AT Caches Archived!

[+KJcachers]

Like they don't have enough to do already! they can't even keep the illegals from over harvesting fish on our rivers. And lets not even get into the fish kill situation from pollution(chicken poop) thats been going on for the past few years on the Shenandoah River. Give me a break!

Edited September 30, 2008 by KJcachers

[+wigglesworth]

The parks make the rules and if you wishto play you play by their rules.

 

Just the same as geocaching - you have to play by the rules of the rulers.

Simple really

[knowschad]

The parks make the rules and if you wishto play you play by their rules.

 

Just the same as geocaching - you have to play by the rules of the rulers.

Simple really

 

There's more to it than that... much more. The NPS is apparently trying to control other jurisdictions as well as their own.

 

Also don't forget that this is supposed to be a Government of the People. We have the right to try to get the rules changed.

[+wigglesworth]

So the task ahead is to get the rulers to change the rules. The way to start is to inform them of the benefits of changing the rules - from the agreed benefits a desire for change can be created. However the benefits have to be compelling.

Perhaps we can help the cause by creating a really pwerful benfits list which can be forwarded to the appropriate authorities.

[Clan Riffster]

Why the hostility toward Geocaching all of a sudden?

I suspect this is a result of the angst that a few "purist" backpackers have shown toward our game.

Head over to a backpacker's forum to see what a vocal minority has to say about us.

Geocaching has inundated "their" woods with "couch potatoes and geeks who have no true love of nature".

These elitists have been sniping at us since our game started.

Perhaps a sniper finally made in into a position high enough to spread his/her vitriol?

[Skippermark]

so...how many of these 100 archived caches have actually been removed/retrieved?

I know of a few that have been removed. I saw a post by one cache owner that said something like, "If you want it removed, come get it yourself..." Not sure of the status of that one.

Edited October 1, 2008 by Skippermark

[+Rockin Roddy]

so...how many of these 100 archived caches have actually been removed/retrieved?

I know of a few that have been removed. I saw a post by one cache owner that said something like, "If you want it removed, come get it yourself..." Not sure of the status of that one.

 

OUCH...can't imagine that helping the situation. Just giving the NPS more "firepower" against geocaching IMHO. Could also get that person in trouble? Something about abandoning property?

[+briansnat]

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.

 

On our side or on theirs?

[+BuckeyeClan]

I suspect this is a result of the angst that a few "purist" backpackers have shown toward our game.

Head over to a backpacker's forum to see what a vocal minority has to say about us.

Geocaching has inundated "their" woods with "couch potatoes and geeks who have no true love of nature".

These elitists have been sniping at us since our game started.

Perhaps a sniper finally made in into a position high enough to spread his/her vitriol?

 

Maybe we should start a complain-campaign of our own?

 

Letter to ATC/NPS:

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

Recently I have become aware of a number of manmade objects located along the Appalachian Trail, often times on National Park property. I strongly feel that these objects should be removed as soon as possible, as their very presence runs counter to the ideals of the NPS. For starters, they are a visual eyesore and a blight to the landscape. Even more dangerous, however, is the way in which they influence human behavior. These objects encourage hikers and backpackers to linger in small areas for prolonged periods of time, concentrating the ill effects of human presence. Trampled vegetation, social trails, and increased rates of erosion are bound to develop. Hikers also tend to prepare and eat food in these areas, which is sure to attract wildlife. In fact, higher-than-normal rodent populations have already been well documented in these areas. It is only a matter of time until larger, more dangerous animals (such as bears) become a problem. Finally, it is quite logical that as people gather in these areas, they are bound to urinate and defecate in the general area. Even if the hikers are properly burying their waste, having this abnormal concentration of human waste is bound to negatively affect the surrounding environment. By now, I am sure, you have guessed the identity of these offending objects—AT trail shelters! Yes, I realize that many backpackers, and especially thru-hikers, value these structures for the comfort and shelter that they provide. But the fact remains that these structures are not necessary, and it’s unconscionable to allow the convenience and enjoyment of a select few to outweigh the aesthetics of the majority.

 

Sincerely,

An Angry Geocacher

 

[+briansnat]

I suspect this is a result of the angst that a few "purist" backpackers have shown toward our game.

Head over to a backpacker's forum to see what a vocal minority has to say about us.

Geocaching has inundated "their" woods with "couch potatoes and geeks who have no true love of nature".

These elitists have been sniping at us since our game started.

Perhaps a sniper finally made in into a position high enough to spread his/her vitriol?

 

Maybe we should start a complain-campaign of our own?

 

Letter to ATC/NPS:

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

Recently I have become aware of a number of manmade objects located along the Appalachian Trail, often times on National Park property. I strongly feel that these objects should be removed as soon as possible, as their very presence runs counter to the ideals of the NPS. For starters, they are a visual eyesore and a blight to the landscape. Even more dangerous, however, is the way in which they influence human behavior. These objects encourage hikers and backpackers to linger in small areas for prolonged periods of time, concentrating the ill effects of human presence. Trampled vegetation, social trails, and increased rates of erosion are bound to develop. Hikers also tend to prepare and eat food in these areas, which is sure to attract wildlife. In fact, higher-than-normal rodent populations have already been well documented in these areas. It is only a matter of time until larger, more dangerous animals (such as bears) become a problem. Finally, it is quite logical that as people gather in these areas, they are bound to urinate and defecate in the general area. Even if the hikers are properly burying their waste, having this abnormal concentration of human waste is bound to negatively affect the surrounding environment. By now, I am sure, you have guessed the identity of these offending objects—AT trail shelters! Yes, I realize that many backpackers, and especially thru-hikers, value these structures for the comfort and shelter that they provide. But the fact remains that these structures are not necessary, and it’s unconscionable to allow the convenience and enjoyment of a select few to outweigh the aesthetics of the majority.

 

Sincerely,

An Angry Geocacher

 

 

Did you ever notice how hikers on the AT mark trees with large splotches of white paint?

[+steve p]

Gubbool, one of our AGA geocachers, just finished walking the AT today... all of it! He's a Through-Hiker Plus!

 

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!

Those pictures you posted are great. Makes me want to hike the AT myself.

[Skippermark]

so...how many of these 100 archived caches have actually been removed/retrieved?

I know of a few that have been removed. I saw a post by one cache owner that said something like, "If you want it removed, come get it yourself..." Not sure of the status of that one.

 

OUCH...can't imagine that helping the situation. Just giving the NPS more "firepower" against geocaching IMHO. Could also get that person in trouble? Something about abandoning property?

That's kind of what I thought when I saw their log.

[+luckycharmer]

so...how many of these 100 archived caches have actually been removed/retrieved?

I know of a few that have been removed. I saw a post by one cache owner that said something like, "If you want it removed, come get it yourself..." Not sure of the status of that one.

 

OUCH...can't imagine that helping the situation. Just giving the NPS more "firepower" against geocaching IMHO. Could also get that person in trouble? Something about abandoning property?

That's kind of what I thought when I saw their log.

 

It's certainly not going to win geocaching any friends. But like you said it will provide "firepower" against the sport. I hate seeing geocaching get caught in"government games".

[+fox-and-the-hound]

so...how many of these 100 archived caches have actually been removed/retrieved?

I know of a few that have been removed. I saw a post by one cache owner that said something like, "If you want it removed, come get it yourself..." Not sure of the status of that one.

 

OUCH...can't imagine that helping the situation. Just giving the NPS more "firepower" against geocaching IMHO. Could also get that person in trouble? Something about abandoning property?

That's kind of what I thought when I saw their log.

 

It's certainly not going to win geocaching any friends. But like you said it will provide "firepower" against the sport. I hate seeing geocaching get caught in"government games".

 

Does anyone know if that particular cache is actually "on trail" vs one of the various lands that the AT passes through without actually having authority over (like state game land)?

[+Cherokee Bill]

Well with all the War going on, as declared by the NPS/ATC against geocaching, I thought I better take a vacation day and go to the Mtn's and the "AT" and get a few caches, while they are still there.

 

Due to the lenght of the drive and the round-trip hike to each, I only got three (3). Stats.

 

#1) only had 5 visits since Sept 07

#2) only 8 visits since March 08

#3) 0nly 6 visits since Oct 07

 

SO what the hell is the NPS so up in the aire about?? These FEW people can not be hurting a thing, or the AT.

 

Now I was in a National Forest, but kept seeing signs on trees, about 20-feet on either side of the "AT", that said "NPS-Boundry". This puzzled the heck out of me. So on the road, headed to cache #2, I passed a Forest Service worker on the side of the road, so I stopped to ask a few questions and got answers

 

1. Yes, I was in a National Forest, BUT

2. The NPS claims Authority over the "AT" corridor

 

Seems the NPS has authorty similiar to a US Marshal

Edited October 1, 2008 by Cherokee Bill

[+Renegade Knight]

...I only got three (3). Stats.

 

#1) only had 5 visits since Sept 07

#2) only 8 visits since March 08

#3) 0nly 6 visits since Oct 07

 

SO what the hell is the NPS so up in the aire about?? These FEW people can not be hurting a thing, or the AT....

 

Speculation is easy. Some of it is easy to believe. Alas a lot of folks forget to disclaim their speculations and others accept it as fact.

[+Renegade Knight]

...2. The NPS claims Authority over the "AT" corridor..:

 

Even if the NPS does have some authority over the corridor they don't have total authority over the lands that are not theirs.

 

The Army Corps of Engineers is the agency that has jurisdiction over wetlands and waters of the US. Even so they can’t stop a land owner from enjoying the use of their lands if that use doesn’t interfere with the mission of the ACOE.

 

A property owner can put a cache in a wetland with no problem. The ACOE regulates the protection of wetlands. Not the use of wetlands for a cache. It’s a non issue. If the ACOE made an issue of it they would lose. Same as they would lose if they tried to ban hunting when the land owner allows it. Most of this is covered by the 404 permit. If what you do doesn’t rise to the level of needing a permit, it’s not covered by the ACOE.

 

The NPS at best (and likely doesn’t) has authority similar to the ACOE IN LIMITED CASES for parklands and trails. They do have authority similar to the ACOE via NEPA legislation that set the NPS as the steward for Cultural and Historical Resources. States can assume that authority. The NPS would have to be claiming that the AT is a Cultural Resource. The irony being that the use of it for recreation is also a Cultural Tradition. They really can’t protect the resource at the expense of the tradition that made it the resource to begin with.

 

I’m brainstorming. You need an expert on the above instead of a generalist to do anything with it.

 

===================================================================

Edit:

The NPS is asserting authorithy they don't really have. They are testing the waters. If they assume they have it, and people accept it then perhaps they really do. The simplest test is to just reject the authroity. Then they have to scramble to back it up with real law and not just an assertion. The ACOE can back up their authority with law.

 

If the NPS really does assert their authority then the same principal that let a pipeline get built applies to caches as being in the public interest. Alan Shore would love the case. Too bad that's just a TV show.

Edited October 1, 2008 by Renegade Knight

[+GEO WALKER]

http://www.nps.gov/gis/gps/

 

Geo-caching in the National Parks

Geo-caching can include activities such as placing an item in a location for someone else to find or simply publishing coordinates of locations for others to find and describe the item at that location. Geo-caching activities on national park lands is prohibited, however some activities are permitted under special conditions as determined by the individual park. You are required to notify park headquarters if you are participating in this type of activity.

 

http://www.nps.gov/policy/GPSguidance.pdf

“The Policy”

NPA’s policy greatest consistency is its inconsistency; it appears that this decision [geocaching] is truly based on a park by park basis.

 

I think the “jackboot” approach that was taken in the AT area is the worst way of trying to resolve any issue.

 

Therefore, if a dialogue is to take place would someone ask for some consistency and clarity on NPS and geocaching to what appears to be an arbitrary and capricious manor in making a decision!

Knowing that what goes one in one park may/can affect all other parks within the system. Is NPS, so reliant on public donations monetary or sweat equity willing to risk the loss of the potential geocaching brings into the parks?

[+Cherokee Bill]

From www.tricitiesgeocachers.org (Forums)

 

"I tried to place a cache on the AT last week like many I have found before and was told that it has always been the policy that caches can't be placed within 150 feet of either side of the trail. Reason: National Park Service "owns" that much right away along the trail. I was also told that in May the "Director" of the ATC was now claiming a 1000 foot right away along the trail and possibly, if other land resources agencies didn't stop it, that would be the new policy and reviewers would be forced to archive existing caches within that right of way.

 

The plot continues to grow

[+WhiteRockBob]

Some of this was covered 150 posts ago, but to recap - the NPS claims Authority over the AT corridor (the Appalachian National Scenic Trail - www.nps.gov) the same as they claim authority over all national parks, like Yellowstone. If you try and put a physical cache in Yellowstone you get the same result.

 

The big difference between the AT and other National Parks is that the borders for the 'regular' parks are a lot easier to determine.

 

The AT land is either owned by the NPS, or the NPS has a legal agreement with the landowner protecting the corridor. The corridor width varies one agreement at a time, and there are hundreds, probably thousands of these agreements. The width of the corridor varies considerably. The 1000' number being discussed may have come from Shauna's posting above (78), that was the specific corridor width for the AT corridor for the Massachusetts DCR.

 

It's unlikely that a senior NPS or ATC person would describe the trail corridor as 1000' universally. Just in the local ATC office here in PA, they have a stack of maps thicker than a phone book to keep track of all the individual parcels. The legal agreements fill a very large cabinet. It probably kept quite a few real estate lawyers busy for a lifetime. They may have made a couple mistakes on the list of 100 archived caches, but so far there's been limited evidence presented here in this forum of more than a few.

 

So in the end, for those of us that like to cache on lands just outside the AT corridor - I'd say this is more Groundspeak's problem. And it's not an easy one. The questions are: can the normal review process handle this? Do the reviewers have adequate information on the AT corridor width to make informed decisions?

[+briansnat]

They may have made a couple mistakes on the list of 100 archived caches, but so far there's been limited evidence presented here in this forum of more than a few.

 

It's more than a couple and its enough to know that either the list was poorly researched, or the NPS is stepping well beyond their scope of authority.

[+BuckeyeClan]

 

Did you ever notice how hikers on the AT mark trees with large splotches of white paint?

 

Those vandals!! Not to mention all those trail registers, peak registers, and informational signs!

 

Seriously, though, I was browsing the ATC website and was impressed by all the work that goes into maintaining the AT. ALOT of people spend a good deal of time, energy, and money to keep it up. Translation: alot of damage is being done by people and by nature. So why isn't there a push to limit access? I can only assume that the ATC feels that the benefit of allowing access outweighs the cost of maintaining the trail. So my next question is: why are backpackers so special? Why is it okay to put forth so much effort to benefit backpackers but not geocachers? Why are they willing to spend so much time and money minimizing and mitigating the effects of backpackers, but won't even consider geocaching? Considering all the work necessary to keep the AT in shape, citing "possible developement of social trails" to keep geocaching out is bull. Somebody definitely has an agenda.

[Clan Riffster]

Letter to ATC/NPS:

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

<edited for brevity>

Sincerely,

An Angry Geocacher

That was quite simply an act of brilliance. Loved it.

 

The NPS is asserting authority they don't really have. They are testing the waters. If they assume they have it, and people accept it then perhaps they really do.

A standard practice amongst 'gubment' types. Say something often enough, regardless of the reality, and it becomes the accepted truth.

 

why are backpackers so special?

Because whoever is the driving force behind this nonsense is a backpacker?

[+CBT69]

Why the hostility toward Geocaching all of a sudden?

I suspect this is a result of the angst that a few "purist" backpackers have shown toward our game.

Head over to a backpacker's forum to see what a vocal minority has to say about us.

Geocaching has inundated "their" woods with "couch potatoes and geeks who have no true love of nature".

These elitists have been sniping at us since our game started.

Perhaps a sniper finally made in into a position high enough to spread his/her vitriol?

 

As much that, as with people who are stupid in hiding caches, other people who are stupid in finding caches, people who take a "bull in a china shop" mentality and cache with machetes, etc etc.

 

There _must_ be a happy medium. BIsons hidden within feet of the trail, or micros on trail signs is one way to do it, but currently it appears there is no "middle ground". Though, apparently, according to someone I know who works in the NPS, they are (theoretically) working on planned, sanctioned caches on NPS lands.

 

Their goal is "take only pictures leave only footprints" and even too many footprints they are at odds with. I can _kind_ of understand that. But if they are THAT worried, they should put up lucite walls two feet off the trail in either direction, just to keep nature "safe" from us evil cachers!

[+zgrav]

For starters. I thing Groundspeak could and should have declined to archive any cache that is located more than a quarter mile from the trail based upon the initial request. And in that response, advised the NPS that it could provide additional information showing it held the legal right to control the lands for those cache placements that were not being archived.

 

Groundspeak could then also have said that it was going to take a closer look at all caches that appeared to be more than 500 feet (or 750 feet, or XXX feet) from the AT or appeared to not be on NPS land on the TOPO maps, and reserved the right to reinstate those caches if the NPS did not supply additional information about its right to control those placements within 30/45/or 60 days.

 

The goal should have been to immediately respond and comply for caches that appear to be on NPS property to show that GC is responsive, and then to shift the burden of proof to the NPS if it wished to support its request with respect to the caches that do not appear to be on the AT or its corridor.

 

So long as those other caches do not appear to be on NPS land on the maps that GC uses, they would appear to be outside of NPS's lawful reach. The most NPS could do would be to have acquired such rights through agreements with the other land owners, and it would have been reasonable for GC to have requested such proof from NPS.

 

As far as I can tell, NPS's legal remedy would be to confiscate the caches that were on NPS property, and those are the caches where it seems appropriate for GC to have responded by agreeing to archive them anyway.

 

The "record" would show that GC was acting in good faith, and give the NPS plenty of opportunities to show that it had some otherwise unclear basis to substantiate its requests for the other caches to be archived.

 

And we should realize that the NPS may simply withhold its agreement that it lacks authority over caches on these contiguous state lands. GC may have the unpleasant task of reaching its own conclusion -- perhaps in consultation with the states that own the lands -- and then acting based upon that decision.

 

I also think that the various geocaching organization, individuals, and GC itself should voice opinions to the Department of the Interior and congressional staff about any concerns with the AT and NPS positions on this issue. It is amazing how some expression of interest by other political agencies can improve the tone and tenor of the discussions with the AT folks and the NPS. Some folks are very cautious to use that approach under a belief that it might alienate and polarize the NPS, but I see no downside at doing so given the heavy hand that the AT has wielded so far.

[+Renegade Knight]

...It's unlikely that a senior NPS or ATC person would describe the trail corridor as 1000' universally. Just in the local ATC office here in PA, they have a stack of maps thicker than a phone book to keep track of all the individual parcels. The legal agreements fill a very large cabinet....

The NPS should have a GIS complete with boundaries. Even if they are slow putting the boundaries into the GIS this problem is not insurmountable. They can then share that with the public and we can do a far more effective job of not putting caches on NPS lands.

 

I'm looking forward to the day we have easy access to boundary info in our GPSs.

[+DocDiTTo]

 

Seriously, though, I was browsing the ATC website and was impressed by all the work that goes into maintaining the AT. ALOT of people spend a good deal of time, energy, and money to keep it up. Translation: alot of damage is being done by people and by nature. So why isn't there a push to limit access?

 

I think limiting access is on the agenda. They've already started counting visitors in certain areas, and hope to do that along the whole trail. They're also pollling visitors to see how their experience was. That sounds like an attempt to determine if too many people think the trail is overcrowded. If so, they'll have more of the ammo they need to start limiting visitors. Read this post to see what those in charge of the trail have to say.

 

The quote is from the AT Mega-Transect on the ATC web site here.

 

It's hard to imagine the NPS/ATC condoning geocaches (which would equate to more users) if they already think the trail is being over used. The NPS used the reasoning that as long as there are unauthorized caches along the trail they aren't willing to talk to us at all. While that implies that if we remove the caches they'll be willing to talk, I have my doubts. I don't think geocaches fit into the ATC's vision for the trail at all.

[+WhiteRockBob]

The NPS should have a GIS complete with boundaries. Even if they are slow putting the boundaries into the GIS this problem is not insurmountable. They can then share that with the public and we can do a far more effective job of not putting caches on NPS lands.

 

I'm looking forward to the day we have easy access to boundary info in our GPSs.

 

Me too.

 

 

I think limiting access is on the agenda. They've already started counting visitors in certain areas, and hope to do that along the whole trail. They're also pollling visitors to see how their experience was. That sounds like an attempt to determine if too many people think the trail is overcrowded. If so, they'll have more of the ammo they need to start limiting visitors. Read this post to see what those in charge of the trail have to say.

 

The quote is from the AT Mega-Transect on the ATC web site here.

 

It's hard to imagine the NPS/ATC condoning geocaches (which would equate to more users) if they already think the trail is being over used. The NPS used the reasoning that as long as there are unauthorized caches along the trail they aren't willing to talk to us at all. While that implies that if we remove the caches they'll be willing to talk, I have my doubts. I don't think geocaches fit into the ATC's vision for the trail at all.

 

I agree, I hope it doesn't happen, but limiting access is possible and there are already NPS precedents, an example of this is Denali NP in Alaska. Back country camping permits are on quotas. http://www.nps.gov/dena/planyourvisit/unitsys.htm

 

It's not just the ATC, I don't think caches fit into the NPS vision for most of the National Parks. The Acadia pilot program may be the best bet to gradually change this.

[+2Wheel'in]

 

Great post, I clipped it for brevity, but you can read it in its entirety above.

 

I also think that the various geocaching organization, individuals, and GC itself should voice opinions to the Department of the Interior and congressional staff about any concerns with the AT and NPS positions on this issue. It is amazing how some expression of interest by other political agencies can improve the tone and tenor of the discussions with the AT folks and the NPS. Some folks are very cautious to use that approach under a belief that it might alienate and polarize the NPS, but I see no downside at doing so given the heavy hand that the AT has wielded so far.

 

The Northern Virginia Geocaching Organization (NoVAGO) Board is discussing/considering how best to make an organizational approach to the NPS and ATC. Are any other geocaching organizations in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast considering the same? If it's true that there's "strength in numbers" then a coalition of all the state geocaching organizations that the AT passes through may be heard as a louder voice.

 

Bill

[+eagsc7]

HEY NPS! I WAS going to hike the AT this next year... Now, I have LITTLE reason to hike it. I guess that just means that I'm doing the Pacific Crest Trail. I've heard that its more scenic, and now There are MORE CACHES along it!!

 

The Steaks

[+BadAndy]

Did you know....

 

The ATC is opposed to alternative energy

 

The ATC hates the disabled.

 

The ATC doesn't like cell phones

 

The ATC wants federal earmarks

 

The ATC hates disabled people...again

 

If someone were really angry with the ATC, they could use the contact info from these links to write letters opposing the ATC's position on these varied issues.

[+BadAndy]

I bet you didn't know this....

 

It's not uncommon for backpackers on the AT to leave FOOD and DRINKS on the side of the trail.

[7rxc]

 

I agree, I hope it doesn't happen, but limiting access is possible and there are already NPS precedents, an example of this is Denali NP in Alaska. Back country camping permits are on quotas.

 

It's not just the ATC, I don't think caches fit into the NPS vision for most of the National Parks. The Acadia pilot program may be the best bet to gradually change this.

 

The limiting of "wilderness" areas such as Denali NP is likely based on serious ecological concerns as to the ability of the area to tolerate the mess left behind by visitors... and the ability to track/rescue those visitors.

 

A visit to the CANADA forum will show how Parks Canada deals with caching generally...(first pinned item).

They ALLOW it, but there are restrictions based on valid concerns... I certainly am concerned with ecology, historical preservation etc. and have no problem with the limits... I know that you can't and should not have a cache everywhere!

 

Anyway, good luck those attempting to resolve the issue Stateside... BTW it is an election year for both our countries, isn't it?

 

Doug VE7RXC

Edited October 3, 2008 by 7rxc

[John E Cache]

I am a little confused. Does the S for Service in NPS mean a service like the Secret Service or IRS. If they are simply a service, who owns the land they service and who writes the rules they enforce? Do they write their own laws?

[Skippermark]

The ATC doesn't like cell phones

The first sentence is quite dramatic how it says it will "impact the Trail."

 

Further reading reveals that the tower can be seen seen from 3 national parks, 2 rivers and the AT. <gasp>

 

It's strange how the ATC worries about some things (like people finding caches and cell towers) and not others.

[+zgrav]

The links from BadAndy's post directly above make it clear that the AT Conservancy is well practiced at rallying its supporters to send letters to different government organizations to complain about actions being taken off of the AT that would threaten to degrade the perception of anyone hiking the trail that they were far removed from the modern world.

 

I think that it would be a good lesson in good government for the AT administration to deal with a bit of first-amendment correspondence to the NPS, Dept of the Interior, and the Hill that questions the position and tone being taken by the NPS on off-trail and off-NPS property cache placements.

 

This is sometimes referred to as the "Goose Rule", as in "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."

[+briansnat]

The links from BadAndy's post directly above make it clear that the AT Conservancy is well practiced at rallying its supporters to send letters to different government organizations to complain about actions being taken off of the AT that would threaten to degrade the perception of anyone hiking the trail that they were far removed from the modern world.

 

That is true. I get frequent action alerts regarding issues that affect the AT such as housing developments, ski area expansion and cell towers. Sometimes the developments are some distance from the AT but the fact that they can be seen from the trail is enough.

 

Now I'm totally in favor of protecting the trail corridor from many of these threats, which is why I see their wasting resources on a benign activity such as geocaching to be absurd.

[Skippermark]

Now I'm totally in favor of protecting the trail corridor from many of these threats, which is why I see their wasting resources on a benign activity such as geocaching to be absurd.

Your log entry on one of the archived caches on Mt. Greylock pretty much summed it up. They're worried about the environmental impact of a rarely found geocache, yet they don't squawk about a 7 mile road up and over the mountain.

[knowschad]

Did you know....

 

The ATC is opposed to alternative energy

 

The ATC hates the disabled.

 

The ATC doesn't like cell phones

 

The ATC wants federal earmarks

 

The ATC hates disabled people...again

 

If someone were really angry with the ATC, they could use the contact info from these links to write letters opposing the ATC's position on these varied issues.

 

While I'm as shocked as any of you regarding the AT's recent activity regarding geocaching, sensationalism such as this does not help your case. I personally am glad that the NPS and AT are fighting some of those issues.

[+Renegade Knight]

I bet you didn't know this....

 

It's not uncommon for backpackers on the AT to leave FOOD and DRINKS on the side of the trail.

 

Oh those aren't backpackers. Those are day trippers or whatever other designattion real backpackers have for their own brothers who embarass them.

[+BuckeyeClan]

 

I think limiting access is on the agenda. They've already started counting visitors in certain areas, and hope to do that along the whole trail. They're also pollling visitors to see how their experience was. That sounds like an attempt to determine if too many people think the trail is overcrowded. If so, they'll have more of the ammo they need to start limiting visitors. Read this post to see what those in charge of the trail have to say.

 

The quote is from the AT Mega-Transect on the ATC web site here.

 

It's hard to imagine the NPS/ATC condoning geocaches (which would equate to more users) if they already think the trail is being over used. The NPS used the reasoning that as long as there are unauthorized caches along the trail they aren't willing to talk to us at all. While that implies that if we remove the caches they'll be willing to talk, I have my doubts. I don't think geocaches fit into the ATC's vision for the trail at all.

 

No, it doesn't look so good for geocachers. Maybe not so good for day hikers and section hikers either?

 

I can sympathize with them on this issue, though. Not that I want to see access limited, but high usage of certain areas can definitely be a problem. It seems to be a common theme in many NP's--areas that are easy to access and highly scenic get loved to death. Fortunately there are usually other trails nearby that are much less travelled, though they might be more difficult or not as scenic. Now if we could just find some way to move people from one to the other; some way to encourage people to try the lesser used paths; some little incentive... Hmmm....

 

[+Renegade Knight]

 

I think limiting access is on the agenda. They've already started counting visitors in certain areas, and hope to do that along the whole trail. They're also pollling visitors to see how their experience was. That sounds like an attempt to determine if too many people think the trail is overcrowded. If so, they'll have more of the ammo they need to start limiting visitors. Read this post to see what those in charge of the trail have to say.

 

The quote is from the AT Mega-Transect on the ATC web site here.

 

It's hard to imagine the NPS/ATC condoning geocaches (which would equate to more users) if they already think the trail is being over used. The NPS used the reasoning that as long as there are unauthorized caches along the trail they aren't willing to talk to us at all. While that implies that if we remove the caches they'll be willing to talk, I have my doubts. I don't think geocaches fit into the ATC's vision for the trail at all.

 

No, it doesn't look so good for geocachers. Maybe not so good for day hikers and section hikers either?

 

I can sympathize with them on this issue, though. Not that I want to see access limited, but high usage of certain areas can definitely be a problem. It seems to be a common theme in many NP's--areas that are easy to access and highly scenic get loved to death. ...

 

Limiting access to an overused area brings out the worst in people. Groups start trying to ban other groups to protect "their" resource. To be truly fair you allow all compatible uses (and geocaching is compatible, no case has ever been made otherwise though rheteric has been bandied about) and limit access to all. That is if overuse truly is an issue.

 

Backpackers, Birdwatchers, Butterfly Hunters, Caches, XCountry Skiers, and so on. All deserve their recreation, even if they have to draw numbers like hunters.

[+blb9556]

Paint's drying on some signs I made up today - they'll be going up all around my property first light tomorrow.

 

ANYONE FROM THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE CAUGHT STEPPING FOOT ON MY LAND WILL BE SHOT ON SIGHT. REPEATEDLY.

 

There. That oughta show 'em.

~*

 

Nice job!!

 

EDIT: Their website is down right now

Edited October 4, 2008 by blb9556

[+twigg2324]

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'.

 

You are right ..... There is NOTHING about a geocache that remotely can be described as abandoned ..... they made this up.

 

They *law* they are quoting is false, it doesn't exist in relation to geocaches. It is simply a device they are using to ban a practise they disapprove of.

 

Groundspeak has no business colluding with this interpretation, especially when it is made clear that no attempt will be made to develop relationships with groups they apparently disapprove of.

[+cerberus1]

Yesterday, CJ stopped at the Blue Mtn. entrance and hoofed it to Palmerton's "dead zone" to get my archived birthday cache (GCTNTB).

Stopped on the way back to retrieve Devil's cache 666 (GCWEVE) even though it WASN'T on the hit list.

(Just want to get this sheisse over with.)

 

At 666, she spots a USGS truck with guys talking inside. The vehicle is pointed directly at the cache. (chance?)

They clam up as they spot CJ, then asked if anyone else was on the trail. She said not that she noticed and they quickly drove off.

 

Guess they don't hike. They DRIVE in.

 

Bunch of new signs that don't appear too friendly scattered about now.

[+Harry Dolphin]

No, it doesn't look so good for geocachers. Maybe not so good for day hikers and section hikers either?

 

The only problems that I ran into, as a day hiker/section hiker, were in Shenandoah and The Presidential Range. Shenandoah requires a backpacking permit (available at the north and south entrances). If I remember aright, two nights' stay was required to backpack. No restriction on dayhikers.

In the Presi, camping is not permitted in most areas. That means staying at the shelters at $60 or so, per night. (Limited number of discounts for thruhikers willing to work.)

The Great Smokies has a more restrictive bakcpacking requirement. Something like minimum of 50 miles on both sids of the main road to qualify for the permit. I gave up after finishing half the trail, so I never made it to the Smokies. (Rockfish Gap, Va to just east of Mount Washington, and parts of Maine.)

I dayhiked all of NJ, NY and a large part of PA. Most worrisome part there was the hunters! During hunting season, they're all over the trail on PA Hunting Lands, and NJ and NY State Forests. They're allowed to leave deer guts at Pinwheel Vista, and traces of fur all the way down the stairs, or carry a deer through the Palmerton Dead Zone, but we aren't welcomed! (Of course, I wonder about anyone who would eat a deer killed in the Palmerton Dead Zone, but that's a different story...)

[+nthacker66]

Yes, I too saw this at the apptrail conservancy.http://www.appalachiantrail.org/docs/trail-management-policies/geocaching-2008.pdf

 

I know some folks at NPS will give try to give a call tomorrow. That thread was 5 years ago, things have ell changed. There are plenty of caches in national forests. Jefferson National Forest is n exception.

 

This is what I am always complaining about that groundpeak needs to be more involved and an advocate f the very activity they make money off of - enough of this "aw shucks, we are just a lil ole' listing service - we welt the local/state organizations handle that stuff" silliness.

 

I will get some better answers tomorrow from NPS. There are quite a few rangers I knew who LOVE the aspect of caching in the forests. The AT is no exception - in fact, one ranger once told me "cachers clean up after the thru-hikers who trash up the AT - so we welcome them" In fact, I am planning on an event up at Dragon's Tooth very soon - thinking of making it a cito in fact.

 

But let's not get ahead of ourselves and saying what is and isn't allowed. Right now the above link is pretty authoritative - and I will get further clarification.

[+nthacker66]

The caches I found yesterday were in Jefferson National Forest which allows caches through special use permits.

 

Remember, the AT is just a trail. It runs through state parks, national forests, private property, even county parks - some areas won't allow caches, period. Some allow them with permits, some allow them without any restrictions at all.

 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsinternet/!ut/p/c4/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os3gDfxMDT8MwRydLA1cj72BTSw8jAwjQL8h2VAQAng7kaQ!!/?recid=73539&actid=103&navid=110250000000000&cid=null&ss=110808&ttype=activity&navtype=BROWSEBYSUBJECT&pnavid=110000000000000&pname=George+Washington+%26+Jefferson+National+Forest+-+Geocaching+%26+Letterboxing

Edited September 18, 2013 by nthacker66

[+nthacker66]

and please let's not sit here and bash ATC. They are a good group of folks - and have fought hard, tooth and nail tp protect the trail from developers, greedy land owners and even eminent domain cases. They aren't the enemy. Perhaps if Groundspeak would reach out to them, like they have asked in that policy dated 2008, there could be better dialogue.

[+briansnat]

This is what I am always complaining about that groundpeak needs to be more involved and an advocate f the very activity they make money off of - enough of this "aw shucks, we are just a lil ole' listing service - we welt the local/state organizations handle that stuff" silliness.

 

And you know they weren't involved how?