+Rockin Roddy Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 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) I wholeheartedly agree, no one has said "roll over". However, communications mightbe a better approach before dragging out the pitchforks? This is just now unfolding, there's not been time to open a proper channel of communications (although I am encouraged by posts by GC's PTB)...wouldn't cooperation and being civil be the wise course until and unless we know that line of action isn't working. Yes, they demanded...when the local LEO demands me to step out of the car (hypothetically of course lol), I do this first and ask questions when appropriate! Quote Link to comment
Clan Riffster Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 when the local LEO demands me to step out of the car (hypothetically of course lol), I do this first and ask questions when appropriate! That's certainly prudent. However, in this case, we, (geocaching in general) are well past the point of being ordered out of a vehicle. In your comparative scenario, we've already been arrested, booked into jail, bonded out and are plotting the appropriate response to the blatantly, and easily proved false arrest which destroyed our career. Most civil attorneys would not advocate engaging in polite discourse at this stage. Quote Link to comment
+Rockin Roddy Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 (edited) when the local LEO demands me to step out of the car (hypothetically of course lol), I do this first and ask questions when appropriate! That's certainly prudent. However, in this case, we, (geocaching in general) are well past the point of being ordered out of a vehicle. In your comparative scenario, we've already been arrested, booked into jail, bonded out and are plotting the appropriate response to the blatantly, and easily proved false arrest which destroyed our career. Most civil attorneys would not advocate engaging in polite discourse at this stage. I must have missed something as I didn't realize we'd escalated past talking. As I had seen it, they demanded removal which was complied with, dialogue then was started. Must be I missed where they told us to "get lost, we'll not listen to you". I've yet to see where they "arrested, booked, bonded" etc.... I could be misinformed here, I'll go back and read a bit closer. eta...no, it appears Shawna has asked for patience while they do what it takes to work things out. I didn't see anywhere where NPS said buzz off! I'm still in favor of "polite discourse"! Edited September 24, 2008 by Rockin Roddy Quote Link to comment
John E Cache Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 (edited) 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. It appears to me that it is going to be hard to justify putting out a geocache that uses the AT to access the cache. There is no way you can avoid a "social trail", unless geocachers can levitate. If you search nps.gov for "social trails" you get thousands of hits so social trails are a popular topic these days both as an indicator of use and as a sign of wilderness destruction. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=s...mp;aq=f&oq= I can see where a social trail turns into a real trail, like when it is shortcut across a switch back. A geocache can be placed so that the access path goes nowhere and the path will not be used by muggles, but that probably makes no difference to the NPS. Here in the NW we a very sensitive to off trail geocaches. Even one footprint off trail on a steep slope can be continually expanded by all the rain we get. We police ourselves...for now. Edited September 25, 2008 by John E Cache Quote Link to comment
Clan Riffster Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 I must have missed something as I didn't realize we'd escalated past talking. Apparently you did. Opening up a two way, sincere conversation with Groundspeak regarding their concerns, geared toward educating whom they perceived to be in violation, while being willing to listen to our side, prior to taking drastic action, would've been "talking". Ordering the immediate removal of caches that are not even remotely under their area of authority exceeds "talking". (That's the direction my analogy as going, in case you missed it) Responding with their age old adage, "We don't talk to violators", expresses the fact that they are not interested in "talking". Perhaps another analogy might cause you to suddenly see the light: (Bear in mind that no analogy, by definition, can be perfect) Imagine you're shopping at Wally World for some new Lock & Locks. The security guard, (non LEO), notices you have a tail light out as you are driving away. He leaps into his Escort and chases you down, flashing his headlights so you'll pull over. You ignore the kook, so he forces you to stop by parking in front of you. Then he commences screaming at you about how faulty vehicular equipment causes a gazillion deaths a day. He then demands that you exit your vehicle.... Would this be a good time to "do first and ask questions later"? In both scenarios we have an individual acting outside the scope of their authority, punishing citizens unjustly. One's a rent-a-cop, the other's a bureaucrat. I realize there is a subset of American society that cannot survive without the 'gubment' telling them what to do, and will roll over at the least provocation, even when the provocateur has no legal backing, but I don't belong to that group. If you do, please disregard this post. Quote Link to comment
+Parabola Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 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? I agree to this sounds like a golden opportunity to help "educate" those that are making the decisions. Sounds like a great place to start. It sounds like a some people are uninformed about all the details of our hobby and could use a little geo-caching 101 and our over all ethic's and practices. Them seem too think (from what I've read here) to think we are out to destroy everything in our path to get to a cache, which is not the case at all. And yes one bad apple that chooses to violate laws to reach a cache are around, but one incident shouldn't be a case to ruin it for everyone. I'm sure there has been backpacker's, hunter's, hiker's that have violated law due to thier own lack of respect to an area but those activity's are not being targeted like geo-caching is. That bad apple should be held accountable for his/her own actions and not the entire sport. But this again sounds like a great opportunity to show the decision makers that we are willing to work with them and help educate them in what exactly we do. I still believe some sort of permit system could be put in place so a local official is involved with the placement. Then they know about it and can express what they could conceive as a potential problem. But first I think they need to be accurately informed of what is geo-caching and it's policy's. Again I don't live anywhere near the trail but was making plans on taking a vacation and hiking across some of it and doing some caching along the way. Good luck to all the locals and individuals involved. Quote Link to comment
Skippermark Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 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? I'm not sure when or where the meeting takes place or if it's even open to the public or ATC members, but I've asked her if she could get more info. Quote Link to comment
+briansnat Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 (edited) It appears to me that it is going to be hard to justify putting out a geocache that uses the AT to access the cache. There is no way you can avoid a "social trail", unless geocachers can levitate. If you search nps.gov for "social trails" you get thousands of hits so social trails are a popular topic these days both as an indicator of use and as a sign of wilderness destruction. Social trails form when people repeatedly take the same route to a destination. This usually isn't the case with geocachers as varying degrees of GPS accuracy, variances in approach and other factors usually cause cachers to take different routes to the cache. The farther the cache is from the trail the more likely it is that the routes will vary, further reducing the likelihood of a social trail forming. Add to this the fact that most of these caches do not receive a lot of visits, it makes the formation of these trails a very rare occurrence. I've found and placed hundreds of caches in the deep woods, some along the AT corridor and I have yet to see one of these social trails in these areas. The handful of social trails I've seen were formed where a cache was close (usually 50 feet or less) to a road or parking. Honestly, if they put a road or parking lot there, how sensitive is that area? In fact I found two of these archived AT caches over the weekend. One was out a year and hidden about 50 feet off the AT. In that year there were 11 visits and there was no evidence that a geocache was hidden in the area other than the pile of bark it was hidden under. No trail, no trampled brush - nothing. The other cache was hidden in a stone wall that bordered an automobile road which brings thousands of visitors each month to the location. If they really wanted to protect the area how about permanently shutting down that road? The social trail is a bogus issue put forth by people with no practical knowledge of the sport and who get their information third hand, or plain make things up. It's not about protection of the trail corridor. It's about power and a handful of bureaucrats with too much time on their hands and too many tax dollars to waste. The next time the NPS screams about budget cuts they won't get a sympathetic ear here. I've written my last letter to my congressman protesting budget cuts for the parks, because if they have enough money to go after people hiding Tupperware in the woods, then they are obviously in good shape. The ATC won't be getting my money either when my membership comes up for renewal. Edited September 25, 2008 by briansnat Quote Link to comment
John E Cache Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 It appears to me that it is going to be hard to justify putting out a geocache that uses the AT to access the cache. There is no way you can avoid a "social trail", unless geocachers can levitate. If you search nps.gov for "social trails" you get thousands of hits so social trails are a popular topic these days both as an indicator of use and as a sign of wilderness destruction.Social trails form when people repeatedly take the same route to a destination. This usually isn't the case with geocachers as varying degrees of GPS accuracy, variances in approach and other factors usually cause cachers to take different routes to the cache. The farther the cache is from the trail the more likely it is that the routes will vary, further reducing the likelihood of a social trail forming. Add to this the fact that most of these caches do not receive a lot of visits, it makes the formation of these trails a very rare occurrence.We all no you're right, but the letter from the NPS used the term first, not me. In my opinion, there no way you are going to convince a person whose job it is to lower the "social trail" indicators. unless you take the person to each cache site for approval. Words like "usually not the case" don't sound convincing to me. Our local park guy actually does inspections and sometimes makes recommendations for interesting cache sites. Quote Link to comment
+fizzymagic Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 The next time the NPS screams about budget cuts they won't get a sympathetic ear here. I've written my last letter to my congressman protesting budget cuts for the parks, because if they have enough money to go after people hiding Tupperware in the woods, then they are obviously in good shape. The ATC won't be getting my money either when my membership comes up for renewal. You know they have gone too far when briansnat gets upset like this! To those who think that all that is needed is "education" of the NPS, or perhaps "constructive dialog," I can only say that you must be quite new to the sport. The NPS has been behaving this way towards geocaching for over 5 years now. Efforts at education, cooperation, etc. have all come to naught. When dealing with a bureaucracy like the NPS, these attempts are doomed to failure, because of a key feature of bureaucracies: it only takes one person (whether in a position of actual authority or not) to say "no," while it takes an entire organization to say "yes." In general, the only way to get a bureaucracy to adopt enlightened positions is to force them. Letters to Congressmen, etc. can be quite helpful. Adverse publicity can do wonders. Make it general knowledge that the NPS is prohibiting a legitimate recreational use of their lands that does not cause damage. If anybody has the time or talent, a lawsuit might also be effective. Believe me when I say that an adversarial process is more likely to bear fruit in this case. We need to face the fact that the NPS is not going to change their policy unless they are forced to. It is a simple fact of life. Quote Link to comment
+Rockin Roddy Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 (edited) I must have missed something as I didn't realize we'd escalated past talking. Apparently you did. Opening up a two way, sincere conversation with Groundspeak regarding their concerns, geared toward educating whom they perceived to be in violation, while being willing to listen to our side, prior to taking drastic action, would've been "talking". Ordering the immediate removal of caches that are not even remotely under their area of authority exceeds "talking". (That's the direction my analogy as going, in case you missed it) Responding with their age old adage, "We don't talk to violators", expresses the fact that they are not interested in "talking". Perhaps another analogy might cause you to suddenly see the light: (Bear in mind that no analogy, by definition, can be perfect) Imagine you're shopping at Wally World for some new Lock & Locks. The security guard, (non LEO), notices you have a tail light out as you are driving away. He leaps into his Escort and chases you down, flashing his headlights so you'll pull over. You ignore the kook, so he forces you to stop by parking in front of you. Then he commences screaming at you about how faulty vehicular equipment causes a gazillion deaths a day. He then demands that you exit your vehicle.... Would this be a good time to "do first and ask questions later"? In both scenarios we have an individual acting outside the scope of their authority, punishing citizens unjustly. One's a rent-a-cop, the other's a bureaucrat. I realize there is a subset of American society that cannot survive without the 'gubment' telling them what to do, and will roll over at the least provocation, even when the provocateur has no legal backing, but I don't belong to that group. If you do, please disregard this post. We're talking about NPS and their right to limit access to the AT, not wally world and their employees. The first analogy is correct in that the NPS has authority in their actions (but may be overstepping them) much like an officer has the right to stop me for leaving my own business after dark or such since they know when we close and when everyone should be gone. He may not have a good reason, but his intentions are to help my business not be broken into (or in this case, stop sensitive areas from being ruined). After a bit of cooperative talks, I'm sure the officer will understand I had some book work to do...and if not, well, time for the lawyers! I'm not going to deny the officer when he demands me to exit my auto much like GS didn't hesitate when NPS demanded removal. Now, we differ on where we are in this process. You think we've passed the part where dialogue is useful, I don't think so. In your analogy, I see us at the point of "license and registration" where you see us at "get a lawyer". It's only been a week and, as I've said, I don't see anywhere where NPS said buzz off. Talking a bit now might just be the smart move, we can always go to pitchforks and torches if that doesn't work out...and as Shauna seems to have said, it's in the talk stage! Patience is helpful....or do you just pull the gun and open fire if the guy doesn't want to show you his license?? See, I've dealt with this before...only with mountain biking. Same governing body, same demand of ceasing the use and same opening of dialogue. After a bit of working it through, we came to the conclusion that some trails are allowed bike use while others won't be...it's called cooperation and compromising! I'm confident this too will work out! As for rolling over, you keep saying that as if that's what everyone is suggesting, could you please point out the post(s) which suggest this?? I've yet to see it and I've read this topic 3 times to make sure! eta: I've yet to see an officer politely tell me he thought I was in violation of ANYTHING...they ORDER you to do what they want until things are worked out (as I've seen anyway). Edited September 25, 2008 by Rockin Roddy Quote Link to comment
+WebChimp Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 eta: I've yet to see an officer politely tell me he thought I was in violation of ANYTHING...they ORDER you to do what they want until things are worked out (as I've seen anyway). An earlier poster seemed to think I'd missed the point when I said the government "asked", and he quickly pointed out that the government "demanded". Anyone who has dealt with the federal government knows that when dealing with the federal folks, "asking" and "demanding" are often interchangeable terms. To use your LEO analogy, "Step out of the car, please" is asking. "Get out of the car!" is demanding. Either one has the same result. You end up out of the car, whether you want to, or not. Comply first, then discuss. They are the feds. They have all sorts of levels of backup. A little helpful cooperation and looking for mutual goals on the front end goes further to creating a good outcome than all them indignant chest-beating combined. Quote Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 The next time the NPS screams about budget cuts they won't get a sympathetic ear here. I've written my last letter to my congressman protesting budget cuts for the parks, because if they have enough money to go after people hiding Tupperware in the woods, then they are obviously in good shape. The ATC won't be getting my money either when my membership comes up for renewal. You know they have gone too far when briansnat gets upset like this! To those who think that all that is needed is "education" of the NPS, or perhaps "constructive dialog," I can only say that you must be quite new to the sport. The NPS has been behaving this way towards geocaching for over 5 years now. Efforts at education, cooperation, etc. have all come to naught. When dealing with a bureaucracy like the NPS, these attempts are doomed to failure, because of a key feature of bureaucracies: it only takes one person (whether in a position of actual authority or not) to say "no," while it takes an entire organization to say "yes."... Since I work for one of those kind of organizations I can vouch for the simple fact that it also only takes one person to say yes. The trick is to find the right person. They are far harder to find than the folks who can say no. When I need something done and I find the right champion the waters part and things happen. If I can't get that person to champion my cause I have to find the angle that makes them realize it's in their interest to work with me. That all said, there is another way. Since the NPS (and other groups) rely on volunteer organizations now cachers should start joining those organizations. Enouch cachers and magicly attitudes change about caching within the organization, and even within the organization relying on the volunteer services. Quote Link to comment
+Rockin Roddy Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 eta: I've yet to see an officer politely tell me he thought I was in violation of ANYTHING...they ORDER you to do what they want until things are worked out (as I've seen anyway). An earlier poster seemed to think I'd missed the point when I said the government "asked", and he quickly pointed out that the government "demanded". Anyone who has dealt with the federal government knows that when dealing with the federal folks, "asking" and "demanding" are often interchangeable terms. To use your LEO analogy, "Step out of the car, please" is asking. "Get out of the car!" is demanding. Either one has the same result. You end up out of the car, whether you want to, or not. Comply first, then discuss. They are the feds. They have all sorts of levels of backup. A little helpful cooperation and looking for mutual goals on the front end goes further to creating a good outcome than all them indignant chest-beating combined. We're in agreement! Quote Link to comment
+Harry Dolphin Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 That all said, there is another way. Since the NPS (and other groups) rely on volunteer organizations now cachers should start joining those organizations. Enouch cachers and magicly attitudes change about caching within the organization, and even within the organization relying on the volunteer services. Many geocachers are members of those volunteer groups! I see notes from several members of the ATC that they will not renew in protest, with reasons cited. Myself, I've hiked over a thousand miles of the AT (and found six or eight caches near it). I have never seen damage to the trail of the 'corricor' because of the caches. I volunteer to maintain a trail in North Jersey (and have done so for ten years) under the auspices of the NYNJTC (which maintains all of the AT in New Jersey and New York.) I shall have to find out NYNJTC's viewpoint on this before membership renewal time comes around. Quote Link to comment
+Lasagna Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 (edited) Since I work for one of those kind of organizations I can vouch for the simple fact that it also only takes one person to say yes. The trick is to find the right person. They are far harder to find than the folks who can say no. When I need something done and I find the right champion the waters part and things happen. If I can't get that person to champion my cause I have to find the angle that makes them realize it's in their interest to work with me. That all said, there is another way. Since the NPS (and other groups) rely on volunteer organizations now cachers should start joining those organizations. Enouch cachers and magicly attitudes change about caching within the organization, and even within the organization relying on the volunteer services. Unfortunately that's like saying you should join PETA because you disagree with their philosophy on the acceptability of eating meat or wearing fur in hopes of changing their views from within. While I'm not going to argue the merits of PETA's views one way or the other, we all know that joining that organization with the goals stated in mind would be a fruitless effort given their well publicized statements on such issues. Unless or until the NPS stops relying on the misinformation being spread by certain individuals within the ATC who are bent on persuing a radical agenda and start listening to other individuals and organizations that present a more reasoned and fact based view, nothing will change. Environmental science is a complex area and some in the ATC would seem to have a habit of regularly presenting hypothesis as fact or casting complicated scenarios as black or white. The only way to counter misinformation and sow doubt into the reliability of the present information sources is for other individuals and organizations to make sure they are being heard directly. Groundspeak as an organization with resources needs to advocate on our behalf and get the NPS to outline a common set of objectives which defines a reasoned approach to geocaching. They did what they were asked (demanded) to do ... so the next question should be, so we're working "with you", now what are you going to do to show your working "with me"? We as individuals need to petition the NPS (and those that fund it) to properly act on our behalf to cooperate -- and as someone mentioned above, if we've got those on the "inside" who we know are positive forces in this respect, we need to leverage and support them to move this bureaucracy off it's center. And as for the ATC, well lets just say that I think people might have better uses for their money and time at this point. Maybe those who choose to stay involved can motivate changes to remove those from positions of power who are responsible for such radical views. Maybe Groundspeak or some other organization might start a "Geocaching in the National Parks" initiative. I'd be one of the first in line to give them a contribution and volunteer some time. Edited September 26, 2008 by Lasagna Quote Link to comment
+briansnat Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 (edited) I shall have to find out NYNJTC's viewpoint on this before membership renewal time comes around. The NYNJTC as an organization has no position on geocaching. There was some discussion regarding whether or not geocaching organizations are suitable for acceptance as members, but I don't think that was ever resolved one way or another. Some individuals high up in the NYNJTC do have opinions regarding the sport, some negative, but most seem to have a positive attitude toward geocacahing. In fact a former president and several former board members are avid geocachers. As Geobernd mentioned earlier in this thread, he is an AT corridor steward for the NYNJTC and was not involved with or consulted about the archival list. This is strictly an ATC/NPS thing. Edited September 26, 2008 by briansnat Quote Link to comment
+Parabola Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 Some of you are kind of making referance like there's another forum on the AT that some conversation is taking place. could I get a link to that forum. I would like to see what the NPS/ATC is saying and what avid trail users are saying. Being I have never been on the trail or live anywhere never it I don't want to say anything but would like to see what is beening said from the NPS/ATC. Thanks. Quote Link to comment
+TheAlabamaRambler Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 (edited) Gubbool, one of our AGA geocachers, just finished walking the AT today... all of it! He's a Through-Hiker Plus! States: Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New Joisy, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine. Trails: Alabama Pinhoti, Georgia Pinhoti, Benton-McKaye, Appalachian ~2400 miles all done. Local cacher OldBoyHiker drove up to meet him for the last climb, to re-supply him and give him a bicycle to ride back home to Alabama. Looks like Gubbool may be one of, if not the, last cacher to find caches all along the trail. Too bad, there are some wonderful places to cache along the AT. The thing is, Gubbool is constantly meeting people along the trail... it is well-traveled. Note the group picture of 20 through-hikers (Georgia to Maine) who all finished on the same day he did. Since through-hikers are vastly outnumbered by day-hikers, that indicates a lot of traffic along the AT! Geocachers don't do any more damage than the rest of the hikers, I can't see why our game is being focused on... if the trail is open to hikers it should be open to ALL hikers, geocachers included. Edited September 26, 2008 by TheAlabamaRambler Quote Link to comment
Clan Riffster Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 the NPS has authority in their actions (but may be overstepping them) Uh.... What? First you say their actions are authorized, then you say they overstepped their bounds. Could you please make up your mind? Boundaries are what establish what an organization can lawfully do from what they cannot lawfully do. An organization which oversteps these bounds is no longer acting lawfully. AT/NPS overstepped their bounds. They are no longer acting within the scope of their authority. (kinda like the Wally World rent-a-cop conducting a traffic stop) In each example, someone exceeded their authority. Get it? I've yet to see an officer politely tell me he thought I was in violation of ANYTHING If you live in such a hideous society, then I must pity you. I only personally know around 1000 cops, from about a dozen states, which is just a drop in the bucket when compared to the whole, but my relationships come with an interesting statistic: Evey single one of these cops deal with violators in as polite terms as the situation warrants. In fact, their collective agencies require polite citizen/LEO interaction, when possible. And, of all the agencies I deal with, I can't think of even one which does not require polite interaction. Obviously, we live in different worlds. In my 20 years of law enforcement, I can count on two hands the total number of people I have not dealt with politely. Note: When a masked man runs out of a hotel room carrying a severed human head, that's not the time to advise him of his violations in a polite manner. I'd love to post the reaction of my zone partner when he read your, uh... unusual claim, but that would not be polite. (and I know how important that is to you) The abridged version: He thinks you may be exaggerating your position. Quote Link to comment
+briansnat Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 (edited) An organization which oversteps these bounds is no longer acting lawfully.AT/NPS overstepped their bounds. They are no longer acting within the scope of their authority. Tell that to the NPS. They may be acting outside the scope of their authority, but we are still at their mercy. There are very few checks on the authority of the NPS. Unfortunately they feel they are acting in the interest of their "partners". If they start getting the ear of their partners and continue to spread their misconceptions, disinformation and outright lies about geocaching, it could eventually have a much wider affect on our sport. Our only real option is education, but when the "student" chooses to revel in his prejudices and ignorance that is a loosing battle. Edited September 26, 2008 by briansnat Quote Link to comment
+Rockin Roddy Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 the NPS has authority in their actions (but may be overstepping them) Uh.... What? First you say their actions are authorized, then you say they overstepped their bounds. Could you please make up your mind? Boundaries are what establish what an organization can lawfully do from what they cannot lawfully do. An organization which oversteps these bounds is no longer acting lawfully. AT/NPS overstepped their bounds. They are no longer acting within the scope of their authority. (kinda like the Wally World rent-a-cop conducting a traffic stop) In each example, someone exceeded their authority. Get it? I've yet to see an officer politely tell me he thought I was in violation of ANYTHING If you live in such a hideous society, then I must pity you. I only personally know around 1000 cops, from about a dozen states, which is just a drop in the bucket when compared to the whole, but my relationships come with an interesting statistic: Evey single one of these cops deal with violators in as polite terms as the situation warrants. In fact, their collective agencies require polite citizen/LEO interaction, when possible. And, of all the agencies I deal with, I can't think of even one which does not require polite interaction. Obviously, we live in different worlds. In my 20 years of law enforcement, I can count on two hands the total number of people I have not dealt with politely. Note: When a masked man runs out of a hotel room carrying a severed human head, that's not the time to advise him of his violations in a polite manner. I'd love to post the reaction of my zone partner when he read your, uh... unusual claim, but that would not be polite. (and I know how important that is to you) The abridged version: He thinks you may be exaggerating your position. First, YES, the NPS has the authority to impose sanctions on their lands, you might get confused though since the NPS is sanctioning lands we perceive to be outside their control. My guess, they feel they have authority which we feel they are overstepping...sorry to confuse you! Cops are always friendly....OK! Where you from??? Florida??? I've run into your "brothers in arms" down there my friend...not exactly as you described either! On the other hand, I have had good experiences with cops, one was even from Florida...this doesn't mean the bad actions don't occur and truly, the bad would likely outnumber the good! Judging from your comments alone, I'd guess you have the feeling you are almost always right....much like those arrogant and rude officers out on the roads (we're right and you'd better do as we "demand")! Maybe you're treated differently as you're one of "them"? Or maybe your eyes are closed to this...maybe you should watch the news more! And NO, I didn't imply you were being rude with this comment, sorry if this is what you got from it! I agree with Briansnat...cooperate and educate as best we can until this matter is taken care of! Quote Link to comment
Clan Riffster Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 (edited) YES, the NPS has the authority to impose sanctions on their lands Correct. A rather brilliant deduction on your part, Sir. the NPS is sanctioning lands we perceive to be outside their control. Almost correct. This is not a matter of "perception", as the roll over gang would like you to believe. (Since you bought that line, I guess it worked. ) AT/NPS knows exactly what properties they have controlling authority over, and what properties they do not. They fired the fist salvo when they chose, intentionally, and maliciously, to extend their petty agenda past the boundaries where their authority has merit. The correct version of this statement should read: "the NPS is sanctioning lands we perceive to be outside their control". My guess, they feel they have authority which we feel they are overstepping My guess, you are either unable or unwilling to see the reality of this situation. Since it has been explained in great detail, using ever decreasing sized words, I must lean toward "unwilling". As such, further debate with you, on this topic, would be pointless. If you truly believe the position you are arguing, then you are apparently able to dismiss reality whenever it is convenient. If, (as I suspect), you don't believe the stance you have taken, then further conversation with you is naught but a waste of Goundspeak's server space. Rather than banter back and forth for the next several pages, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. Where you from? Florida? Yet another astute observation. With your keen powers of deduction, you could be a detective. I've run into your "brothers in arms" down there my friend...not exactly as you described either! My Momma often opined that you reap what you sow. Perhaps she was right. the bad would likely outnumber the good Statistically, there are more priests arrested every year then there are cops arrested. If you watched the news more often, you would know that. To claim that bad cops outnumber good cops is nothing more than a baseless insult. I would expect this kind of nonsense from someone like Michael Moore. I expected better from you, considering your past posting history. For now, I will assume that your feathers got ruffled, and you were just lashing out in anger. As such, I can forgive your insult. Perhaps we can use this as an opportunity to get back on topic? You advocate cooperation with AT/NPS. I do not. Simple enough, eh? Edited September 26, 2008 by Clan Riffster Quote Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 Since I work for one of those kind of organizations I can vouch for the simple fact that it also only takes one person to say yes. The trick is to find the right person. They are far harder to find than the folks who can say no. When I need something done and I find the right champion the waters part and things happen. If I can't get that person to champion my cause I have to find the angle that makes them realize it's in their interest to work with me. That all said, there is another way. Since the NPS (and other groups) rely on volunteer organizations now cachers should start joining those organizations. Enouch cachers and magicly attitudes change about caching within the organization, and even within the organization relying on the volunteer services. Unfortunately that's like saying you should join PETA because you disagree with their philosophy on the acceptability of eating meat or wearing fur in hopes of changing their views from within.... It's closer to saying, if you don't like how government works. Get involved. Decisions are made by those who show up. Some of those should be cachers. Quote Link to comment
+Rockin Roddy Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 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.... I believe this right here points to what I said earlier about "perceived". As I read it, the list was made up of properties perceived NOT to be AT/NPS controlled when in actuality, it was proven otherwise....no overstepping in this case! Not likely that ALL properties will be like this, but I guess that's why I suggested cooperation and conversation Call me unwilling to see reality if you wish, but I believe I've proven my stance. Sorry to have upset anyone, I'll bow out of this "conversation" now as I've said and heard all I care. Quote Link to comment
+Quiggle Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 (edited) YES, the NPS has the authority to impose sanctions on their lands Correct. A rather brilliant deduction on your part, Sir. Where you from? Florida? Yet another astute observation. With your keen powers of deduction, you could be a detective. Perhaps we can use this as an opportunity to get back on topic? Feel free to debate and discuss all you want, but leave the sarcasm out of it. http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?act=boardrules Edited September 26, 2008 by Quiggle Quote Link to comment
+Harry Dolphin Posted September 27, 2008 Share Posted September 27, 2008 Interesting. Did my GSAK update tonight. Didn't do it last week. 75 miles list. Deleted archived caches. 68 this time. That's a very large number. Usually I get 20 to 30 a week. 50 of them were archived by Geocaching at the request of NPS. Hmm... Quote Link to comment
+Shoob&Sheeb Posted September 27, 2008 Share Posted September 27, 2008 Being the one that picked up several caches in the Wind gap to Lehigh gap section here is the facts. NPS has no facts correct about any caches in this section. Any claims about environmental degradation can be assigned to a new pipeline. While I enjoy the AT and its purpose I feel that the NPS shows it is above the law just like our current president. Until the situation changes we are going to stay on the free user of the AT. Cache on. Quote Link to comment
+cerberus1 Posted September 27, 2008 Share Posted September 27, 2008 Thanks Shauna for the info, but it's too little too late... Assuming quite a few (like us) have already grabbed the caches from the "areas" of the AT. Two were WELL within PA game lands. One got nailed in Palmerton's "Dead Done", while another two miles away was untouched. We'll be grabbing BOTH of them too if we can figure how to get in there, since they've rerouted hikers SUPPOSEDLY due to reforestation and environmental concerns with loose rock (?) . The ATC is working on a trail around the infamous Dead Zone for a "cleaner/greener" hike. - yeah, right. The reason we gave up so easily ? Having had numerous encounters with this horribly power-crazed agency , we realized you can talk, write and e-mail 'til you whither away - you'll probably get little response if any. They're right and that's that. In our State, you can hunt bull frogs for their tastey legs. A youngster and I were gigging frogs on a favorite large pond which became NPS land and I was cited. Turns out, the NPS considers frogs (of all types) endangered and I was breaking the law. If I was using a .22 with birdshot (also allowed in PA) I would have been arrested for "prohibited offensive weapons" and placed in the prison I worked in at the time. Went fishing with a youngster on another property that later became NPS property. I was using spinners and had my fly rod. The kid was using worms and minnows. We were asked to leave or be cited. We were told that if ONE minnow came off the hook and lived, we'd be "introducing a new species" to the pond, which would be detrimental to the ecosystem. First of all, ever hear of ONE minnow breeding itself ? If one DID get loose and lived with a hook injury, it was gobbled up quick, since this pond has tons of smallmouth bass. Went with a lieutenant from the prison to go dove hunting, as we've done many years before, on what had become NPS land. We were both using 410's . I had my little side-by-side and he had his Thompson Contender in 410 - both used here for many years. We both always looked forward to this yearly event. He was cited and threatened with arrest, since the NPS considers the Thompson Contender to be a handgun, not a shotgun and told we'd better "take a hike." This was the third and LAST time I've entered Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area for anything other than hiking. On NO part of NPS property is there a "rules & regs" sign posted (like in MOST States), usually in parking. EACH time, I asked for any information pertaining to these cases. EACH time I asked for a "rules and regs" book for NPS properties. NO ONE ever gave me ANY information, other than "I wasn't privy to that information. It's in the rangers' handbooks." So, apparently the NPS can make rules up as they feel, with no explaining and with no recourse, but to pay the fine. Cache safe. Quote Link to comment
Clan Riffster Posted September 27, 2008 Share Posted September 27, 2008 (edited) I feel that the NPS shows it is above the law just like our current president. For a moment I thought I had wandered into the political hyperbole & rhetoric forum. Glad to see that's not the case. Edited September 27, 2008 by Clan Riffster Quote Link to comment
+Cherokee Bill Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 (Virginia) I was told the following on vageocachers.com today "Over 100 caches along the AT were archived last week, because of pressure by the NPS" I have worked with gov't agencies for 40-yrs and I know how they live, breath, etc. These "Land Nazi’s" will band together to get what ever they want. As a member of a local "AT" club and the ATC, I know these folks will work with us, once we understand one another. Next the NFS will kick us out of the National Forests, IF WE stand by and do nothing! ARE WE GOING TO STAND BY AND LET THIS HAPPEN! 1. What are local clubs doing to stop this? 2. Can we unite to turn this around? 3. As tax-payers this is our land 4. Seems OK for the logging companies to go in and RAPE the mountains, but a tupperware container is prohibited. Bull! Come on folks, lets pitch in here and use all LEGAL means to get a mutual agreement with the NPS and get these caches and new ones back ONLINE! Need your help here. E-mail me, if you know how to help! Has this happened in other states, if so what did you do? Start writting you reps at the State & Federal level. Next they will outlaw hand-help GPSr's! Quote Link to comment
+Quiggle Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 Cherokee Bill, Many of your questions can be answered by reading the entire 4 page thread. Quote Link to comment
+Cherokee Bill Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 Cherokee Bill, Many of your questions can be answered by reading the entire 4 page thread. 1. You are correct, I should have read the MANY threads. 2. Still I think Geocaching.com gave up without a FIGHT! 3. This really ticks me off. Geocaches offer NO HARM to any NP. 4. Have not seen a geocache on the "AT", as they are all significantly off-trail. 5. Most of the 100, probably are not in the actual NP. 6. ASAP I am writting all my representative on the State & Federal Level to bring pressure to bear on the NP Systems to bring back the 100+ caches. 7. If the ATC had a part in "killing" the appx 100 caches, I will immediately cancel my membership in the ATC and the NBATC. All that's required for them to win, is for us to do nothing. Next 1. The Land Nazi's will kick us out of the National Forests, just wait and see! 2. They will outlaw handheld GPSr's 3. Give them an inch, they will take 10-miles. Quote Link to comment
+Vinny & Sue Team Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 Cherokee Bill, Many of your questions can be answered by reading the entire 4 page thread. 1. You are correct, I should have read the MANY threads. 2. Still I think Geocaching.com gave up without a FIGHT! 3. This really ticks me off. Geocaches offer NO HARM to any NP. 4. Have not seen a geocache on the "AT", as they are all significantly off-trail. 5. Most of the 100, probably are not in the actual NP. 6. ASAP I am writting all my representative on the State & Federal Level to bring pressure to bear on the NP Systems to bring back the 100+ caches. 7. If the ATC had a part in "killing" the appx 100 caches, I will immediately cancel my membership in the ATC and the NBATC. All that's required for them to win, is for us to do nothing. Next 1. The Land Nazi's will kick us out of the National Forests, just wait and see! 2. They will outlaw handheld GPSr's 3. Give them an inch, they will take 10-miles. Amazing! Your post shows that you either still have not read the previous posts in this thread, or that you are not willing or able to understand or comprehend what people shared. Or, maybe you are just having a bad Sunday and want to go trolling a bit! Quote Link to comment
Motorcycle_Mama Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 Perhaps Bill should not be cutting his meds in half. Quote Link to comment
+Cherokee Bill Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 Venting at me and my post (that you do not agree with) will not solve the original problem! Any way, I'll move on! Will you? Quote Link to comment
Keystone Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 Everyone else has moved well past Godwin's law. It would be nice to have 100% compliance on the use of the N word. Thanks. Quote Link to comment
+Cherokee Bill Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 check out this link! Does this help at all? http://www.novago.org/downloads/Geocaching...ed_6-9-2008.pdf Quote Link to comment
Clan Riffster Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 (edited) Bill, I think that most folks here are in agreement that AT/NPS overstepped their bounds with some of these cache archival requests. The next logical step is to format a proper response. Polite discourse? Active hostilities? Some middle ground? I agree that we should write our legislatures to express our discontent, but should our efforts stop there? Edited September 28, 2008 by Clan Riffster Quote Link to comment
+Cherokee Bill Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 Here's what's been happening today in Pennsylvania. It seems like all the caches on the AT here are being archived. I assume other states will follow? September 17 by Groundspeak (0 found) Groundspeak has been contacted by the National Park Service and asked to archive this geocache listing, effective immediately. The National Parks Chief Ranger has identified this geocache as one that is currently placed on National Park Service managed Appalachian Trail Corridor lands and/or state lands where the Appalachian Trail passes through. Geocaching is not permitted on these lands. Consequently, Groundspeak is archiving this geocache. Please ensure that the geocache and all contents are removed from its location immediately. As a long time member of the ATC and the NBATC, I have e-mailed the ATC and asked them to explain their position, before I re-new my dues or make further donations. I will let you folks know what they say, if they answer at all. This link came from vageocachers.com http://www.novago.org/downloads/Geocaching...ed_6-9-2008.pdf Quote Link to comment
+TheAlabamaRambler Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 (edited) On NO part of NPS property is there a "rules & regs" sign posted (like in MOST States), usually in parking. EACH time, I asked for any information pertaining to these cases. EACH time I asked for a "rules and regs" book for NPS properties. NO ONE ever gave me ANY information, other than "I wasn't privy to that information. It's in the rangers' handbooks." So, apparently the NPS can make rules up as they feel, with no explaining and with no recourse, but to pay the fine. Maybe this link will help - http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/36cfr2_02.html Easily found Internet posted rules such as this might keep you from believing that they are making up rules as they go along : (d) The following are prohibited: (1) Fishing in fresh waters in any manner other than by hook and line, with the rod or line being closely attended. (2) Possessing or using as bait for fishing in fresh waters, live or dead minnows or other bait fish, amphibians, nonpreserved fish eggs or fish roe, except in designated waters. Waters which may be so designated shall be limited to those where non-native species are already established, scientific data indicate that the introduction of additional numbers or types of non-native species would not impact populations of native species adversely, and park management plans do not call for elimination of non-native species. Edited September 28, 2008 by TheAlabamaRambler Quote Link to comment
+briansnat Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 1. You are correct, I should have read the MANY threads. 2. Still I think Geocaching.com gave up without a FIGHT! 3. This really ticks me off. Geocaches offer NO HARM to any NP. 4. Have not seen a geocache on the "AT", as they are all significantly off-trail. 5. Most of the 100, probably are not in the actual NP. 6. ASAP I am writting all my representative on the State & Federal Level to bring pressure to bear on the NP Systems to bring back the 100+ caches. 7. If the ATC had a part in "killing" the appx 100 caches, I will immediately cancel my membership in the ATC and the NBATC. If you read this entire thread, including Shauna's post you'd know that Geocaching.com has not given up on this issue. The NPS refused to even enter in a dialog until certain caches were archived. That has been done as a good faith display on our part, so we can move forward with negotiations. Quote Link to comment
+cerberus1 Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 Thanks Rambler. We actually got the links to a rules & regs listing from the NPS this past year. Couldn't find anything earlier. What I meant ( and failed I guess) was show the lack of communication from Park Service personnel. I got the impression that once I was deemed "criminal", I wasn't worthy of a reply. DID receive photocopied pages from a ranger on endangered frogs every-other day at my HOME ADDRESS for TWO weeks. I met the park superintendant and asked him if the NPS was "allowed" to harass the public. The ranger was transfered shortly after. Quote Link to comment
+edscott Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 .... To those who think that all that is needed is "education" of the NPS, or perhaps "constructive dialog," I can only say that you must be quite new to the sport. The NPS has been behaving this way towards geocaching for over 5 years now....... And to the general public regarding a host of issues for over 40 years... An empty park is an easy park to administer. Do all you can to keep people away is the mentality of way too many administrators. Quote Link to comment
+whistler & co. Posted September 29, 2008 Author Share Posted September 29, 2008 DID receive photocopied pages from a ranger on endangered frogs every-other day at my HOME ADDRESS for TWO weeks. I met the park superintendant and asked him if the NPS was "allowed" to harass the public. The ranger was transfered shortly after. That is just too much! Quote Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 .... To those who think that all that is needed is "education" of the NPS, or perhaps "constructive dialog," I can only say that you must be quite new to the sport. The NPS has been behaving this way towards geocaching for over 5 years now....... And to the general public regarding a host of issues for over 40 years... An empty park is an easy park to administer. Do all you can to keep people away is the mentality of way too many administrators. An empty park is just fodder for the libertarians to sell off and put into private (and tax paying) ownership. I like my public lands, but if I can't enjoy them they aren't public and may as well be private. Quote Link to comment
+Cherokee Bill Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 (edited) 2nd thought! Deleted post Edited September 30, 2008 by Cherokee Bill Quote Link to comment
+KJcachers Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 so...how many of these 100 archived caches have actually been removed/retrieved? I was just getting set to hit a few in Virginia near I66 but now I see this issue has come up. Also, I see where 1 that was on an island in the Potomac River near Harpers Ferry,WV has already been retrieved. Only way to that one was by boat so where is the social trail on that cache? Seems the dialog should have come before the archiving to me. Also seems to me that there should have been a visit count on each of these caches to determine what if any damage was being commited by these few visits per year before making an issue of it. Quote Link to comment
Clan Riffster Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 That would've required a hint of common sense, and as such, would be impossible for a 'Gubment' entity. Quote Link to comment
+Cherokee Bill Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 That would've required a hint of common sense, and as such, would be impossible for a 'Gubment' entity. A member fo the Northern VA Geocachers, just e-mailed me to say that the VA Game & Inland Fish Dept is now going to get in the fight with the NPS. He has e-mailed them w/no response. Seems the War is only in it's early stages. Where will in stop? Why the hostility toward Geocaching all of a sudden? Will be be limited to light poles & gard-rails? Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.