Forest Service taking caches

[knowschad]

Yeah, wilderness is not allowed, but for crying out loud, 14 visits in 7 years certainly is not a lot of traffic. Probably 10 times that number of hikers in the area. I really don't see how the cache is contributing any problems to the environment.

 

Jim

 

Flip side: that's roughly two people per year that might be inconvenienced by this in the future.

 

(IF they even knew that they were being inconvenienced, which they won't, because the cache has been archived.) The greater good here is keeping some pristine land for our chinldren (did I spell that right?) )

[+Renegade Knight]

From the Wilderness Act of 1964...

DEFINITION OF WILDERNESS

 

© A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.

I.E., we can leave nothing behind after we visit. That is Federal Law, subject to congressional modification....

 

Thanks for the link. I did a bit of reading. One interesting bit was this:

 

Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to be in interference with the purpose for which national forests are established as set forth in the Act of June 4, 1897 (30 Stat. 11), and the Multiple Use Sustained-Yield Act of June 12, 1960 (74 Stat. 215)

 

I looked up the multiple use sustained yield act:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_Use_...eld_Act_of_1960

 

Since geocaching is a sustainable casual recreational service that the forest and wilderness can offer it appears to be fully in the interest of the forest service to accommodate caching in wilderness. Especially since caches are hidden and thus unobtrusive.

 

While some folks think of the wilderness as pristine, it's merely a land use designation and here in Idaho we have wilderness air strips that are maintained by the states. Caches of supplies no doubt grace these locations.

 

For now the may be pulling caches but in time the will have a public comment period on how to best manage their lands and cachers can make their case. All caches are temporary, they are hidden, and the practice is sustainable. Perfect for wilderness.

[+Renegade Knight]

....The greater good here is keeping some pristine land for our chinldren (did I spell that right?) )

 

The ideal is: Preservation for the people, not from the people. Protecting land from us today so that our children can't use it either, serves no purpose whatsoever.

 

Geocaching is an ideal use of federal land. It's a sustainable casual recreational activity with such a small foot print that it's compatible with every other land use other than say strip mining.

[+ecanderson]

I have caches all over the back country up there, and most of them are onlly visited once or twice a year.

That's because most of them are 27 miles from any known trailhead, on nearly non-existent paths, uphill both ways! Wish you were still here...

[knowschad]

....The greater good here is keeping some pristine land for our chinldren (did I spell that right?) )

 

The ideal is: Preservation for the people, not from the people. Protecting land from us today so that our children can't use it either, serves no purpose whatsoever.

 

Geocaching is an ideal use of federal land. It's a sustainable casual recreational activity with such a small foot print that it's compatible with every other land use other than say strip mining.

 

You didn't say if I spelled chidlren right.

 

Please don't get me wrong. I know firsthand how the feds often become overly strict about their percieved mandates. My family has a life-lease on a cabin in a National Park. (Fortunate? I guess so, even though it was our property at one time) Depending on who the park superintendant is that year (and who's in Washington at the time) we can paint the cabins only with permission, and approval of the paint color (sage green). Different agency, but not that different.

 

But I guess what I'm trying to say is... I think they (both departments) try to err on the side of protection of the land vs. the side of protection of our recreational activities, and I'm not sure that's a bad thing. Humans sure ruined a lot of land in persuit of recreation.

[+Renegade Knight]

...its the law of the land ....

 

The quick digging that I just did on the issue tells me that it's not actually the law of the land. Congress has made it clear that they intend for sustainable recreational use of wilderness to be allowed. Caching meets this test. Caches are hidden and temporary. As you have noticed the remote ones are very low impact. Less so than other activities that are specifically allowed in wilderness.

 

At first blush it appears that the Forest Service has an agency rule that they are enforcing. However at some point they will need to reconcile that rule with the higher laws referenced in the Wilderness Act that encourage them to allow activities like caching in wilderness.

 

Bottom line. Caching is an non consumptive use of our lands.

[+rjb43nh]

Renegade Knight-"Since geocaching is a sustainable casual recreational service that the forest and wilderness can offer it appears to be fully in the interest of the forest service to accommodate caching in wilderness. Especially since caches are hidden and thus unobtrusive.

 

While some folks think of the wilderness as pristine, it's merely a land use designation and here in Idaho we have wilderness air strips that are maintained by the states. Caches of supplies no doubt grace these locations."

You are missing the point. While what you say may be true of some Federal areas like National Forest, which have a multiple use policy, Wilderness areas have a different and special designation. As I pointed out in post #24, “…you have to understand there is a difference between wilderness, that is, what most people consider wild areas, and Wilderness with a capital W or Federally Designated Wilderness areas.”

 

Perhaps this will explain it better.

 

WILDERNESS ACT

Public Law 88-577 (16 U.S. C. 1131-1136)

88th Congress, Second Session

September 3, 1964

 

PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN USES

( c ) Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and, except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area.

[+mtn-man]

Since geocaching is a sustainable casual recreational service that the forest and wilderness can offer it appears to be fully in the interest of the forest service to accommodate caching in wilderness. Especially since caches are hidden and thus unobtrusive.

Yes, you can go there and use the Wilderness Area for recreation. When you leave, you have to take everything you bring out with you. You cannot leave a cache behind. I pointed this out already.

 

I think you are confused about the "comment period" also. Once the area is designated as a Wilderness Area, the deal is done. There is no additional comment period. We are literally talking about an Act of Congress here. The comment period takes place when someone proposes that an area should be a Wilderness Area. Public comment is invited at that point. If they decide to go forward with the proposal, it goes as a bill to the House and the Senate for voting. If the bill is passed by Congress, it is sent to the President to be signed into law. You are talking about reversal of an Act of Congress, which means going to the Supreme Court. I gotta' tell you I'm just not seeing this going to the Supreme Court.

 

Like Tahosa and I have both said, there are plenty of other areas to hide caches out in the Forest Service managed areas and beyond. Wilderness Areas are a small subset of the lands they manage. Idaho is has one of the largest subsets with 9% of the total state designated as Wilderness Area. Still, I think you have a long way to go to fill up the other 91% of Idaho with caches (48,410,000 acres).

 

I don't understand why it is so hard to respect a land manager's wishes. They can very easily decide to ban geocaches in total in all National Forests. I know, I've been there and fought that battle. I don't care to have to do it again.

[+Renegade Knight]

Since geocaching is a sustainable casual recreational service that the forest and wilderness can offer it appears to be fully in the interest of the forest service to accommodate caching in wilderness. Especially since caches are hidden and thus unobtrusive.

Yes, you can go there and use the Wilderness Area for recreation. When you leave, you have to take everything you bring out with you. You cannot leave a cache behind. I pointed this out already.

 

I think you are confused about the "comment period" also. Once the area is designated as a Wilderness Area, the deal is done. There is no additional comment period. We are literally talking about an Act of Congress here. ...

 

Your clarity on the subject has led you to your own area of confusion. Let me help you with your clarity problem.

 

Government agencies have to review their land use plans every so often. When they do, they take public comments. When they do that, we all can comment that caching is a wonderful use of the Wilderness lands as I laid out in an earlier post.

 

When you read the Wilderness act you should have noticed that it's a land use designation that does have allowable uses. Because of those allowable uses The Forest service will revisit them, look at their impacts, and have a comment period at some point. Perhaps they won't need to do it as often as say the BLM on their lands, but I assure you they do, and if they don't, the issue can be forced.

 

Now if I had more info on the rule that the forest service is pointing at the says caches are illegal I could shed some light there as well. Federal Law has different levels. Agency rules are not allowed to over ride congressional bills. For the rule (assuming it's a rule, I do need to see the source of the rule to know this for sure) to trump a Congressional Bill such as the Wilderness act which appears to encourage activities such as caching, it would have to come from a congressional bill itself.

 

Lastly we can work with land managers, and those land managers can work with us. I don't know what you do in your day job, but in mine as a public servant I do answer to the public.

[+Renegade Knight]

Renegade Knight-"Since geocaching is a sustainable casual recreational service that the forest and wilderness can offer it appears to be fully in the interest of the forest service to accommodate caching in wilderness. Especially since caches are hidden and thus unobtrusive.

 

While some folks think of the wilderness as pristine, it's merely a land use designation and here in Idaho we have wilderness air strips that are maintained by the states. Caches of supplies no doubt grace these locations."

You are missing the point. While what you say may be true of some Federal areas like National Forest, which have a multiple use policy, Wilderness areas have a different and special designation. As I pointed out in post #24, “…you have to understand there is a difference between wilderness, that is, what most people consider wild areas, and Wilderness with a capital W or Federally Designated Wilderness areas.”

 

Perhaps this will explain it better.

 

WILDERNESS ACT

Public Law 88-577 (16 U.S. C. 1131-1136)

88th Congress, Second Session

September 3, 1964

 

PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN USES

( c ) Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and, except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area.

 

It very clearly lays out Wilderness (with any W) as a land use designation with allowable uses.

You will note that I referenced another earlier congressional bill that says the act can't get in the way of certain land uses, and that caching fits the spirit and intent of both bills as a result.

 

What exactly is your point?

[+mtn-man]

Government agencies have to review their land use plans every so often. When they do, they take public comments. When they do that, we all can comment that caching is a wonderful use of the Wilderness lands as I laid out in an earlier post.

 

When you read the Wilderness act you should have noticed that it's a land use designation that does have allowable uses. Because of those allowable uses The Forest service will revisit them, look at their impacts, and have a comment period at some point. Perhaps they won't need to do it as often as say the BLM on their lands, but I assure you they do, and if they don't, the issue can be forced.

I've never heard of any review for any Wilderness Area that invited public comments, ever. Can you point to a single one? How do you force one?

 

Now if I had more info on the rule that the forest service is pointing at the says caches are illegal I could shed some light there as well. Federal Law has different levels. Agency rules are not allowed to over ride congressional bills. For the rule (assuming it's a rule, I do need to see the source of the rule to know this for sure) to trump a Congressional Bill such as the Wilderness act which appears to encourage activities such as caching, it would have to come from a congressional bill itself.

It is in the Wilderness Act itself. From page 1 of this topic...

From the Wilderness Act of 1964...

DEFINITION OF WILDERNESS

 

© A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.

I.E., we can leave nothing behind after we visit. That is Federal Law, subject to congressional modification.

You can visit these areas and hike, fish and in many cases hunt in season. You take everything with you when you leave and you leave no trace that you were there. "Untrammeled by man" means leaving no containers, hidden or not. Keep in mind that just because you think it is hidden well doesn't mean an animal won't find it. Many containers have been found by animals of all sizes and destroyed.

 

To force the issue, you have to allow all other users of Wilderness Areas the ability to also leave things behind in Wilderness Areas also. Honestly, I like to go to them because of the regulations within them. I like the natural experience I get when I am there. You are going to run into a ton of resistance if you try to force the issue, and frankly I would imagine you would run into resistance from some of the geocaching community itself.

[+rjb43nh]

Renegade Knight-“It very clearly lays out Wilderness (with any W) as a land use designation with allowable uses.

You will note that I referenced another earlier congressional bill that says the act can't get in the way of certain land uses, and that caching fits the spirit and intent of both bills as a result.”

 

What exactly is your point?

Wrong. You still fail to see there is a difference between any wild area and Federally Designated Wilderness. Other than your mistaken ‘feeling’ that geocaching should be allowed in Wilderness can you offer any hard evidence that this is a fact?

 

WMNF Geocaching

"Geocaching is not allowed within designated Wilderness or alpine areas of the White Mountain National Forest. (Alpine is defined as an area where trees are 8 feet tall or less.) This prohibition is designed to protect fragile areas from too much use or signs of human presence.

Geocaching is currently allowed in other parts of the National Forest. To help ensure that it stays that way, practice Leave No Trace ethics every time you go out.”

• The following restrictions apply to all Congressionally Designated Wildernesses: No storing of equipment, personal property or supplies including geocaching and letter boxing

 

Have you got the point yet?

Edited August 23, 2009 by rjb43nh

[+ironman114]

Well if the geocachers can disregard a basic rule of the wilderness areas why can I ignore the rule about stomping around with my Hummer and building fires and not returning the site to its natural appearance.

These rules are simple in concept and strict in enforcement. There are hundreds of square miles (and even a few round ones) which it is perfectly legitamite to place a cache why does ANYBODY feel they have the right to disregard the rules...of a wilderness area, of goecaching site like this and then to bitch and moan about it...golly, people get yer heads on straight. There are some areas that it is inappropriate, illegal and irresponsible to place caches.

I ride a mountain bike but I Do NOT ride in wilderness areas cause that's the rules.

Jeff

The Chicagoan

 

Currently there is some dichotomy is the the National Forest Service and in wilderness areas:

 

It is perfectly acceptable to leave a container on a mountain peak of 2,000 feet or more in a wilderness area and call it a "PEAK REGISTER".

 

But leave a container in the same wilderness on a peak and say it is a "log only" cache AND a peak register and it is not allowed by the NFS or GC.com!

 

Why is it OK to leave a container and call it a Peak register but not a Geocache?????

 

Both are objects left in the wilderness for the purpose of writing on a piece of paper to log your visit. One is acceptable and the other is not.

 

I see this as being two faced on both agencies involved.

[+rjb43nh]

ironman114-"Currently there is some dichotomy is the the National Forest Service and in wilderness areas..."

There is no National Forest Service. There is the USFS, United States Forest Service, part of USDA.

ironman114-"It is perfectly acceptable to leave a container on a mountain peak of 2,000 feet or more in a wilderness area and call it a "PEAK REGISTER".

I'm sure if you bring specific examples to the attention of the Wilderness Supervisor in the District Ranger's office, they will see that “peak registers”, if they are in Federally Designated Wilderness Areas, are removed, the same as they do when they discover geocaches that have been there for years.

Edited August 23, 2009 by rjb43nh

[+Sagefox]

I changed my mind about this post.

Edited August 24, 2009 by Team Sagefox

[+Isonzo Karst]

ironman114, Geocaching.com isn't an "agency" - it's a private, for profit, corporation. I know that this seems like nitpicking over grammar, but words matter. I see people use Park, Forest and Preserve as if they were interchangable; while in the nature of their management mandates, they certainly aren't, at any level. "Agency" in this context suggests Public Agency.

 

In any case, I'd tend to agree with rjb43nh's post above. I doubt that new peak registers can be placed in Wilderness areas. It's possible that existing registers are being quietly ignored (grandfathered) or perhaps they will be removed.

[+DragonsWest]

The bitter irony is how fast the Dept of the Interior has sold blocks of land to mining/logging interests over the years for a pittance per acre. While driving across northern Nevada I saw a mountain being leveled and rebuilt of it's rubble.

 

Protect the lands, sure, but encourage use of the land so people actually value it, otherwise they'll adopt the attitude, "Why save it? I can't do anything with it."

[+AstroDav]

The park manager/ranger/whatever's email address is amandaparker@fs.fed.us for anyone who feels she needs to be approached.

 

And that's the very LAST thing that the geocaching community needs to do....start encouraging a bunch of hate mail to her for what she did. While I personally think her post was a bit unprofessional & snobby....it's just a geocache, which MIGHT actually be in a restricted area.

 

The geo-community representing itself in a very professional & non-argumentative manner will go ALOT further towards getting more areas opened up for our sport than sending hate mail out to some official like you suggest.

[+paleolith]

The National Park Service has basically a blanket prohibition on all geocaching and anything left unattended on their lands is considered to be abandoned property or trash and it will be removed.

Technically it is now up to the park supervisor. The link to the new policy was widely posted here last year. In practice I don't know of any NPS areas which are allowing geocaching, but it's not quite a blanket prohibition.

The USFS is under the Department of Agriculture and they have a multiple-use policy which does allow geocaching. They still can restrict cache placement in environmentally sensitive areas and do ban caching in all Federally Designated Wilderness areas.

The USFS definitely does not (at least yet) ban geocaching in all USFS Wilderness areas. My impression is that it's usually banned in the popular wilderness areas, but not in the less visited ones. The latter may be just because there's been no perceived need to address it.

 

I'll repeat my strong support of the (capital W) Wilderness Areas and the restrictions that go with them.

 

I'll also repeat the suggestion that the CO should remove the out-of-line log comments. I thought of making a refutation note on the cache but decided I didn't want those notes dignified with a response.

 

Edward

[+bittsen]

The park manager/ranger/whatever's email address is amandaparker@fs.fed.us for anyone who feels she needs to be approached.

 

And that's the very LAST thing that the geocaching community needs to do....start encouraging a bunch of hate mail to her for what she did. While I personally think her post was a bit unprofessional & snobby....it's just a geocache, which MIGHT actually be in a restricted area.

 

The geo-community representing itself in a very professional & non-argumentative manner will go ALOT further towards getting more areas opened up for our sport than sending hate mail out to some official like you suggest.

 

Why would someone jump to the conclusion that "approach" meant to harass or be argumentive? You can approach someone for clarification. You could approach someone to be educated on the law. You could approach someone to ask for an appeal.

 

Personally, I wrote an email asking for any sort of clarification of what law was used as a reference to remove the cache. I received no clarification. I found that very unprofessional but since I don't have a dog in the fight (to coin an old phrase) I chose to not ask again.

[+Rockin Roddy]

The park manager/ranger/whatever's email address is amandaparker@fs.fed.us for anyone who feels she needs to be approached.

 

And that's the very LAST thing that the geocaching community needs to do....start encouraging a bunch of hate mail to her for what she did. While I personally think her post was a bit unprofessional & snobby....it's just a geocache, which MIGHT actually be in a restricted area.

 

The geo-community representing itself in a very professional & non-argumentative manner will go ALOT further towards getting more areas opened up for our sport than sending hate mail out to some official like you suggest.

 

Why would someone jump to the conclusion that "approach" meant to harass or be argumentive? You can approach someone for clarification. You could approach someone to be educated on the law. You could approach someone to ask for an appeal.

 

Personally, I wrote an email asking for any sort of clarification of what law was used as a reference to remove the cache. I received no clarification. I found that very unprofessional but since I don't have a dog in the fight (to coin an old phrase) I chose to not ask again.

 

I, for the life of me, can't understand why someone with ZERO info and ZERO involvement would jump into this. What you should be doing is following what many others have said, which is let those involved handle the situation and NOT send emails which might be deemed harassing and yes, argumentative. Truly, if you're email to this lady is even close to the posts I've seen, you aren't helping one bit!

 

Asking others to follow your lead and send emails...bad plan. Let those involved and able to handle this matter responsibly handle it and please, don't make the situation worse! It's disturbing that you would take it upon yourself to email someone who could do much worse for our fun, even worse that you'd encourage others to do the same. It's even worse that you'd pretend you were trying to be helpful when IMHO, that's not the case at all.

[+WebChimp]

What you should be doing is following what many others have said, which is let those involved handle the situation..................

 

Asking others to follow your lead and send emails...bad plan.

 

Amen to both points.

 

The CO and the ranger who contacted him are the only ones who should be involved with this.

[+bittsen]

So you both are not curious as to what law or laws are being broken in the placement of the cache? I would think that supporters of geocaching would be interested in what regulations would forbid or allow geoaching in different areas of forests.

Isn't that what "obtaining permission" is all about?

 

Do I encourage people to stand up for themselves, yes. Do I encourage people to educate themselves, yes. Are my actions (or inactions) specifically related to geocaching, no.

 

My questions about the unspecified laws are valid. Just because an "official" says something is wrong, doesn't mean it truly is. I have been to court far too many times to know that not all officers of the law actually know what the law is.

 

Perhaps our opinions differ but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm wrong, or that you are either.

This post was not intended to offend anyone.

 

edited for typo

Edited August 26, 2009 by bittsen

[+Rockin Roddy]

So you both are not curious as to what law or laws are being broken in the placement of the cache? I would think that supporters of geocaching would be interested in what regulations would forbid or allow geoaching in different areas of forests.

Isn't that what "obtaining permission" is all about?

 

Do I encourage people to stand up for themselves, yes. Do I encourage people to educate themselves, yes. Are my actions (or inactions) specifically related to geocaching, no.

 

My questions about the unspecified laws are valid. Just because an "official" says something is wrong, doesn't mean it truly is. I have been to court far too many times to know that not all officers of the law actually know what the law is.

 

Perhaps our opinions differ but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm wrong, or that you are either.

This post was not intended to offend anyone.

 

edited for typo

 

Seems you've been to or seen far too many of way too many things. Court, landowners who overstep their bounds....wow!

 

If you truly want us to believe that's what your intentions were when you wrote to her....OK And asking others to jump in and ask for that same clarification....just making sure the story stays the same??

 

The reason for removal isn't actually all that important at this point, estalishing a healthy and productive dialogue is! Again, leaving it to those this pertains to is best. Please don't hamper their actions with your call to harass.

[+WebChimp]

So you both are not curious as to what law or laws are being broken in the placement of the cache?

 

No. The rules for federal wilderness areas have already been referenced.

 

The ranger was doing her job, and she did it in a polite and professional manner.

 

The CO has added his take to the discussion, and he has requested, very nicely, that others stay out of this process.

 

The best thing we can do is comply with the CO's request.

[+mtn-man]

So you both are not curious as to what law or laws are being broken in the placement of the cache? I would think that supporters of geocaching would be interested in what regulations would forbid or allow geoaching in different areas of forests.

Are you actually reading this topic?

Obviously, the answer is "no". You need to go back and read it.

 

Why not just do what the cache owner asks and stay out of it.

 

Hopefully folks from the Geocaching community will not barrage the ranger with inflammatory emails since such behavior would be counterproductive.

[+Rockin Roddy]

So you both are not curious as to what law or laws are being broken in the placement of the cache? I would think that supporters of geocaching would be interested in what regulations would forbid or allow geoaching in different areas of forests.

Are you actually reading this topic?

Obviously, the answer is "no". You need to go back and read it.

 

Why not just do what the cache owner asks and stay out of it.

 

Hopefully folks from the Geocaching community will not barrage the ranger with inflammatory emails since such behavior would be counterproductive.

 

It might even be helpful to edit out the email addy he/she posted...just for good measure?

[+bittsen]

So you both are not curious as to what law or laws are being broken in the placement of the cache? I would think that supporters of geocaching would be interested in what regulations would forbid or allow geoaching in different areas of forests.

Are you actually reading this topic?

Obviously, the answer is "no". You need to go back and read it.

 

Why not just do what the cache owner asks and stay out of it.

 

Hopefully folks from the Geocaching community will not barrage the ranger with inflammatory emails since such behavior would be counterproductive.

 

WOW, you read way too much inbetween the lines of what I write.

I have done nothing beyond the one email I sent which was BEFORE the CO asked people to stay out of it. I asked the park ranger assistant to clarify the law for me, nothing more.

 

My question. If you truly believe that we should "stay out of it" then why is this thread still open?

[+rob3k]

The ranger posted another note to the cache page. Something seems to have upset her... Maybe comments about talking to her supervisors and being the ones who pay her wages?

[+mtn-man]

It might even be helpful to edit out the email addy he/she posted...just for good measure?

She posted it publicly on the cache page, so there would really be no reason.

 

WOW, you read way too much inbetween the lines of what I write.

I have done nothing beyond the one email I sent which was BEFORE the CO asked people to stay out of it. I asked the park ranger assistant to clarify the law for me, nothing more.

Based on your tone throughout almost all of your posts in this forum, I can only imagine that what you wrote would do nothing to help the cache owner and geocaching in general. Your negative attitude and combative tone carried right through to your email message I would suspect.

 

My question. If you truly believe that we should "stay out of it" then why is this thread still open?

Maybe she will find her way to this topic. Maybe she will see that the negative people are the minority. If busy-bodies like you would mind your own business, perhaps we would not now see the escalation note she has posted to the cache page. It now appears they are going to actively remove all caches from three USDA Forest Service areas and are posting about $300 fines for placing caches in these areas. If the torch and pitchfork crowd would have left her alone would we not see this? Who knows, but I think the negative comments have fueled the fire to cause a push back by them. That doesn't shock me in the least.

[+ArcherDragoon]

So you both are not curious as to what law or laws are being broken in the placement of the cache? I would think that supporters of geocaching would be interested in what regulations would forbid or allow geoaching in different areas of forests.

Are you actually reading this topic?

Obviously, the answer is "no". You need to go back and read it.

 

Why not just do what the cache owner asks and stay out of it.

 

Hopefully folks from the Geocaching community will not barrage the ranger with inflammatory emails since such behavior would be counterproductive.

 

WOW, you read way too much inbetween the lines of what I write.

I have done nothing beyond the one email I sent which was BEFORE the CO asked people to stay out of it. I asked the park ranger assistant to clarify the law for me, nothing more.

 

My question. If you truly believe that we should "stay out of it" then why is this thread still open?

I see a different purpose for threads like this...to help inform the Geocaching community of updates/changes/clarifications to laws that affect as as geocachers...not to attack and berate someone for doing their job...

[+bittsen]

The ranger posted another note to the cache page. Something seems to have upset her... Maybe comments about talking to her supervisors and being the ones who pay her wages?

 

I read her new note on the cache page and thought it was well written, informative and without emotional angst.

I was unaware that the area she was referring to was part of the national park system, which she implied it is by citing the part of the geocaching guidelines specifically prohibiting the placement of geocaches in areas managed by the National Park system. With the new information it would seem that the cache should never have been approved by the reviewer in the first place (not that I am drawing fault at the reviewer. The reviewer may not have had the proper tools to see that it was National Park juristiction).

 

I'm glad she followed up and gave us the information that helps us understand why the placement was wrong.

[+wimseyguy]

I guess you missed post 21 almost a week ago when Isonzo Karst stated it was in a wilderness and even posted a link?

 

As far as whether a volunteer reviewer should have published it; I suspect those great maps at wilderness.net weren't available to him/her back in 2002 when this one was placed.

Edited August 27, 2009 by wimseyguy

[+bittsen]

I guess you missed post 21 almost a week ago when Isonzo Karst stated it was in a wilderness and even posted a link?

 

As far as whether a volunteer reviewer should have published it; I suspect those great maps at wilderness.net weren't available to him/her back in 2002 when this one was placed.

 

No, I didn't miss it. There is wilderness and there is "wilderness".

One is protected (aparantly) and the other just means away from civilization.

Furthermore, I was unaware that the National Park laws etended beyond the National Parks.

 

I won't defend my position, nor my response to it. I am entitled to my opinion even though I am not necessarily entitled to voice it in some places. I firmy believe that there were/are some who were educated by this unfortunate situation and if I contributed to that education then, good. Educating people is a good thing.

[+mtn-man]

The ranger posted another note to the cache page. Something seems to have upset her... Maybe comments about talking to her supervisors and being the ones who pay her wages?

 

I read her new note on the cache page and thought it was well written, informative and without emotional angst.

I was unaware that the area she was referring to was part of the national park system, which she implied it is by citing the part of the geocaching guidelines specifically prohibiting the placement of geocaches in areas managed by the National Park system. With the new information it would seem that the cache should never have been approved by the reviewer in the first place (not that I am drawing fault at the reviewer. The reviewer may not have had the proper tools to see that it was National Park juristiction).

 

I'm glad she followed up and gave us the information that helps us understand why the placement was wrong.

Again, you are not reading.

 

She said nothing in her recent note about that being an NPS area. It is clearly USDA Forest Service area. She is an FS Ranger.

 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/bitterroot/recreat...ilderness.shtml

 

These are the three areas she mentions in her note. That is an FS web site. She did include a mention of the CFR law, which is the Code of Federal Regulations book. That portion of the code prohibits "Storing equipment, personal property or suppies." Geocaching is storing personal property on that government property. That is prohibited by Federal Law.

 

In 2002, there was no problem with the FS. At that time, the reviewer would have had no reason to deny the cache.

 

Your current opinion is wrong because you will not correctly understand what the problem is. Educating people *is* a good thing, yes. You need to read much more carefully and maybe you will be educated as to what the problem really is.

[+bittsen]

The ranger posted another note to the cache page. Something seems to have upset her... Maybe comments about talking to her supervisors and being the ones who pay her wages?

 

I read her new note on the cache page and thought it was well written, informative and without emotional angst.

I was unaware that the area she was referring to was part of the national park system, which she implied it is by citing the part of the geocaching guidelines specifically prohibiting the placement of geocaches in areas managed by the National Park system. With the new information it would seem that the cache should never have been approved by the reviewer in the first place (not that I am drawing fault at the reviewer. The reviewer may not have had the proper tools to see that it was National Park juristiction).

 

I'm glad she followed up and gave us the information that helps us understand why the placement was wrong.

Again, you are not reading.

 

She said nothing in her recent note about that being an NPS area. It is clearly USDA Forest Service area. She is an FS Ranger.

 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/bitterroot/recreat...ilderness.shtml

 

These are the three areas she mentions in her note. That is an FS web site. She did include a mention of the CFR law, which is the Code of Federal Regulations book. That portion of the code prohibits "Storing equipment, personal property or suppies." Geocaching is storing personal property on that government property. That is prohibited by Federal Law.

 

In 2002, there was no problem with the FS. At that time, the reviewer would have had no reason to deny the cache.

 

Your current opinion is wrong because you will not correctly understand what the problem is. Educating people *is* a good thing, yes. You need to read much more carefully and maybe you will be educated as to what the problem really is.

 

When the Park ranger assistant said "The geocaching.com website also notes that it is illegal to place caches on lands administered by the National Park Service." as part of her argument she is indicating that there are regulations specific to National Parks that she is citing in her argument that the wilderness act protects. Perhaps it is not the case. Its not important to me at this point.

 

The deed is done. We have been informed that geocaches are not allowed in protected wilderness areas. My contribution to the education of this regulation (law), whether or not you like the way I contributed, is something I can also live with.

 

I won't be drawn into an argument with a "moderator". It's a no-win for me and based on your previous post today, it's pretty obvious to me that you, personally, don't value my contributions to the forums.

It is obvious by some replies that I have received to some of my posts that some of my posts are appreciated. So, I am somewhere in the middle. I can live with that as well.

[knowschad]

Edited August 27, 2009 by knowschad

[+Castle Mischief]

 

Ditto.

[+wimseyguy]

 

Ditto.

 

Double Ditto.

[+Skarekrough]

Well if the geocachers can disregard a basic rule of the wilderness areas why can I ignore the rule about stomping around with my Hummer and building fires and not returning the site to its natural appearance.

 

I agree.

 

However one of the basic tenets of Geocaching is preservation and appreciation.

 

The bottom line is that the organization that pulled the cache likely has more to gain from working with the Geocaching Community than alienating it.

 

She's perfectly in the right. However it doesn't make it a smart decision; it's a short-sighted attempt to mark her territory and put people whose goals can coincide with her at odds.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

Ha! I know, I'm late jumping in on this............

 

my 2 cents worth (LIKE it or NOT):

 

A federal agent or employee actually doing his/her job -- be grateful for that ALONE! Whether you agree with the actions, or not.

 

Alienation is a two-way street, ya know.

 

Co's request to ALL is proper and correct (I know, I'm adding to it )

 

The radical comments that I have read, aren't helping anything (didn't read them all as I got tired of the same half-baked thought processes that are posted. Sorry if that offends, but sometimes the truth hurts).

 

Was that 2 cents worth?

[+Castle Mischief]

Well if the geocachers can disregard a basic rule of the wilderness areas why can I ignore the rule about stomping around with my Hummer and building fires and not returning the site to its natural appearance.

 

I agree.

 

However one of the basic tenets of Geocaching is preservation and appreciation.

 

The bottom line is that the organization that pulled the cache likely has more to gain from working with the Geocaching Community than alienating it.

 

She's perfectly in the right. However it doesn't make it a smart decision; it's a short-sighted attempt to mark her territory and put people whose goals can coincide with her at odds.

 

Go read the comments that have been posted as notes on the cache page. Do you think anybody seeing those kinds of remarks would be encouraged to have proper sit-down and chat with a local cacher?

 

Frankly your depiction of the Ranger as "marking her territory" is pretty short-sided. She was doing her job.

 

I'd like to thank all the clods that contributed to this train wreck of a situation. Thanks for nothing.

[+Team Cotati]

Well if the geocachers can disregard a basic rule of the wilderness areas why can I ignore the rule about stomping around with my Hummer and building fires and not returning the site to its natural appearance.

These rules are simple in concept and strict in enforcement. There are hundreds of square miles (and even a few round ones) which it is perfectly legitamite to place a cache why does ANYBODY feel they have the right to disregard the rules...of a wilderness area, of goecaching site like this and then to bitch and moan about it...golly, people get yer heads on straight. There are some areas that it is inappropriate, illegal and irresponsible to place caches.

I ride a mountain bike but I Do NOT ride in wilderness areas cause that's the rules.

Jeff

The Chicagoan

 

JM, thanks for this rational and responsible posting. Unfortunately, you will soon discover that such rules and/or laws do not apply to geocachers, only to mere mortals.

[+KBI]

I haven’t read this whole thread, so my apologies if this has already been said:

 

What really angers me is the knowledge that these tax-paid, uniformed and official cache removers don’t even treat actual trash the same way they treat Geocaches.

 

There is a pleasant little chunk of federal public forest land near me. Maybe a couple hundred acres or so. A few years ago it contained clever and entertaining caches which occasionally brought not-so-outdoorsy folks -- as well as folks like me who didn’t know it was there -- into the forest to enjoy nature and have a good time. It was wonderful, despite the fact that the land had also been apparently used for some time as a clandestine dump. I’m not talking just a few cans and wrappers here and there. I’m talking mounds of trash too big to safely climb over. Old appliances, huge car parts, construction rubbish, etc.

 

Those caches got removed. Some Federal park service employee went to the trouble to look them up, buy a GPS (With our tax dollars? You bet.), tromp through the woods and then specifically remove each cache container. (Except for the one that stumped him. Heh.) He cited the standard "abandoned property" rule.

 

Yet the actual trash remained. I know; I saw it out there after the cache purge. The cache hides were beyond the trash piles. That dadgum bureaucrat stepped over and ignored all that actual trash just to remove geocaches. That’s not an anti-trash agenda; that’s an anti-Geocaching agenda.

 

So does the Fed in this current example regularly make the same efforts at removing trash from our public lands that he made when surgically removed this particular geocache? I’d like to think so – but I’m not holding my breath.

 

Maybe we’re wasting our time with all this CITO stuff. Maybe the easiest and best way to get old washing machines and tires removed from natural areas under federal control is to simply mark the coordinates of each item of rubbish, insert a log sheet, and then list each one as an individual Geocache. Then we just sit back and let the Forest Service do its good work.

[GOF and Bacall]

I haven’t read this whole thread, so my apologies if this has already been said:

 

What really angers me is the knowledge that these tax-paid, uniformed and official cache removers don’t even treat actual trash the same way they treat Geocaches.

 

There is a pleasant little chunk of federal public forest land near me. Maybe a couple hundred acres or so. A few years ago it contained clever and entertaining caches which occasionally brought not-so-outdoorsy folks -- as well as folks like me who didn’t know it was there -- into the forest to enjoy nature and have a good time. It was wonderful, despite the fact that the land had also been apparently used for some time as a clandestine dump. I’m not talking just a few cans and wrappers here and there. I’m talking mounds of trash too big to safely climb over. Old appliances, huge car parts, construction rubbish, etc.

 

Those caches got removed. Some Federal park service employee went to the trouble to look them up, buy a GPS (With our tax dollars? You bet.), tromp through the woods and then specifically remove each cache container. (Except for the one that stumped him. Heh.) He cited the standard "abandoned property" rule.

 

Yet the actual trash remained. I know; I saw it out there after the cache purge. The cache hides were beyond the trash piles. That dadgum bureaucrat stepped over and ignored all that actual trash just to remove geocaches. That’s not an anti-trash agenda; that’s an anti-Geocaching agenda.

 

So does the Fed in this current example regularly make the same efforts at removing trash from our public lands that he made when surgically removed this particular geocache? I’d like to think so – but I’m not holding my breath.

 

Maybe we’re wasting our time with all this CITO stuff. Maybe the easiest and best way to get old washing machines and tires removed from natural areas under federal control is to simply mark the coordinates of each item of rubbish, insert a log sheet, and then list each one as an individual Geocache. Then we just sit back and let the Forest Service do its good work.

 

Thinking about these things causes that pain just behind the forehead, doesn't it? It's much easier to single out a recreational use and vilify that than it is to attempt to find the scumbags that leave those mountains of trash.

[+Inmountains]

I have had several caches STOLEN by the National Forest Service, and most of them, like this one:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...ef-64c2637b4d13

are NOT on National Forest Land. This cache is on Colorado Department of Transportation EASEMENT land, it is a HIGHWAY PULLOUT maintained by CDOT. So I just replace it and write a letter to the NFS.

 

Another trick that I do is that I place a cache right next to the NFS boundary fence. Three of my caches are less than 10 feet from the boundary fence, and you know what, the land around my caches LOOKS NO DIFFERENT than the land on the other side of the fence.

 

Some one posted that we need to "keep the land pristine for our children and grandchildren". What a load of CROCK! If you really want to keep the land pristine, eliminate the MILLIONS of heads of cattle that roam the National Forest land for 6-9 months every year. Talk about LAND EROSION, SHEESH. Keep the MILLIONS of Jeeps, Motorcycles, and ATV users out. Keep the Hunting Parties out. You ought to see the damage done by a week long Hunting Party of 10 hunters, camping the same spot. They do more damage than 1,000 Geocaches would do in 10 years. Look along the shore of lakes and streams that are popular fishing spots. You will find MILES and MILES of fishing line, hooks, lead sinkers, beer cans, trash and eroded shore line.

 

I find most National Forest personnel to be elistist, arrogant and condescending. A handful are very nice, polite and helpful. Civil Servants, what else can you expect?

[+Renegade Knight]

...These are the three areas she mentions in her note. That is an FS web site. She did include a mention of the CFR law, which is the Code of Federal Regulations book. That portion of the code prohibits "Storing equipment, personal property or suppies." Geocaching is storing personal property on that government property. That is prohibited by Federal Law....

 

Nice catch.

 

 

WILDERNESS ACT

Public Law 88-577 (16 U.S. C. 1131-1136)

88th Congress, Second Session

September 3, 1964

 

PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN USES

( c ) Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and, except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area.

 

Note that the wilderness act which trumps the CFR does actually allows everthing prohibited in the CFR for the adminstratino of the lands. They are being admistered for their use, their use is non comsumptive in nature which caching is. You can (and I am) making the case that a cache fits this description.

 

Clearly today, the CFR will trump the Act in actual practice. That's not sustainable or enforcable in the long run. It would never pass a judicial review. A single ranger though will enforce the CFR as it's their job. The only valid legal argument here is that my assertion falls short of the intent of the Wilderness Act.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I've never heard of any review for any Wilderness Area that invited public comments, ever. Can you point to a single one? How do you force one?...

 

Here you go:

http://www.eswr.com/frr/06-6784.htm

 

A single notice of a single call for public comments on a single issue in a wilderness area.

 

Federal actions require public involvement. An action can be a proposed change in how they adminster lands. Most lands that allow uses, will in time be reviewed again. Uses change, impacts are better understood, so they are revisited and public comments are again taken.

 

Wilderness is a land use designation. It's more restrictve than a National Forest or even a National Park designation. All at one time or another had, or will have public comment periods.

[+Renegade Knight]

....To force the issue, you have to allow all other users of Wilderness Areas the ability to also leave things behind in Wilderness Areas also. Honestly, I like to go to them because of the regulations within them. I like the natural experience I get when I am there. You are going to run into a ton of resistance if you try to force the issue, and frankly I would imagine you would run into resistance from some of the geocaching community itself.

 

True enough. If they consider allowing caching it would only be one recreational activity among many. The forest service plan would need to consider and balance them all.

 

Locally we have a professior who has created a strong group all about walking and hiking. He advocates closing areas to all vehicular traffic because the noise is annoying. On the other hand anywhere you can ATV you can also walk. Thus you can open up all areas to walking, and have ATV corridores as your balance. To get all views is why they have the comment period.

 

When I say "force the issue" I mean we have a way to be heard as one among many potential users of the land. Not a way to force caches, or force other uses out.

[+Renegade Knight]

...

Wrong. You still fail to see there is a difference between any wild area and Federally Designated Wilderness. Other than your mistaken ‘feeling’ that geocaching should be allowed in Wilderness can you offer any hard evidence that this is a fact? ...

 

Sorry about that. I've only been quoting from the Wilderness act and the CFR's that apply to wilderness areas that both you and mtn-man have provided. Pluse some research of my own. Apparently you are reading that in spanish because the english is telling me that I can operate a bulldozer and cut a 2 mile road if that's what it takes to adminster the land for the designated use in the opinion of the agency managing the lands.

 

When you read the law, you need to read what it says, and not what you think it says, or would like it to say. You also need to realize that the CFR is the agency intrepeation of what they think the Act is asking them to do, and may differ from the real intent of the Act and be unconsitituational. I am not sure they teach the nuances in High School Government class these days.

 

Since I work under the authority of a federal agency I get to see first hand how they change their own minds about what their own CFR's mean. It pays to keep up a good working relationship so you can flip them grief about it when you ask them to explain the most recent change in thought. Sometimes they also think their own managment is smoking crack. However since we all want to get the job done, we can usaully find common ground and move forward.

Edited August 28, 2009 by mtn-man