California parks take a swing at geocaching

[+JohnnyVegas]

The Californian state parks dept has delt a blow to geocaching in California state parks. This is one of the guidlines Caches may not be placed more than 3 feet from a designated trail.

This is a link to the state guidelines.

 

 

 

State parks dept

Edited May 29, 2009 by JohnnyVegas

[+Chrysalides]

The Californian state parks dept has delt a blow to geocaching in California state parks. This is one of the guidlines Caches may not be placed more than 3 feet from a designated trail.

Most of the guidelines are common sense though. I don't like the "3 feet" restriction, but some geocachers have shown less than common sense in placing and searching for caches.

 

"Virtual caches are encouraged". Someone needs to read the guidelines again.

 

I wouldn't call it a blow to geocaching in California state parks. They could ban all geocaching after all, just like National Parks.

Edited May 29, 2009 by Chrysalides

[+SD Marc]

I don't have a problem with the guidelines. At least there are guidelines. Our local park, Cuyamaca has a Superintendent who's very pro-caching. Three feet is no problem.

 

Delt a blow? I think the opposite is true. They allow it in almost every state park, and though they are a little behind the curve with the virtuals, they didn't go for an ill-informed blanket ban like the local county parks.

[CoyoteRed]

They could ban all geocaching after all, just like National Parks.

Geocaching is not banned in National Parks.

[+Chrysalides]

They could ban all geocaching after all, just like National Parks.

Geocaching is not banned in National Parks.

Am I mistaken? Or are you disagreeing with my imprecise terminology? I thought physical caches are not allowed in national parks. At least in the few I've checked.

[jholly]

They could ban all geocaching after all, just like National Parks.

Geocaching is not banned in National Parks.

Am I mistaken? Or are you disagreeing with my imprecise terminology? I thought physical caches are not allowed in national parks. At least in the few I've checked.

 

Until recently physical caches have been banned, virtuals have been allowed. Yosemite has about 12. The recent change has been to allow local managers to set the policy. Now ask yourself the question, if your a local manager would you risk becoming a nail by allowing physical caches when the managers back in Washington are all hammers?

 

Jim

[+hydnsek]

They could ban all geocaching after all, just like National Parks.

Geocaching is not banned in National Parks.

Am I mistaken? Or are you disagreeing with my imprecise terminology? I thought physical caches are not allowed in national parks. At least in the few I've checked.

Under current NPS policy, there is no blanket ban on geocaching in national parks. Rather, individual parks can decide whether or not to allow geocaching. NPS geocaching guidance: http://www.nps.gov/policy/GPSguidance.pdf

 

For instance, North Cascades NP is on the verge of allowing physical caches - but then, they are rather remote and want to drive awareness and visitation (and funding) of their park. Mt Rainier NP, otoh, is unlikely to ever allow physical caches, as they get all the traffic they can handle; but they have several great virtuals and earthcaches.

[+Cache O'Plenty]

Baby steps here. This is a great start. I'm sure the admin folks are a bit hesitant/cautious to grant full access at the get-go. They may want to see how it goes with these general guidelines. Like giving a teenager a little rope at a time. Not enough to hang himself.

 

As noted, they could have just opted out completely and said "NO, NO, NO".

 

Three feet might be a bit restrictive in some areas but they had to start somewhere.

 

Agree about the virtuals. That is outdated info. However, the follow-on link notes that they are "managed at Waymarking.com". So, they know that GeoCaching.com is a different activity. Anything already there (our virtuals) is just fine, of course. But they need to know that virtuals is not an option anymore. They may think that since virtuals are still allowed, it's easier to be more restrictive on actual physical caches.

 

The 300' from streams is a bit much, in most cases, I would think. But, again, it's a start.

 

Same with structures. That could apply to any informational trail sign if they want to be strict.

 

At least they didn't mandate "permits"! If we screw this up, they will. And, at worst, recind the guidelines altogether.

 

But, again, it's a start! It's up to us to prove we can be responsible.

Edited May 29, 2009 by Cache O'Plenty

[+Chrysalides]

Thanks jholly and hydnsek for the clarification on national parks.

[+JohnnyVegas]

There are hundreds of caches within a few miles of me that are more than 3 feet from a trail, they are also within 300 feet of a lake.

What defines an established trail? is it only a trail that is on a map, most maps do not show all the trails in an area. Most if the well established trails I have seen do not have any place to hide a cache within 3 feet of a trail. IT also reads like if the cache is more than a one for difficulty it may not be allowed.

The final decision is up to the local park supervisor to decide what goes and what stays. So what may be allowed in one park may not be allowed in the park next to it.

 

Sure they say they want us to be able to cache in the park, but then they include restrictions that will make it a very boring pastime to cache in a park.

[Clan Riffster]

When I was working with Seminole County Natural Lands, helping them create a geocaching policy, one point they were stuck on was trail proximity. They refused to budge on wanting caches within 6' of a marked trail. When I asked them what their logic was, they said it would reduce social trails. When I got done laughing, I predicted that their policy was going to create the very problem they were trying to avoid. A cache that is close to a trail will get visited by folks travelling the same route, which will, in time, come to resemble the nearby trail, denuded of vegitation. One that is far away from the trails will get visited by many different routes, lessening the impact. They told me (what they considered to be) a horror story, of discovering that geocaching was taking place on "their" properties by following a social trail, finding a cache at the end of it. When they told me which cache it was, I pointed out that the cache that caused them so much anguish was only 5' from a marked trail. Their vacuous looks were followed by my pointing out that their own experience proves that their resolution will not have the desired effect. Yet still, they insist on the proximity rule. Go figure.

[+J-Way]

Clan Riffster: Logic does not apply to protectors of the environment. I'm working on a project in the desert where we already have final approval for construction. This approval was obtained a few years ago when the project was first proposed, but then the project was shelved for a while. Construction will involve building temporary construction pads at 300+ sites, obliterating everything in about a 200-ft square around each site. Plus access roads to the site. Plus other construction damage. We're supposed to start digging this fall.

 

We needed geotechnical information for design, so we had to get soil borings at 150ish of the sites. In spite of already having approval for construction, it took FOUR MONTHS and many many thousands of dollars to get approval for a drilling crew to punch a 12"ø hole in the ground. We finally had to send geotech representives, reps from our client, reps from BLM, and reps from various cultural and environmental groups on a tour to visit each site to look at and approve every single boring site, access route, etc. More monitors will have to follow along with each drilling crew every day, I guess to make sure a tortoise doesn't sprint out of his burrow and attack them.

 

The irony was that after spending TWO WEEKS in the Sonora desert in May, having to move test locations to protect this bush or that empty hole or the possibly painted rock over there, we get to an area where another company has already started construction on a similar adjacent project. The looks on their faces when they saw the destruction from the existing construction pads was almost worth the heat. Our pads will be even bigger. The bush, hole, and possibly painted rock will be obliterated in a few months.

 

Yes, this survey needs to be done before construction to keep from damaging sensitive areas of the environment. But don't waste money by re-doing surveys and delaying projects. I'm really not surprised that California is going bankrupt.

Edited May 29, 2009 by J-Way

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

They could ban all geocaching after all, just like National Parks.

Geocaching is not banned in National Parks.

Am I mistaken? Or are you disagreeing with my imprecise terminology? I thought physical caches are not allowed in national parks. At least in the few I've checked.

Under current NPS policy, there is no blanket ban on geocaching in national parks. Rather, individual parks can decide whether or not to allow geocaching. NPS geocaching guidance: http://www.nps.gov/policy/GPSguidance.pdf

 

For instance, North Cascades NP is on the verge of allowing physical caches - but then, they are rather remote and want to drive awareness and visitation (and funding) of their park. Mt Rainier NP, otoh, is unlikely to ever allow physical caches, as they get all the traffic they can handle; but they have several great virtuals and earthcaches.

This is true. I have personally found and logged caches placed in NPS-managed national parks in the Rocky Mountain states, so no one can ever try to tell me that all caches are banned in all national parks.

[Keystone]

I am moving this thread from the Geocaching Topics forum to the West and Southwest forum.

[+ShowStop]

I just don't see why you would call that an extreme restriction. The parks want to limit off-trail travel. Seems like a reasonable request to me. Limits the various geo-trails you see these days. It will obviously limit where you can place a cache and probably limit the cache size, but that will leaves plenty of opportunities.

[+Kealia]

I agree that this is a positive step. We have APPROVAL for geocaching in State Parks!!

 

Some restrictions apply, but they are at the discretion of the superintendent. All in all, this is good.

[+solo63137]

Just another example of the man trying to hold me down...

 

1st I was real into riding 4wheelers, then I started hearing it about that,

 

2nd I got really in to competition Car Stereo and cruising than I started hearing about that

 

3rd I got really into guns and target shooting, well, the 2nd amendment fight will never end till we don't have one...

 

Now I get into geocaching and I start hearing about someone wantint to impose restrictions on that...

 

I'm not supprised...

[+piper28]

When I was working with Seminole County Natural Lands, helping them create a geocaching policy, one point they were stuck on was trail proximity. They refused to budge on wanting caches within 6' of a marked trail. When I asked them what their logic was, they said it would reduce social trails. When I got done laughing, I predicted that their policy was going to create the very problem they were trying to avoid. A cache that is close to a trail will get visited by folks travelling the same route, which will, in time, come to resemble the nearby trail, denuded of vegitation. One that is far away from the trails will get visited by many different routes, lessening the impact. They told me (what they considered to be) a horror story, of discovering that geocaching was taking place on "their" properties by following a social trail, finding a cache at the end of it. When they told me which cache it was, I pointed out that the cache that caused them so much anguish was only 5' from a marked trail. Their vacuous looks were followed by my pointing out that their own experience proves that their resolution will not have the desired effect. Yet still, they insist on the proximity rule. Go figure.

 

To be honest, i think that the 10-30 foot range or so seem to be the worst offenders for creating a social trail to them. Probably because people all look for the easiest spot to work their way back in, and that tends to be the same spot for everyone. It's generally not that hard to find the spot everyone went looking for the cache from the trail. Farther back maybe people will start taking different routes, hard to say.

[+edscott]

 

To be honest, i think that the 10-30 foot range or so seem to be the worst offenders for creating a social trail to them. Probably because people all look for the easiest spot to work their way back in, and that tends to be the same spot for everyone. It's generally not that hard to find the spot everyone went looking for the cache from the trail. Farther back maybe people will start taking different routes, hard to say.

 

Yes it they really knew how people tend to navigate, banning caches within 300 feet of a trail would be the better solution.

[+JohnnyVegas]

 

To be honest, i think that the 10-30 foot range or so seem to be the worst offenders for creating a social trail to them. Probably because people all look for the easiest spot to work their way back in, and that tends to be the same spot for everyone. It's generally not that hard to find the spot everyone went looking for the cache from the trail. Farther back maybe people will start taking different routes, hard to say.

 

Yes it they really knew how people tend to navigate, banning caches within 300 feet of a trail would be the better solution.

lets say there is a place were some one wants to hide a cache with 3 feet of an established trail; but the trail is within 300 feet of a water feature. Then according to the state guide lines you cannot place a cache there, because the trail is within 300 feet of a water feature.

There is an area in the Folsom Ca. area in which almost every established trail is with 300 feet of a lake aka: water feature.

Edited May 30, 2009 by JohnnyVegas

[+geodarts]

Recognizing and allowing caching is a start. As I posted in another thread about this topic, I had been planning on placing a Wherigo in a local state park, involving a search for a cryptid, but cryptids never can be found three feet from a designated trail. So I will have to find a new place and start over again. And it is also hard place an ammo can three feet away from a trail. Fort Ord has a 20 foot limit. Some other regional parks have a 250 foot limit. Perhaps that distance will later be modified.

 

I had been wondering how the "designated" trail might work. An existing trail? An official trail? One that appears on a park map and has a name? Some new caches seem to be leaning to the existing trail idea. Something more than a deer trail, I suppose.

 

One park in my region, Diablo, has an article in their paper that they will be refining their own individual guidelines, but for now the state ones should be followed. However they did include an extra wrinkle to the effect that owners should remove their caches in a reasonable amount of time. I am not sure what that was referring to -- but it appears to be directed to new caches. Nobody seems quite sure what to do about the existing caches.

 

But the real killer is just when the start parks make some move to recognize caching, the governor says he will close all but a few.

Edited June 1, 2009 by Erickson

[+Touchstone]

But the real killer is just when the start parks make some move to recognize caching, the governor says he will close all but a few.

 

That also seems like a greater threat to Geocaching in State Parks than the Guidelines I read.

 

Then again, how do you "close" a State Park. It will be interesting to see how this is implemented.

[+geodarts]

But the real killer is just when the start parks make some move to recognize caching, the governor says he will close all but a few.

 

That also seems like a greater threat to Geocaching in State Parks than the Guidelines I read.

 

Then again, how do you "close" a State Park.

 

The obvious answer is to rent some of them out to marijuana growers, who will be moving into the land in any event. Angel Island is probably the easiest to close, but they just spent a lot of money on a new immigration center. And the idea seems like posturing, because parks raise more money in related tax revenue than they cost to operate. But there are a lot of politics to play out and I am not too worried. Yet.

[+Arrow42]

But the real killer is just when the start parks make some move to recognize caching, the governor says he will close all but a few.

 

That also seems like a greater threat to Geocaching in State Parks than the Guidelines I read.

 

Then again, how do you "close" a State Park. It will be interesting to see how this is implemented.

 

The irony is if they close the state park they would basically be giving up any control over geocaching at all. They can't forbid you from entering the land - they just won't be maintaining any improvements any more. If it's no longer a state park, then it's just public land and the restrictions won't apply any more.

[+Cache O'Plenty]

Good luck with that. Most likely, they will just chain off the entrances and post No Trespassing signs.

[+JohnnyVegas]

Good luck with that. Most likely, they will just chain off the entrances and post No Trespassing signs.

So all person has to do is park outside the park and walk in. If there are not rangers to patrol the parks how are they going to find people that walk in. The one park that is close to me has a lake in it. The lake includes the water sports dept. for the university I attend. This facility is open to the public. All any has to do is take they kayak or canoe or rent on there. Then they can just paddle into the park.

[+Renegade Knight]

They could ban all geocaching after all, just like National Parks.

Geocaching is not banned in National Parks.

Am I mistaken? Or are you disagreeing with my imprecise terminology? I thought physical caches are not allowed in national parks. At least in the few I've checked.

 

Until recently physical caches have been banned, virtuals have been allowed. Yosemite has about 12. The recent change has been to allow local managers to set the policy. Now ask yourself the question, if your a local manager would you risk becoming a nail by allowing physical caches when the managers back in Washington are all hammers?

 

Jim

 

Fair summary.

[+Renegade Knight]

The Californian state parks dept has delt a blow to geocaching in California state parks. This is one of the guidlines Caches may not be placed more than 3 feet from a designated trail.

This is a link to the state guidelines.

 

 

 

State parks dept

 

Designated trails are an interesting concept. Yellowstone has some of what I would think are designated trails. As in stay on the trail or you will be boiled alive, or fall through the crust and be boiled alive. Yet even there you can get a back country permit and wander across the landscape.

 

Can California even define a designated trail?. I'm thinking that those are the trailes you are not allowed to be off of under penalty of law. The forest service had one in the redwoods. My family got yelled at for trying to take a closer look at a banana slug.

[+Renegade Knight]

Good luck with that. Most likely, they will just chain off the entrances and post No Trespassing signs.

They may be tempted but the reality is if the land serves no public use, it should be sold. Open space without maintaned improvments is a perfectly valid public use. "No trespassing" for no particualr reason isn't a public use. We are wasting money on signs.

[+JohnnyVegas]

Good luck with that. Most likely, they will just chain off the entrances and post No Trespassing signs.

They may be tempted but the reality is if the land serves no public use, it should be sold. Open space without maintaned improvments is a perfectly valid public use. "No trespassing" for no particualr reason isn't a public use. We are wasting money on signs.

Maybe the state could sell naming rights to the parks like some cities do with sports stadiums. Maybe there could be a Ground Speak park in Ca.

[+geodarts]

A recent article on how closures might affect local parks indicated that the parking, visitors center, restrooms, and other amenities would be closed. But it would be possible to hike into parks. As a practical matter, it could not work any other way -- particularly for the state parks that are surrounded by open space watersheds, national recreation areas, and the like. The trail system is too interconnected to do it any other way.

 

But if the parks are closed, the infrastructure will continue to deteriorate and reopening them will end up costing much more money. Already, there has been so much deferred maintenance that much of the state park system is in poor condition.

 

My assemblyperson introduced a bill to add 10 or 15 dollars to the vehicle licensing fee to pay for the state parks and to allow all California residents to use them for free. Our local paper believes that user fees should be hiked to where they are self-sustaining, but that seems like it would cut down on the number of users and require even more fees (would I pay more than the current fees to get a single cache?). It also ignores the related tax revenue that parks typically bring to an area. Meanwhile, the politicians are stuck in the middle of the budget crisis, no compromise seems in sight, and the state is planning to issue IOUs in the near future.

Edited June 26, 2009 by Erickson

[+paleolith]

There's now a regular web page rather than a PDF with the guidelines. There are some significant differences. Most notably, the web page makes it clear that what they have published are guidelines for the District Supervisors, who are expected to use their discretion. Has anyone here discussed the matter with a District Supervisor?

 

The web page is undated, but appears to be a later version. They now list Waymarking.com as the place to go for virtual caches. In the past, people here have said that the existence of virtual caches was used by land managers as a reason for not needing to allow virtual caches. Now it seems that Waymarking.com is being used in the same way.

 

They include an FAQ that's mostly copied from Groundspeak IIRC. It's uncredited, implying that they take responsibility for the content. Of interest, the FAQ mentions that some caches may require orienteering or special equipment to reach. Within three feet of a designated trail? Hmm ...

 

They do have a list of state parks which allow geocaching, along with any restrictions, which I see as positive. They list 126 units, 7 of which say virtuals only, and some others restrict physical caches in certain parts of the park. Some units are listed as virtuals only. None of the state parks in the Santa Monica Mountains are listed one way or the other, which I can only assume means they have made no decision -- and they probably have the highest concentration of caches in the entire SP system.

 

If the 3' and 300' guidelines are enacted and enforced retroactively in the Santa Monica Mountains, and if the 300' applies to seasonal streams, I'd guess that 95% of the caches would have to be removed. Many caches that we think of as trailside caches are more than 3' from the trail. All of Sycamore Canyon Trail (a road, part paved and part dirt) would be off limits. MASH Cache, one of the oldest and most popular in the area, is within 300' of Malibu Creek (which is perennial, or nearly so).

 

The concerns about distance from trails and streams seem to have been written with wetter parts of the state in mind. And in my observation, if they want to avoid social trails, they will have to ban wild animals. And when we brush out trails, we try to get the trimmings more than 3' from the trail.

 

Edward

[+geodarts]

I recently visited two state parks and none of the new caches (published since the guidelines) were within three feet from a designated trail. Is this being enforced or considered by reviewers?

Edited July 12, 2009 by Erickson

[calgriz]

AS a californian who wanted to know desparately about this topic....why does this forums search software return so many false negatives over and over.......till I tried the sixth times and fouond this informational thread before I put out my Californian park GCs.

[+Touchstone]

AS a californian who wanted to know desparately about this topic....why does this forums search software return so many false negatives over and over.......till I tried the sixth times and fouond this informational thread before I put out my Californian park GCs.

 

Sorry to hear you had a hard time finding this information calgriz. Here's the official word on the subject:

 

Geocaching in California State Parks

 

California State Parks that allow Geocaching

 

Good luck!