.

 

And one last thing ... the "we don't talk to violators" is just code for "we don't ever plan to talk to you". You see, they will always find some excuse to say there is a violation and use it as an excuse to not enter a conversation ... individuals need to make sure that their interests are being represented properly (which clearly they aren't here) by making sure those who fund the NPS and are in a position to influence NPS policy (congress) are aware of the issue. Write your elected officials. It also doesn't hurt to go over the head of local agencies which may be acting out inappropriate agendas and complain at the highest levels within the NPS. Be polite, be factual, but be heard.

 

Perhaps someone within Groundspeak (or not) would be willing to help draft some sample letters individuals could send which would show how to properly quantify our concerns and protest current policy and post links to them here.

Edited by Lasagna
Link to comment

On such caches, I think scrutiny is certainly warranted. It's moot as to if a particular agency permits geocaching or not. That's an issue between the cache owner and the landmanager -- neither of which is the NPS. If the NPS is not the land manager either directly or via an MOU for the corridor, then it's outside of their jurisdiction and they should focus their efforts on lands they control and leave these other issues to the land manager who has authority. Groundspeak should politely remind the NPS to restrict their list to lands they manage directly.

 

While I agree in theory, in practice telling the NPS to buzz off where they don't technically have control of the land may not be the best idea. If there are side trails from the AT to a cache (or, more correctly, if the NPS perceives that there are or will be side trails) then they're going to want that cache gone. If we're not willing to remove it ourselves, I'm pretty sure the NPS will either remove it themselves, or try to convince the landowner that it should be removed. In the case of state lands, chances are the NPS would get their way every time. The last thing I want to have is the NPS telling the Game Commission or other state land managers that caching is really bad and they should have some policy against it. You know the NPS isn't going to suggest they "control" caches, they're going to suggest they BAN caches. And it's probably easier for a land manager to simply say "banned" than it is to work with us to develop a policy and/or permit system that would require more time and effort to manage.

 

Just because the law may fall on our side in some cases doesn't mean we should try to force our will on the NPS. I think working with them in a cooperative effort would probably be better for us in the long run. If that means that caches just off the AT that are technically legal have to go, then so be it. One of mine falls into that category, but I'm not arguing it. Better to lose one cache than to lose the ability to place caches on SGL or in State Forests or wherever.

 

At the same time, I don't think rolling over and giving the NPS whatever they want on lands they don't control is good for us either. There has to be a balance, and yes, the NPS does have its limits, even if it may not like them. Sometimes they do need to be reminded of that.

Link to comment

I've been following this since it started. The one thing I strongly suggest is that we contact our senators and representatives. Enough contacts, complaining and questioning what has gone on will probably lead to calls from the senator's/representative's office to the NPS which will eventually trickle down to those who need some clarification about geocaching.

Link to comment

While I agree in theory, in practice telling the NPS to buzz off where they don't technically have control of the land may not be the best idea. If there are side trails from the AT to a cache (or, more correctly, if the NPS perceives that there are or will be side trails) then they're going to want that cache gone. If we're not willing to remove it ourselves, I'm pretty sure the NPS will either remove it themselves, or try to convince the landowner that it should be removed. In the case of state lands, chances are the NPS would get their way every time. The last thing I want to have is the NPS telling the Game Commission or other state land managers that caching is really bad and they should have some policy against it. You know the NPS isn't going to suggest they "control" caches, they're going to suggest they BAN caches. And it's probably easier for a land manager to simply say "banned" than it is to work with us to develop a policy and/or permit system that would require more time and effort to manage.

 

Just because the law may fall on our side in some cases doesn't mean we should try to force our will on the NPS. I think working with them in a cooperative effort would probably be better for us in the long run. If that means that caches just off the AT that are technically legal have to go, then so be it. One of mine falls into that category, but I'm not arguing it. Better to lose one cache than to lose the ability to place caches on SGL or in State Forests or wherever.

 

At the same time, I don't think rolling over and giving the NPS whatever they want on lands they don't control is good for us either. There has to be a balance, and yes, the NPS does have its limits, even if it may not like them. Sometimes they do need to be reminded of that.

 

You are, of course, right ... but by the same account Groundspeak should not roll over either. There is a difference between a cache placed on A.T. / NPS lands and a cache not on land they control. The former clearly they can require go away under present policy. The latter, I think the burden of proof falls to the NPS to show that it is having an impact -- at the very least, I think requiring the NPS to seperate their complaints into these two categories and dealing with them seperately would be appropriate perhaps giving the cache owner the benefit of the doubt first before you go archiving their caches in the case of the latter.

 

You know, I think if they had simply done that this time around and validated any which are suspiciously distant from the A.T. corridor or not on A.T. lands, they could have prevented a lot of heartburn. Sure, there would still have been complaints, but the arguments would have been different (relating to NPS policy disagreement vs the right to have a cache in the first place) -- and you know, I would have come down on the side of the NPS in that instance. I wouldn't have agreed with the NPS policy, but I would have defended their right to enforce it. The issue remains, I fear, that a few radical elements particularly within the ATC itself are intentionally feeding misinformation to the NPS. It's a shame really because most geocachers are of the same mindset as those seeking to preserve natural resources and by being atagonistic, they are alienating a substantial group of individuals who could otherwise bring the volunteer resources they need into the program.

 

OK Groundspeak, so you say you want advocates? How about publishing some materials and talking points which would help Geocachers engage their local leaders, state agencies, etc. in understanding Geocaching and supporting it. I'm not a fan of permit processes, but you know, I've dealt with them and having information to give to agencies to help them understand what kinds of policies Groundspeak supports and what resources you have available to assist them (or better still what information they can provide you to assist reviewers in insuring proper placement on their lands) would, I think, go a long way towards shutting down those with a radical agenda who are about spreading fear and doubt over Geocaching as a way to achieve their goals. Helping those of us comfortable with petitioning and engaging local and state agencies to do so in a consistent and complete manner would go a long way. A good marketing campaign can do wonders.

Link to comment

I've been following this since it started. The one thing I strongly suggest is that we contact our senators and representatives. Enough contacts, complaining and questioning what has gone on will probably lead to calls from the senator's/representative's office to the NPS which will eventually trickle down to those who need some clarification about geocaching.

 

Do you think that would help? I tend to think that in the case of geocaching, which is a bit "out there" as an activity as far as the general public is concerned, drawing state and/or local governmental attention to the sport is almost guaranteed to generate more negative consequences than positive. In our part of the state (the northeast), there have been several instances of both public and semi-official complaints about caches on state gamelands. One of our local state reps is a hunting guru, and I suspect that if he knew about caching, he'd be inclined to think it's not appropriate for fish and game commission controlled lands.

Link to comment

Following this from afar, I hope someone will invest a little time and compile some stats on activity levels for these caches. Out of curiosity I just pulled up a couple of the older (7+ years) caches and found that they had less than 20 logs per year. Seems to me that such activity is totally insignificant compared to the numbers of hikers and backpackers using the trail on a daily basis.

Link to comment

I've been following this since it started. The one thing I strongly suggest is that we contact our senators and representatives.

 

That would probably be counter-productive.

 

Leaving subjective issues of right/wrong behind, let's look at the basics of this.

 

At least one agency of the federal government does not want geocaches in certain parts of land they believe to be under their control.

 

They have asked for cooperation from GC.Com in getting these caches removed.

 

There are only two choices here.

 

Choice 1. Be confrontational, argumentative, and give the agency a good, logical reason to think we're all a bunch of mindless anti-environmental goons. This will guarantee this issue, which is probably minor for the agency right now, will become a larger issue with far-reaching consequences not beneficial to the geocaching community as a whole. (This is not the better of the two choices.)

 

Choice 2. Be cooperative, take a look at the cache locations, work with the agency, be a good neighbor, take this as an opportunity to educate some government employees, and see if we can show the agency where we (geocachers) and they (the government) share common interests in preserving the environment.

 

Choice 2 definitely is an opportunity to make inroads with the agency, and we, as geocachers, should be appreciative that the GS lackeys (their term, not mine) are spending the time and effort to it takes to resolve any concerns the government may have.

 

Handled correctly, this could end up being a boon for the geocaching community in the future.

Link to comment

I've been following this since it started. The one thing I strongly suggest is that we contact our senators and representatives.

 

That would probably be counter-productive.

 

Leaving subjective issues of right/wrong behind, let's look at the basics of this.

 

At least one agency of the federal government does not want geocaches in certain parts of land they believe to be under their control.

 

They have asked for cooperation from GC.Com in getting these caches removed.

 

There are only two choices here.

 

Choice 1. Be confrontational, argumentative, and give the agency a good, logical reason to think we're all a bunch of mindless anti-environmental goons. This will guarantee this issue, which is probably minor for the agency right now, will become a larger issue with far-reaching consequences not beneficial to the geocaching community as a whole. (This is not the better of the two choices.)

 

Choice 2. Be cooperative, take a look at the cache locations, work with the agency, be a good neighbor, take this as an opportunity to educate some government employees, and see if we can show the agency where we (geocachers) and they (the government) share common interests in preserving the environment.

 

Choice 2 definitely is an opportunity to make inroads with the agency, and we, as geocachers, should be appreciative that the GS lackeys (their term, not mine) are spending the time and effort to it takes to resolve any concerns the government may have.

 

Handled correctly, this could end up being a boon for the geocaching community in the future.

 

As I had stated in a previous post referring to one's idea of posting "wanted" signs in their front yard, cooperating and working WITH these guys is THE best way to continue (no matter how unfair you may perceive this situation)! I'm glad to see more coming in and using level-headed approaches!

 

It's our chance to show these people that, even when dealt with unfairly, we can rise above and still carry on in a professional-like manner and that we desire nothing more than equal rights to lands deemed "public". Showing that we would love to be a part of the solution and NOT the problem (even if the problem is in their heads) might just go a long ways to helping geocaching!

 

Whistler, Lasagna and a few others seem to understand this, I hope others will as well!

 

Good luck with this, it truly affects many!

Link to comment

A CT cacher contacted someone from the ATC about some of the archived caches in the state. A DEP Ranger here in CT covers the AT in CT and is also a geocacher. I'm not sure if she contacted him or someone else.

 

She specifically asked about a cache that is on DEP property and I believe away from the AT.

 

The person from the ATC replied back and agreed that the cache looked like it was on DEP property.

 

He also said they are planning to discuss geocaching further at the AT New England Regional management meeting. She's talking with him to see if some geocachers could speak because there seems to be a lot of misunderstand, especially about the whole burying thing and the difference between us and letterboxers.

 

I'm not sure if they are allowed or if it conflicts with their interests, but maybe one or two reviewers would want to speak since they could provide a more "definitive" answer on certain questions where we regular cachers may not know the exact answer if anything comes up.

Edited by Skippermark
Link to comment
They have asked for cooperation from GC.Com in getting these caches removed.

 

As I understand it, (I could be wrong), the AT/NPS folks did not ask for anything. They demanded, which is a huge difference.

 

Choice 1. Be confrontational

 

Before discounting this option, keep in mind that the AT/NPS deliberately chose confrontation as their means of conflict resolution.

(Think "We don't talk to violators")

 

Choice 2. Be cooperative

 

If we assume, (as evidence seems to indicate), that this geoextermination is agenda driven, then any cooperation will fail, and fail utterly. When a government entity forgets who writes their paychecks, and intentionally/willfully/maliciously steps outside the boundaries of their responsibility, the only cure is to make the situation known, in such a public way as to ensure whoever is behind this agenda is sanctioned by their superiors.

 

I liken it to a rogue law enforcement officer. Cooperation won't make a bad cop turn into a good cop. We, (LEO's), derive every ounce of our authority from the people. Abusing our authority, (as the AT/NPS folks did), is absolutely unforgivable, and warrants a swift and harsh response. Demanding that a cache, (which is outside their corridor of control), be immediately archived because someone may, someday, theoretically access the cache by egressing from the AT is similar to me writing tickets to Ford GT owners because they may, someday, theoretically violate speed laws. How long would my career last if I started doing this? I choose not to follow this course of action for many reasons, one of which is my knowledge that the consequences for such behavior would be severe. Whoever is behind this abuse of power needs to face scrutiny. Their punishment needs to be stringent enough that, whoever takes their place would think twice before pushing innocent people around.

 

If those in this extremist's chain of command are worthy of their position of authority, they will be as outraged by their employee's abuses as we are. If they are so small minded and petty as to take umbrage with the folks who brought light to the bad apple within their barrel, (as opposed to focusing their angst on said bad apple), then any cooperation from us will be meaningless, and only fuel the fire for more abuse.

 

Rolling over will not aid our cause at all.

 

(steps off soap box)

Link to comment

He also said they are planning to discuss geocaching further at the AT New England Regional management meeting. She's talking with him to see if some geocachers could speak because there seems to be a lot of misunderstand, especially about the whole burying thing and the difference between us and letterboxers.

 

I'm not sure if they are allowed or if it conflicts with their interests, but maybe one or two reviewers would want to speak since they could provide a more "definitive" answer on certain questions where we regular cachers may not know the exact answer if anything comes up.

 

This sounds like the best idea yet towards resolving future issues the ATC may have regarding Geocaching. Does anyone have the contact information regarding this?

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...