What all geocachers and gun owners have in common

[+BadAndy]

If you haven't read the thread about the mass archivals of Appalachian Trail caches, read it before continuing. AT caches banned and archived.

 

When I was a kid, I learned to shoot a gun and have enjoyed it ever since. All my life I've been a fan of shooting sports. As a young adult I saw my rights of gun ownership being slowly eroded away. It eventually got to the point of requiring permits on some and outright bans on others of my guns. These errosions were because of misguided or/and power hungry politicians and govt agencies. Armed with half truths and misinformation, they regulated my sport into a quagmire. Criminals were shooting people and the govt was either unable or unwilling to punish them so they did the next best thing, they went after the entire gun owning population even though the VAST majority were completely law abiding. The National Rifle Association rose up to become our voice to fight these incursions of our rights. Someone with a national voice to speak on our behalf and preserve our freedoms.

 

The same thing is happening to geocaching. It may sound like a laughable comparison, but the truth is plain to see.

 

Damage (real or perceived) is apparently being done by geocachers. They can't catch the bad guys so they're going after the larger group of geocachers as a whole. Requiring permits at first, then outright bans (sound familiar?).

 

It isn't limited to the AT trail system either. It's running rampant, especially in the eastern states. More and more govt controlled lands are limiting and regulating and banning geocaching. State parks, National parks, county and even city govt agencies are jumping on the bandwagon. Some have taken severe measures and banned the use of GPS units altogether on their managed lands. At what point do we find our voice and defend our Alamo?

 

And who will become our NRA?

[+TexasGringo]

***Requiring permits at first***

 

When I was in Madison, WI. I had to $10 a year to get a "Special Purpose" permit to place a cache in a County park.

 

The city parks were free, but you still had to get permission from the city.

 

I guess it helped in case someone called in a suspicious package...the city and county had the coordinates of the park caches.

[+lordzogat]

Perhaps we shouldn't be demanding anything other than from the geocachers who are giving them cause to ban us. You should be leaving the geocache site Exactly as you found it. This includes not ripping things apart to find it.

Edited September 24, 2008 by lordzogat

[+brokenoaks]

Perhaps the human race should not exist on planet earth. But here we are and by simply taking a breath of air we leave a trace of our existence on this planet. The trick is to find that middle ground between not giving a care about any damage we may do and thinking we can live on earth without anything or anyone knowing we were here. There are extremist on both sides of most every issue. As for geocaching on public land, the words “public lands” is clear to me. We as citizens of the United States of America have a right to responsibly use these lands. We do not have a right to cause extreme stress and damage but we will leave some trace of having been there.

[+badinfluence]

Perhaps we shouldn't be demanding anything other than from the geocachers who are giving them cause to ban us. You should be leaving the geocache site Exactly as you found it. This includes not ripping things apart to find it.

 

I don't think it's cacher's as much as what might be perceived.

 

I bet those with the power to push the ban have absolutely no idea how much many of us do to clean up a park.

 

I was stopped by a park ranger (state) last week while caching. He saw me with a bag of garbage I was picking up along the way, bottles and other trash. He asked what I was doing. "geocaching" was my response.

 

Then he asked about the trash and I explained to him what geocaching is and what CITO was about. He seemed rather impressed.

 

At least down the road, if the topic comes up, I know I made a positive image and just might have someone stand up to defend our improper and poor perceived image.

 

It's a small step.

 

We spend so much time hiding from muggles that our good deeds often go unnoticed.

 

Jonathan

[+Isonzo Karst]

I live in an Eastern State, and I've seen land managers move from permits to "place caches freely", from asking for a lot of information on each hide, to a request that the cacher simply tell a ranger when a new hide is placed.

 

Just a bit of counter to the OPs original concept. And thank you badinfluence for one perfect example of how to proceed. CITO is a real and powerful tool.

 

Which isn't to say that there aren't some individuals with real or imaginary regulatory power mightily armed with misinformation re geocaching, or that a National Geocaching Association is a bad idea.

 

The Florida Geocaching Association would join other state associations in a National Association. If someone stepped up to do the work, I suspect that many of the state associations and other regional groups would gladly contribute. Applying for IRA tax exempt status costs $300, for instance, and most states will have filing fees for corporate status, not that such formal organization is a requirement, but it sure helps legitimize a group to have that legal status.

 

So, Bad Andy, you ready to get the ball rolling?

[Clan Riffster]

While I am, (almost), absolutely opposed to any firearms regulation, due to the fact that they inherently target the innocent, I'm not sure that caching makes a reasonable comparison. The United States has a document roughly 200 years old that grants firearm ownership rights to its citizens, and this Amendment has been the primary tool in the NRA's fight to protect our rights. However, we have no geocaching Amendment, ergo, (by definition), geocaching is not a "right".

[+off-camber]

The same thing seems to happen with every specialty sport. I ride ATVs as well and because of a lot of propaganda and misinformation we are banned from many places. People and clubs not only pay into the state systems for land they can't use they also maintain and cleanup the ones they can. There are people who will find argument with anything. I am a little surprised that geocaching has come under some fire...but I guess that just proves my point.

[Keystone]

As a cache reviewer, I am familiar with geocaching regulations at every level of government, both in the states where I review caches, and in other states where I hear news from my fellow reviewers. From this perspective, I disagree with the premise of the OP. I don't see a trend towards banning caches. At worst, the current trend is for county and city park systems to wake up and realize that they might want to have some sort of notification and approval process for caches in their parks. My home county is a current example. There's no form to fill out, and thus far the requests have a 100% approval rate.

 

Looking around me, the state park systems in Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, Maryland and West Virginia all have mature permission procedures that have been in place for years and are functioning smoothly. I see state parks hiding series of caches and sponsoring contests to attract geocachers to their parks. I see Pennsylvania State Game Land managers hiding caches on our vast hunting lands. A few years ago, we worried that this land manager might ban geocaching. I challenge the OP to step forward with specific examples of land managers in the Eastern US who have banned geocaching in the past year.

 

All the trends I'm seeing stand in stark contrast to the National Park Service. Their anti-geocaching stance is nothing new. I've been carefully examining cache placements near the Appalachian Trail since 2003. I've watched as the ATC representatives have slowly picked off caches over the past several years. The only "new" development was the request for archiving 100 caches all at once.

 

So, I see no reason for alarm. All I see is a need to work with and educate one anachronistic land manager whose view of geocaching remains grounded on false perceptions developed many years ago.

[AZcachemeister]

Some have taken severe measures and banned the use of GPS units altogether on their managed lands.

 

Could you provide some more specific details on this item?

[+ronocnikral]

Well, I am VERY concerned about the future of geocaching. Things like this worry me a lot. But probably the most concerning thing is geocachers that are not responsible. It seems a few people then become representative of the whole group. The majority of cachers are responsible, they pick up trash, remove their caches when needed etc, but a few people who are not responsible screw everything up. Unfortunately, once this happens and we as a collective group get a bad reputation then the poitive things we do a majority of the time will not be able to make up for the few perceived negative things that occur.

 

I try to enjoy the game as much as I can now, I fear a day of urban micros and that is it...

[+Okiebryan]

I don't understand how a ban on GPS use in a public area could stand.

 

Would anyone tolerate a ban on cameras in a park? How about iPods?

 

I agree with the OP. There needs to be a political organization or SIG for geocaching. Groundspeak, who seems to have the most at stake, doesn't seem willing to fight against silly rules and just wholesale archives caches when asked. Even when the cache in question is not on property under the control of the agency requesting archival. This kind of rolling over is not good and sets a bad precedent, IMHO.

 

They can have my GPSr when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers...because I got lost in the woods and froze to death. []

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I normally agree with many posts sent by the OP (Bad Andy), but in this case, I must strongly disagree with his stated doomsday perspective and also his "call to action, we must mobilize" perspective. First, much as Clan Riffster wrote:

...I'm not sure that caching makes a reasonable comparison. The United States has a document roughly 200 years old that grants firearm ownership rights to its citizens, and this Amendment has been the primary tool in the NRA's fight to protect our rights. However, we have no geocaching Amendment, ergo, (by definition), geocaching is not a "right".

there is no right or privilege conveyed in the Constitution of the USA, nor in the governing documents of any other country of which I am aware, that makes carrying a GPS receiver or hunting geocaches a "right". Sorry, but no go!

 

Next, from my perspective, where I regularly deal with land managers of a large state park system here in Maryland, and from my occasional dealings with other land managers, and as the owner of a number of extreme caches placed in four states (down to three states now, since I archived one in WY), I see no reason to claim that the sky is falling, and rather, I like, and agree with, the perspective offered by Keystone, as follows:

As a cache reviewer, I am familiar with geocaching regulations at every level of government, both in the states where I review caches, and in other states where I hear news from my fellow reviewers. From this perspective, I disagree with the premise of the OP. I don't see a trend towards banning caches. At worst, the current trend is for county and city park systems to wake up and realize that they might want to have some sort of notification and approval process for caches in their parks. My home county is a current example. There's no form to fill out, and thus far the requests have a 100% approval rate.

 

Looking around me, the state park systems in Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, Maryland and West Virginia all have mature permission procedures that have been in place for years and are functioning smoothly. I see state parks hiding series of caches and sponsoring contests to attract geocachers to their parks. I see Pennsylvania State Game Land managers hiding caches on our vast hunting lands. A few years ago, we worried that this land manager might ban geocaching. I challenge the OP to step forward with specific examples of land managers in the Eastern US who have banned geocaching in the past year.

 

All the trends I'm seeing stand in stark contrast to the National Park Service. Their anti-geocaching stance is nothing new. I've been carefully examining cache placements near the Appalachian Trail since 2003. I've watched as the ATC representatives have slowly picked off caches over the past several years. The only "new" development was the request for archiving 100 caches all at once.

 

So, I see no reason for alarm. All I see is a need to work with and educate one anachronistic land manager whose view of geocaching remains grounded on false perceptions developed many years ago.

 

However, I must also say that I am rather concerned about the future of geocaching, and my concern has precious little to do with land managers, and rather, it has EVERYTHING to do with geocachers themselves, or, more specifically, the following geocacher-related factors:

• the abysmal behavior and attitudes exhibited by a growing minority of geocachers when it comes to cache placement sites and types of placements (i.e., flooding an area with lame urban micros...)
  
• much related to the item above, the arrogant behavior and arrogant attitudes exhibited by a growing minority of geocachers when it comes to dealing with requirements or limits imposed by land managers and by organizations such as Groundspeak (often through their cache reviewers.)
  
• the abysmal behavior and attitudes exhibited by a growing minority of geocachers when hunting caches, including destruction of terrain, destruction of man-made artifacts (i.e., rock walls, sprinkler systems, floral gardens, plumbing, irrigation equipment, etc.)
  
• the advent of asinine idiotic TV shows, such as the recent "Geo-Man" debacle, which unfortunately, was not really about geocaching at all, but rather about acting like a flaming idiot and garnering a bad name for geocaching while going about it.
  
• the fact that as the sport has grown in popularity, the demographics of the population of persons entering the sport has changed drastically, with a far higher percentage of arrogant, careless and irresponsible geocachers nowadays than was true just a few short years ago.
  

In fact, I must agree with the majority of concerns shared by ronocnikaral in his earlier post to this thread:

 

Well, I am VERY concerned about the future of geocaching. Things like this worry me a lot. But probably the most concerning thing is geocachers that are not responsible. It seems a few people then become representative of the whole group. The majority of cachers are responsible, they pick up trash, remove their caches when needed etc, but a few people who are not responsible screw everything up. Unfortunately, once this happens and we as a collective group get a bad reputation then the poitive things we do a majority of the time will not be able to make up for the few perceived negative things that occur.

 

I try to enjoy the game as much as I can now, I fear a day of urban micros and that is it...

Enuf said!

Edited September 24, 2008 by Vinny & Sue Team

[+greg1701]

The only things I have in common with gun owners are.. er.. umm...

 

Actually, I have nothing in common with gun owners. Tying these two topics together seems like a stretch to me...

[+StarBrand]

Somethings is wrong here.....

 

Vinny's post above made just a whole lot of sense to me. I have to agree.

[+Kit Fox]

However, I must also say that I am rather concerned about the future of geocaching, and my concern has precious little to do with land managers, and rather, it has EVERYTHING to do with geocachers themselves, or, more specifically, the following geocacher-related factors:

• the abysmal behavior and attitudes exhibited by a growing minority of geocachers when it comes to cache placement sites and types of placements (i.e., flooding an area with lame urban micros...)
  
• much related to the item above, the arrogant behavior and arrogant attitudes exhibited by a growing minority of geocachers when it comes to dealing with requirements or limits imposed by land managers and by organizations such as Groundspeak (often through their cache reviewers.)
  
• the abysmal behavior and attitudes exhibited by a growing minority of geocachers when hunting caches, including destruction of terrain, destruction of manmade artifacts (rock walls, sprinkler systems, plumbing, irrigation equipment, etc.)
  
• the advent of asinine idiotic TV shows, such as the recent "Geo-Man" debacle, which unfortunately, was not really about geocaching at all, but rather about acting like a flaming idiot and garnering a bad name for geocaching while going about it.
  
• the fact that as the sport has grown in popularity, the demographics of the population of persons entering the sport has changed drastically, with a far higher percentage of arrogant, careless and irresponsible geocachers nowadays than was true just a few short years ago.
  

In fact, I must agree with the majority of concerns shared by ronocnikaral in his earlier post to this thread:

 

100% Dittos to what Vinny said.

[+Renegade Knight]

While I am, (almost), absolutely opposed to any firearms regulation, due to the fact that they inherently target the innocent, I'm not sure that caching makes a reasonable comparison. The United States has a document roughly 200 years old that grants firearm ownership rights to its citizens, and this Amendment has been the primary tool in the NRA's fight to protect our rights. However, we have no geocaching Amendment, ergo, (by definition), geocaching is not a "right".

Isn't there a quote that says something along the lines that "all powers not otherwise granted are reserved for the people?" That may not be a right so much as the freedom we have.

 

There is a real irony in that the right to bear arms assumes that the right is accorded to you on whatever piece of land you happen to be standing on. One of the real erosions of the right has been to nick off bits of land here and there where you can practice the freedom. The NPS being a great example of this. No Right to Bear Arms. It's rather amusing that the NPS is at the forefront of another battle taking away some freedoms.

[+Renegade Knight]

I normally agree with many posts sent by the OP (Bad Andy), but in this case, I must strongly disagree with his stated doomsday perspective and also his "call to action, we must mobilize" perspective. First, much as Clan Riffster wrote:...

That larger post was the long way to say. "There are bad apples that must be dealt with lest we all pay the price. The NPS has it's own bad apples.

 

While 100 caches in one fell swoop apparently is nothing new given the prior rate of attack was on here and there may not cause alarm with Keystone, it's a wake up call. The question "what changed?" is valid. Something changed for the worse. Losing 100 at once many of which are fine by the rules, wasn't a good change by any stretch.

 

Some of the other arguments that were made can be summed as this. "There is no right to freedom".

Caching is a freedom we enjoy. True there is no constituational right to caching, or freedom for that matter. Instead freedom is a principal. Worth fighting for as they are taken away one by one in every faucet of our lives. They are being taken away. A lot of us have to ask permission to paint our houses a different color.

 

I flat out can't march with any group that defends the unessary loss of freedom with an argument that can be summed up as "it's not a right".

Edited September 24, 2008 by Renegade Knight

[4wheelin_fool]

Perhaps the National Park Service should be privatized and maybe it would function better. It's not really acting as a public agency anymore.

Edited September 24, 2008 by 4wheelin_fool

[+StarBrand]

Perhaps the National Park Service should be privatized and maybe it would function better. It's not really acting as a public agency anymore.

No sometimes about 8 to 16 years ago - the mission changed slightly. The NPS used be all about protecting the lands for the enjoyment of all. Now the mission is to protect the land no matter any enjoyment lost.

[+Renegade Knight]

Perhaps the National Park Service should be privatized and maybe it would function better. It's not really acting as a public agency anymore.

The NPS is both privatizing and utilizing the services of Volunteer groups at higher rates as time passes. It would be far simpler to deal with an angry NPS than the other two groups. Even though I can (and do) knock the NPS for it's ideas on caches and such, at the end of the day I've never met any public servant who wasn't trying to do the best job for the pubic while trying to tackle very real problems and concerns. It's never been hard to have a meeting of the minds when you get a chance to work directly.

 

I would champion putting the NPS lands back under full NPS control and get rid of the privitization, or the need for volunteers groups and have the volunteers as individuals work directly for the NPS.

[Clan Riffster]

Perhaps the National Park Service should be privatized and maybe it would function better. It's not really acting as a public agency anymore.

I'm kinda agreeing with this sentiment.

In the history of our nation, there has never been a single instance where a service was improved by turning over the reins to the government.

Not one...

[CoyoteRed]

In the history of our nation, there has never been a single instance where a service was improved by turning over the reins to the government.

Not one...

Um... It's still cheaper to send a letter via USPS than it is any other carrier, and has the power of the U.S. Government behind it to prevent tampering to boot.

 

Okay, okay, it always was a Federal service, but still...

[+3doxies]

In the history of our nation, there has never been a single instance where a service was improved by turning over the reins to the government.

Not one...

 

Gotta go along with this, in fact, its kinda the embodiment of the adage "A few harmless flakes can unleash an avalanche of destruction." Although it does seem that "harmless" doesn't apply to many govt entities.

 

And yes, I deal with a very large govt entity almost daily...its inability to act rationally on even the most mundane of issues is a constant source of amazement.

[+Moose Mob]

Either get back on topic or this thread goes to Off Topic.

 

Thank you.

[CoyoteRed]

Placing a cache on the land of another is vastly different than owning a gun. The former is getting someone to do something that you want while the later is you getting to do something you want. You have no rights when it comes to other people's property. You can only do what they allow you to do.

 

Now, a lobby is a different story.

[+TakeTheLongWay]

Funny thing is in PA state parks its a rather easy processes to get a cache approved...yet state parks are one of the very few places your prohibited from concealed carry by law.

 

If your worried about your 2nd amendment rights move over here to PA. We have the 2nd or 3rd (forget which) highest rate of gun ownership (per capita) of any state, and have some rather open gun laws..

 

edit...

I see you live in CO, nevermind the moving part. I would love to move back to CO. I was stationed at Ft.Carson for 4 years. Being able to sit in the backyard and watch the sun go down over pikes peak every night was just awesome.

Edited September 25, 2008 by Limhi

[+sbell111]

While I am, (almost), absolutely opposed to any firearms regulation, due to the fact that they inherently target the innocent, I'm not sure that caching makes a reasonable comparison. The United States has a document roughly 200 years old that grants firearm ownership rights to its citizens, and this Amendment has been the primary tool in the NRA's fight to protect our rights. However, we have no geocaching Amendment, ergo, (by definition), geocaching is not a "right".

Isn't there a quote that says something along the lines that "all powers not otherwise granted are reserved for the people?" That may not be a right so much as the freedom we have. ...

Close. Number ten on the hit parade states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

[+sbell111]

What is the subject?

[+Bad Duck]

When geocaching gets regulated out of existance. And Groundspeak is spending all their money on legal battles it will be time. Time to move the site overseas. Out source it to India etc. My computer cares not where the geocaching servers are. Without legal woes to worry about we will be able to list caches anywhere with no recourse from the land managers. Problem solved.

I wonder if Jeremy and the gang like curry?

[+BadAndy]

It's been a long day so I'll keep it brief.

 

First off, I didn't infer that we have a constitutional right to hide ammocans in the woods. That's absurd. What I was implying is that geocaching (especially on public lands) is a freedom we enjoy that's being eroded away in the same ways and by many of the same agencies that have targeted gun rights for so long.

 

"Cache Control"

 

A permit here, a ban there, toss in a few fee's to pump up the coffers. It's not a call to action but it is a wake up call...and the sound is all too familiar. I call this "cache control".

 

I agree completely that a few cachers acting like morons is a big part of the problem... but since they can't catch the bad apples, they kick us all out.

 

Gun control works the same way. Criminals use guns.... they can't stop the crooks so they go after all gun owners.

[+sbell111]

The ATF hates geocaching?

[+BadAndy]

The ATF hates geocaching?

 

Cute, but I'm glad you brought it up.

 

The ATF doesn't pass gun control laws, they enforce them. It's a subtle but important distinction. Their counterpart in this analogy would be Groundspeak. Groundspeak doesn't write the NPS Cache Control policies, but they do enforce them.

 

In both cases, the enforcers are simply doing their job. Most ATF and FBI agents I've met do not agree with gun control laws and I'll bet that many Groundspeak reviewers don't agree with the NPS policies. Nevertheless, they do their jobs and enforce the policies. Thats an admirable quality.

 

RK addressed this point earlier. The NPS as well as many state park systems banned the possession of firearms on the lands they manage. Now they are banning geocaching in the same way. This point is far from subtle and should be obvious to even the most casual observer.

[CoyoteRed]

I agree completely that a few cachers acting like morons is a big part of the problem... but since they can't catch the bad apples, they kick us all out.

I don't buy this either.

 

One of the arguments the proponents of a cache ban here in SC was they couldn't simply look up a cache owner. "You can't just look up [cache owner] in the phone book." That's true. His name isn't in the phone book, but it certainly is on each of his cache pages.

 

Each of those caches on that list has a cache page (except of the 2 that got retracted, I guess), there's contact information. Depending on how old they are, there's contact info for the reviewer. If there are known contacts with the NPS and ATC then they could have fired off notes detailing the issues on each of the caches. They choose not to.

 

I think it more like what some have insinuated and it's more of a personal agenda than social trails and other such concrete issues.

 

Education will go a long way with land owners. Sure, the general land owner might get a bad impression based on a few bad apples, but that's where we, as a community, need to step up to the plate. Sure, it sucks that there has to be cache police. Some will even condemn you for it, but it is a necessary task that needs doing. Personally, I find it ironic that some folks on one hand will condemn someone for being the "cache police" and then fall all over themselves fawning over reviewers.

 

The reviewers can't always be right there to check on a cache. They can only check via map, aerial photo, and what the CO tells them. In other words, many times they are operating only on partial information. If someone, as a finder, as to provide more information, especially if it turns out to be a bad placement, then so be it.

 

I can't support a lobby or organization where the main thrust is to get land owners to blindly allow us to participate without a strong push for us to police ourselves. If the present system isn't working, what would?

[CoyoteRed]

The NPS as well as many state park systems banned the possession of firearms on the lands they manage. Now they are banning geocaching in the same way. This point is far from subtle and should be obvious to even the most casual observer.

The NPS and the state parks to which you refer are in the business of recreation. There are a lot of folks out there hiking around and I certainly wouldn't want some yahoo plinking away while some mom is hiking with her kids. Not too mention I've met way to many of these yahoos to trust they'd do the right and polite thing every time. The result: ban guns.

 

As a counter to the NPS and guns, the USF&WS doesn't provide any leeway on cache placements, yet they are in the business that allows guns on their lands.

 

It's a matter of the mission of the land which these groups manage.

 

As Keystone mentioned, many organizations are seeing the benefit of geocaching and encourage it. This is good in more ways than one. As more come on line, the more examples one can show those reluctant.

Edited September 25, 2008 by CoyoteRed

[+sbell111]

I suspect that the AT Trail thread is making it seem to some people that organizations like the NPS are enacting new bans that serve to restrict geocaching, but I don't believe that this is the case.

 

BTW, I apologize for my ATF remark. It was meant as a joke to lighten the mood of some, but it apparently fell flat. It should, however, be noted that LEOs and cache reviewers that enforce laws and policies that they don't agree with are not being admirable. They are doing their jobs. If it ever got to the point where their personal beliefs interfered with their performing that required enforcement, they would either quit or get canned.

Edited September 25, 2008 by sbell111

[+ronocnikral]

When geocaching gets regulated out of existance. And Groundspeak is spending all their money on legal battles it will be time. Time to move the site overseas. Out source it to India etc. My computer cares not where the geocaching servers are. Without legal woes to worry about we will be able to list caches anywhere with no recourse from the land managers. Problem solved.

I wonder if Jeremy and the gang like curry?

 

I know this is not the solution. Certainly working with the appropriate regulatory agencies and land managers would be a MILLION times better than shifting the servers overseas. What is the point of doing this?? Say someone puts a cache on National Park land, maybe a few people get to it, but the NP will simply remove it. So then, we are making the Park service mad AND soiling our collective reputation so a couple of people could find a cache. Sure no one can leagally get at Groundspeak or most likely the cache owner and finders (unless they were caught in the act), but then what do the lawmakers do?? The same thing they always do when something is seemingly "broken," make more laws (that's their job). Preservation of our reputation is the key!!

 

I know a bit about this, as I work in an industry which with most people, has a very negative reputation. Trust me, if multi-billion dollar companies follow this philosophy, it would benefit Groundspeak to as well (as they have been)--it's better to go along with it (rules, regulation, etc) than to be totally left out.

[+sbell111]

... As a counter to the NPS and guns, the USW&F doesn't provide any leeway on cache placements, yet they are in the business that allows guns on their lands. ...

Forgive my stupidity, but what is USW&F?

[Keystone]

The ATF hates geocaching?

 

Cute, but I'm glad you brought it up.

 

The ATF doesn't pass gun control laws, they enforce them. It's a subtle but important distinction. Their counterpart in this analogy would be Groundspeak. Groundspeak doesn't write the NPS Cache Control policies, but they do enforce them.

 

In both cases, the enforcers are simply doing their job. Most ATF and FBI agents I've met do not agree with gun control laws and I'll bet that many Groundspeak reviewers don't agree with the NPS policies. Nevertheless, they do their jobs and enforce the policies. Thats an admirable quality.

 

RK addressed this point earlier. The NPS as well as many state park systems banned the possession of firearms on the lands they manage. Now they are banning geocaching in the same way. This point is far from subtle and should be obvious to even the most casual observer.

1. Thank you for your kind words and accurate assessment of the reviewers' role in "enforcing" the land managers policies. Sometimes I feel like an unpaid employee of the Parks Department. I keep track of literally dozens of different geocaching policies at the federal, state and local level. The public doesn't see all the caches that never get published due to failure by the owner to comply with these policies. Some of the policies I agree with -- one of my favorites is the Allegheny National Forest's policy, which requires no paperwork, only adherence to a set of published standards. Others I disagree with -- such as the National Park Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service policies.

 

2. I again ask you for a list of the eastern state land managers that have banned geocaching. You bring up state parks in the post I quoted. Skipping North Carolina, which is old news, please list the other state park systems which have banned geocaching on the side of the country where the Appalachian Trail runs.

[+mtn-man]

... As a counter to the NPS and guns, the USW&F doesn't provide any leeway on cache placements, yet they are in the business that allows guns on their lands. ...

Forgive my stupidity, but what is USW&F?

Just a guess, but I would bet he means US Fish and Wildlife Service.

(Edited... looking at his post, I see he linked to them in an edit.)

Edited September 25, 2008 by mtn-man

[+sbell111]

... As a counter to the NPS and guns, the USW&F doesn't provide any leeway on cache placements, yet they are in the business that allows guns on their lands. ...

Forgive my stupidity, but what is USW&F?

Just a guess, but I would bet he means US Fish and Wildlife Service.

(Edited... looking at his post, I see he linked to them in an edit.)

Thanks. I'm a bit slow on the uptake sometimes. I thought that there was yet another government agency for me to rabble about for a minute.

Edited September 25, 2008 by sbell111

[+GrnXnham]

If you haven't read the thread about the mass archivals of Appalachian Trail caches, read it before continuing. AT caches banned and archived.

 

When I was a kid, I learned to shoot a gun and have enjoyed it ever since. All my life I've been a fan of shooting sports. As a young adult I saw my rights of gun ownership being slowly eroded away. It eventually got to the point of requiring permits on some and outright bans on others of my guns. These errosions were because of misguided or/and power hungry politicians and govt agencies. Armed with half truths and misinformation, they regulated my sport into a quagmire. Criminals were shooting people and the govt was either unable or unwilling to punish them so they did the next best thing, they went after the entire gun owning population even though the VAST majority were completely law abiding. The National Rifle Association rose up to become our voice to fight these incursions of our rights. Someone with a national voice to speak on our behalf and preserve our freedoms.

 

The same thing is happening to geocaching. It may sound like a laughable comparison, but the truth is plain to see.

 

Damage (real or perceived) is apparently being done by geocachers. They can't catch the bad guys so they're going after the larger group of geocachers as a whole. Requiring permits at first, then outright bans (sound familiar?).

 

It isn't limited to the AT trail system either. It's running rampant, especially in the eastern states. More and more govt controlled lands are limiting and regulating and banning geocaching. State parks, National parks, county and even city govt agencies are jumping on the bandwagon. Some have taken severe measures and banned the use of GPS units altogether on their managed lands. At what point do we find our voice and defend our Alamo?

 

And who will become our NRA?

 

And it's basically the same politicians that want to ban guns that want to ban or over-regulate geocaching.

 

Keep in mind that it is an election year. If geocaching is important to you, consider voting for politicians who are going to support it.

[+BadAndy]

 

2. I again ask you for a list of the eastern state land managers that have banned geocaching. You bring up state parks in the post I quoted. Skipping North Carolina, which is old news, please list the other state park systems which have banned geocaching on the side of the country where the Appalachian Trail runs.

 

NC may be old news...and before that it was the NPS bans at Yellowstone, and Yosemite and all the rest. These were the first to begin the process of erosion, and now it continues on the AT.

 

What would be interesting to see is just how many Federal, State and County agencies currently have an ordinance that bans or restricts geocaching.

[+Right Wing Wacko]

Ok... lets compare the rules:

 

 

Geocaches

• National Parks - Banned
  
• Schools - Banned (by Groundspeak)
  
• Military Property - Banned
  
• Parks - Permit often required to hide one
  

Firearms

• National Parks - Banned
  
• Schools - Banned (By Government)
  
• Military Property - Banned
  
• Parks - Permit almost always required to Conceal one
  

[Keystone]

Given that you cannot cite to any example besides North Carolina (which I offered), I renew my objection to the basic premise you're advancing. You are stating perception as fact:

 

It's running rampant, especially in the eastern states. More and more govt controlled lands are limiting and regulating and banning geocaching.

 

Want some actual facts? There are three county park systems in Ohio which banned geocaching many years ago. Two of the three are reconsidering their positions, thanks to the efforts of local geocachers. At the state level, caches are not allowed in Ohio wildlife areas and in Ohio nature preserves. Yet, caches are welcomed in Ohio state parks and state forests -- so much so that the agency itself hides dozens of caches and sponsors events every year. There are no other bans on geocaching at the state or local level in Ohio. The existing bans have been in place for more than five years.

 

In West Virginia, there is one small city where the Mayor has purported to ban geocaching. There are no other bans on geocaching at the state or local level in West Virginia.

 

Shall I continue state by state?

[+Bad_CRC]

angst.

Edited September 26, 2008 by Bad_CRC

[+BadAndy]

Given that you cannot cite to any example besides North Carolina (which I offered), I renew my objection to the basic premise you're advancing. You are stating perception as fact:

 

It's running rampant, especially in the eastern states. More and more govt controlled lands are limiting and regulating and banning geocaching.

 

Want some actual facts? There are three county park systems in Ohio which banned geocaching many years ago. Two of the three are reconsidering their positions, thanks to the efforts of local geocachers. At the state level, caches are not allowed in Ohio wildlife areas and in Ohio nature preserves. Yet, caches are welcomed in Ohio state parks and state forests -- so much so that the agency itself hides dozens of caches and sponsors events every year. There are no other bans on geocaching at the state or local level in Ohio. The existing bans have been in place for more than five years.

 

In West Virginia, there is one small city where the Mayor has purported to ban geocaching. There are no other bans on geocaching at the state or local level in West Virginia.

 

Shall I continue state by state?

 

My basic premise was that govt agencies are Limiting, Regulating and Banning geocaching.

 

The presumption isn't limited to bans as you are trying to argue. The rapid growth of Permit only Geocaching is the most pervasive of the erosions.

 

Please do continue state by state, but also include those agencies that require permits as well as bans. And no it isn't limited to eastern states, that just seems to be where the more draconian policies are cropping up.

 

The same is true for Gun Control. Most restrictions are based on permits and limitations of firearms. Bans are the upper tier of regulating.

[Keystone]

OK, expanding the scope of my answer to include permit systems as well as bans:

 

In Ohio there were 13 permit systems put in place in 2004 or earlier. In 2005 there were no new permit systems, and one ban reversal. In 2006, three permit systems were added -- most notably, the State Historical Society, who placed a series of caches at its facilities and requested that other cachers ask permission before doing the same thing. In 2007, three permit systems were added. Thus far in 2008, two permit systems were added. Out of all the aforementioned permit systems, I would only characterize a handful of them (say, three) as "draconian" such that the permit requirement acts more like an effective ban. They are older systems, not the new ones. Example: The MetroParks in the Columbus area.

 

In West Virginia there is just the State Park/State Forest permit system, a big question mark about State Wildlife Management areas depending on who you talk to, the aforementioned eccentric mayor of a small city, a one-page permit form for a city park system, and a permit system for a state university's research forest. None of the permit systems are "draconian" and the State Parks feature geocaching on their website.

 

Using these two states as examples, I am not seeing support for the position you're advocating. Please provide that support.

[CoyoteRed]

Personally, I'd prefer a simple permit system--preferably one that is pretty much a fill out a form detailing where you put the cache. This simplifies contact with the land owner and you don't have to do a bunch of research hunting them down.

 

Actually, that wouldn't be so much as a permit system than a cache registration system.

[Keystone]

Personally, I'd prefer a simple permit system--preferably one that is pretty much a fill out a form detailing where you put the cache. This simplifies contact with the land owner and you don't have to do a bunch of research hunting them down.

 

Actually, that wouldn't be so much as a permit system than a cache registration system.

I agree... or even one step simpler is something like the Ohio State Parks policy: "please talk to the ranger before you hide a cache." That's not "draconian." Informational forms (contact info., location, container type) aren't "draconian." Many of the permit systems summarized above are of these types.

 

I just wrote an essay on landowner policies for another forum. There, I broke down permission policies into four levels of strictness, with formal legalese agreements being the least desirable. The other category not yet mentioned is a "passive" policy, where the land manager posts the guidelines for caches on its website and then lets geocachers follow them. We're self-policing, especially with the cache review process and helpful local geocaching organizations.