Forest Service taking caches

[knowschad]

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.

 

 

 

Did you read the ranger's log on the cache page:

 

 

 

...

 

I pull geocaches when I am in the area already for work. For example I was cleaning trashed sites at the lakes and burying exposed human waste when I pulled the Gem Lake cache.

 

...

 

 

 

This is not your ordinary Forest Service land... this is a dedicated wilderness area.

[DecemberSpill]

Where can one find out which local forested areas and parks are regulated by the NFS or by someone else?

[+wimseyguy]

Google National Forest Maps?

 

http://www.fs.fed.us/maps/

[+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.

 

 

Did you read the ranger's log on the cache page:

 

 

...

 

I pull geocaches when I am in the area already for work. For example I was cleaning trashed sites at the lakes and burying exposed human waste when I pulled the Gem Lake cache.

 

...

 

 

This is not your ordinary Forest Service land... this is a dedicated wilderness area.

Allow me:

 

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 ...

[knowschad]

Allow me:

 

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 ...

 

 

Allow you what? Yes... apparently THIS ranger does make the same efforts at removing trash from the public lands that she patrols as she did while "surgically removing" this particular geocache. Even to the point of burying human waste. I'd say that is doing a pretty admirable job of removing trash.

 

 

If you're keying on your use of the word, "regularily", I can't speak to that. There's a lot of USFS land. Regularily in Class 4 wilderness areas, though? Probably.

[+Castle Mischief]

This is why we can't have nice things.

Edited August 28, 2009 by Castle Mischief

[+KBI]

Allow me:

 

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 ...

Allow you what?

You asked me if I had read the ranger's log on that cache page. That was my way of saying "yes."

 

... apparently THIS ranger does make the same efforts at removing trash from the public lands that she patrols as she did while "surgically removing" this particular geocache. Even to the point of burying human waste. I'd say that is doing a pretty admirable job of removing trash.

Yes, very admirable.

 

And my point is that it's too bad his (or her) federal coworkers are not equally hard-working, consistent and fair. The way it was handled in the federal land area near me was inexcusably asinine.

[+wimseyguy]

I hope you were as eloquent in your displeasure when writing to the head rangers of those properties as you have been in here.

 

Perhaps the supervisors were unaware of the dumping grounds, and the underlings were merely following the marching orders of the supervisors with the narrowest viewpoint.

 

Broad sweeping generalizations rarely address the issue at hand. They just blur the discussion. This has been a mostly civil discussion about the actions of one ranger. And it seems in this particular case she was correct in removing a cache from a Wilderness Area where a cache should not have been placed.

Edited August 28, 2009 by wimseyguy

[+Castle Mischief]

Perhaps the supervisors were unaware of the dumping grounds, and the underlings were merely following the marching orders of the supervisors with the narrowest viewpoint.

 

When I read KBI's comment I wondered if perhaps they were underfunded and unable to transition large piles of trash and/or potentially hazardous substances? Most ammo cans I've seen come with a nice handle. Most dumped couches and dishwashers not so much.

[+Renegade Knight]

Perhaps the supervisors were unaware of the dumping grounds, and the underlings were merely following the marching orders of the supervisors with the narrowest viewpoint.

 

When I read KBI's comment I wondered if perhaps they were underfunded and unable to transition large piles of trash and/or potentially hazardous substances? Most ammo cans I've seen come with a nice handle. Most dumped couches and dishwashers not so much.

Fair point. They actually are underfunded for removing all the various dump sites they are aware of, and the future ones that haven't been found and which have yet to be created.

 

The beauty of a cache is that if they "do nothing" it will normally clean itself up. That would let them focus on actual trash and abandoned property. Heck if they gave us a smilie face and CITO caches for hauling something out of any known trash pile we would help them. They just have to list them on the caching websites. You can call that a public private partnership.

[+mtn-man]

Allow me:

 

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 ...

Allow you what?

You asked me if I had read the ranger's log on that cache page. That was my way of saying "yes."

Actually, your entire quote was...

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.

Bolded part was done by me, but is a pretty important part to omit. I understand why knowschad said what he said, since in *complete* context it seems you had not read the cache page. The "but I'm not holding my breath" part is not saying "yes".

 

As one who was threatened by the NPS people that KBI was talking about (with jailtime and fines over the phone while talking to them about final plans for a CITO, thank you very much), I can understand where you are coming from KBI. That isn't the issue here though, as that is a different organization. At least the Forests Service (FS) allows geocaching on most of their lands. There are Wilderness Areas (note the capitalization is on purpose) in both the FS land and the NPS land. The difference is that the NPS bans pretty much all geocaching. The FS only bans a small portion of their lands.

[+rjb43nh]

Renegade Knight-"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."

Actually I have been the one quoting from the Wilderness act and other official Gov sites while you are the one generating ‘facts’ out of whole cloth. I am also glad to hear that you “work under the authority of a federal agency” which means absolutely nothing. If you like name dropping, I actually worked for the USFS, WMNF and I had a long talk with the Wilderness Supervisor in another district when the regulations were changed and my cache that was in a Wilderness Area had to be removed. I have first hand experience which is far different than working “under the authority of a federal agency”, which sounds like being a second cousin, twice removed. My experience with the Wilderness Supervisor was positive because I understood their point of view and wasn't adversarial like some of the posters here. I will repeat those two quotes here because apparently they didn’t register the first time they was posted. Both quotes contradict your ‘feeling’ that geocaches somehow fit in to the spirit of the Wilderness act.

 

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

Would you please show me, in those two quotes, where it supports your claim that geocaches should be allowed in Federally Designated Wilderness Areas, as you have claimed? Remember, "you need to read what it says, and not what you think it says, or would like it to say."

Edited August 28, 2009 by rjb43nh

[+KBI]

Perhaps the supervisors were unaware of the dumping grounds, and the underlings were merely following the marching orders of the supervisors with the narrowest viewpoint.

When I read KBI's comment I wondered if perhaps they were underfunded and unable to transition large piles of trash and/or potentially hazardous substances? Most ammo cans I've seen come with a nice handle. Most dumped couches and dishwashers not so much.

Fair point. They actually are underfunded for removing all the various dump sites they are aware of, and the future ones that haven't been found and which have yet to be created.

They weren't too underfunded to acquire a GPS receiver.

[+KBI]

Allow me:

 

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 ...

Allow you what?

You asked me if I had read the ranger's log on that cache page. That was my way of saying "yes."

Actually, your entire quote was...

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.

Bolded part was done by me, but is a pretty important part to omit. I understand why knowschad said what he said, since in *complete* context it seems you had not read the cache page. The "but I'm not holding my breath" part is not saying "yes".

I am always happy when proven wrong. In this case very happy. Sounds like that particular ranger is one of the good ones.

 

As one who was threatened by the NPS people that KBI was talking about (with jailtime and fines over the phone while talking to them about final plans for a CITO, thank you very much), I can understand where you are coming from KBI. That isn't the issue here though, as that is a different organization. At least the Forests Service (FS) allows geocaching on most of their lands. There are Wilderness Areas (note the capitalization is on purpose) in both the FS land and the NPS land. The difference is that the NPS bans pretty much all geocaching. The FS only bans a small portion of their lands.

For those of us ignorant nimrods who don’t feel like taking the time to learn all the little differences between all the various government departments, federal agencies, org charts, regulation books, park types and uniform insignias ... it’s all the same.

 

All I know is some official federal wonk stepped over huge piles of garbage to get to those geocaches so he could remove them. He ignored the trashes and took the caches. The caches served a wholesome purpose; the garbage did not.

 

When he did that he seriously soured my opinion of all federal land officials. It’s going to take a lot of do-gooding on their part for me to ever get over that.

Edited August 28, 2009 by KBI

[+mrbort]

When he did that he seriously soured my opinion of all federal land officials. It’s going to take a lot of do-gooding on their part for me to ever get over that.

 

Since things like that are reciprocal, this gives us all the more incentive to adhere to not only the letter but the spirit of the law and continue to advocate responsible cache placement, maintenance and hunting. For you, what appeared to be a bad apple (who knows, could have just been following orders) has spoiled the entire barrel; let's make sure we don't do the same.

[+bittsen]

Something that just struck me as humorous is that it seems as though it is OK to hunt furry (and/or wet) creatures on federal lands but hunting ammo cans is forbidden.

 

Funny, I tell ya!

[+mrbort]

Something that just struck me as humorous is that it seems as though it is OK to hunt furry (and/or wet) creatures on federal lands but hunting ammo cans is forbidden.

 

Funny, I tell ya!

 

Apples and oranges... ammo cans didn't grow there naturally nor is there a strict regimen of population control applied to the hunting of them. Furry and wet things aren't always in the same spot. Though your point is valid in that a hunter or fisher who is oblivious to and takes no steps to mitigate the damage he or she causes is can be as bad as an equally ignorant cacher.

[+Sky King 36]

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.

 

I think this oversimplifies the issue in a way that unfairly paints the government as being draconian.

 

The ideal is: Set aside some land that we are allowed to visit, but not alter, so that our children can visit, and also not alter.

 

Now matter how small a percentage of the US surface area is set aside as protected wilderness, there are still those who believe that the land poses no value unless we use it in some way. But this is not sustainable, and the idea is that every generation should be able to visit some land that has simply never been used... Some land whose designated "use" is for us to simply enjoy its lack of having been used.

[+briansnat]

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.

 

 

Same thing happened in NY. This was early on, I think 2002. A cache was placed on land that was part of the Gateway National Recreation Area (NPS mananged). It was essentially a dumping ground. Abandoned sofas, refrigerators, tires and the cache. They had the cache removed, but last I heard the rest of the stuff is still there.

 

I think this oversimplifies the issue in a way that unfairly paints the government as being draconian.

 

The ideal is: Set aside some land that we are allowed to visit, but not alter, so that our children can visit, and also not alter.

 

That sounds nice and would be if it were true. In fact these so called wilderness areas allow a lot of activities that alter the area. The Wilderness Act of 1964 allowed for the grazing of animals in wilderness areas, as well as mining, prospecting and in certain instances, the cutting of timber, road building and building power lines. Camping and horseback riding are two other high impact activities that are allowed in wilderness areas. In comparison to all the preceding, geocaching is pretty darn benign.

 

One line of the Wilderness Act that some of these bureaucrats seem to miss reads:

 

Except as otherwise provided in this Act, wilderness areas shall be devoted to the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use.

 

Another reads:

Wilderness Areas ... shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness...

 

So I can bring a herd of cattle to graze in a wilderness area, or I can mine it, or tear up the land on horseback, but if I conceal an ammo box that nobody but geocachers is likely to ever see and that receives a handful of visits a year, then I'm impairing the area for future use and enjoyment as a wilderness.

Edited August 30, 2009 by briansnat

[+Rockin Roddy]

People seem to harp about the trash which is left behind yet caches are being removed...who's to blame for the trash to begin with? Yep, people who think they can do whatever whenever just because!

 

Wanna make nice with the PTB, try a CITO....publically announce it and make sure to coordinate your efforts with the PTB so they can see we truly do care about the lands we wish to use. A small but worthy step IMHO!

[+rjb43nh]

briansnat-

"The Wilderness Act of 1964 allowed for the grazing of animals in wilderness areas..."

"So I can bring a herd of cattle to graze in a wilderness area..."

 

Specifically the act says:

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.

"the grazing of livestock, where established prior to September 3, 1964, shall be permitted to continue subject to such reasonable regulations as are deemed necessary by the Secretary of Agriculture."

 

Unless you were grazing your livestock in areas that were designated as Wilderness prior to 1964, your livestock will have to graze elsewhere.

[+Montana_Mike]

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

 

Jeep_Dog, nice find on the mission statement. However, I guess that what I was trying to say is that the park system exists more for the entertainment value, whereas the USFS exists more for natural resources preservation.

 

Also, that mission statement is for the USFS in general, but does not cover their National Wilderness Preservation System duties specifically.

 

I'm not saying that I totally agree with their attitude toward geocaching, particularily when hiking, fishing, and hunting are encouraged, but whether or not I agree is not the issue here.

 

I've lived in Montana my entire life, and lived near wilderness areas for most of it.

I've a couple of gripes about wilderness managment, and this touches on them. Why do we allow horses and pack animals in wilderness areas, but not mountain bikes? Have you ever witnessed the impact to a trail from a small train of horses versus a small group of bikers?

 

If we really mean that wilderness areas should be untouched, why are there thousands of miles of trails (untouched???) running through the areas? I understand the desire to minimize impact, and a line has to be drawn somewhere for acceptable versus unacceptable, but I think the Forest Service needs to be more adaptable. For example, the reason mountain bikes are not allowed in wilderness areas is because they did not exist when the laws governing wilderness areas were written. The land managers decided that bikes fall into the 'mechanized means of travel' section of the code. Give me a break!

 

My $0.02, unadjusted for inflation

 

Mike

[+KBI]

People seem to harp about the trash which is left behind yet caches are being removed...who's to blame for the trash to begin with? Yep, people who think they can do whatever whenever just because!

 

Wanna make nice with the PTB, try a CITO....publically announce it and make sure to coordinate your efforts with the PTB so they can see we truly do care about the lands we wish to use. A small but worthy step IMHO!

Sorry, but I'm not interested in trying to appease those goobers. It's been tried around here, in fact, but with no effect.

 

They use the "people who think they can do whatever whenever" argument when removing the caches, but they obviously have no problem with leaving the actual garbage behind.

 

When I see a major turnaround in the attitudes and actions of the federal public land agents I will reconsider. Until then you won't see me doing their job for them while they steal our caches using our tax dollars.

 

But you do whatever you like. Knock yourself out.

[+Rockin Roddy]

People seem to harp about the trash which is left behind yet caches are being removed...who's to blame for the trash to begin with? Yep, people who think they can do whatever whenever just because!

 

Wanna make nice with the PTB, try a CITO....publically announce it and make sure to coordinate your efforts with the PTB so they can see we truly do care about the lands we wish to use. A small but worthy step IMHO!

Sorry, but I'm not interested in trying to appease those goobers. It's been tried around here, in fact, but with no effect.

 

They use the "people who think they can do whatever whenever" argument when removing the caches, but they obviously have no problem with leaving the actual garbage behind.

 

When I see a major turnaround in the attitudes and actions of the federal public land agents I will reconsider. Until then you won't see me doing their job for them while they steal our caches using our tax dollars.

 

But you do whatever you like. Knock yourself out.

 

I didn't realize it was their job to clean up after others. Specifically, cleaning up tons of trash, old furniture, electronics such as computers and TVs, appliances etc etc which others feel so free to throw out wherever they please. I know, around here, we tend to lend a hand to the MDOT (or whoever it is we're helping) when we clean up the sides of the roads and other dump areas.

 

Sure, we could leave that to the government, but helping saves me tax money in the long run AND makes me a few friends who might come in handy later down the road...never can tell. But, sitting back and complaining seems to be working for you, maybe more of the same will help change attitudes you feel need changing?

[+KBI]

People seem to harp about the trash which is left behind yet caches are being removed...who's to blame for the trash to begin with? Yep, people who think they can do whatever whenever just because!

 

Wanna make nice with the PTB, try a CITO....publically announce it and make sure to coordinate your efforts with the PTB so they can see we truly do care about the lands we wish to use. A small but worthy step IMHO!

Sorry, but I'm not interested in trying to appease those goobers. It's been tried around here, in fact, but with no effect.

 

They use the "people who think they can do whatever whenever" argument when removing the caches, but they obviously have no problem with leaving the actual garbage behind.

 

When I see a major turnaround in the attitudes and actions of the federal public land agents I will reconsider. Until then you won't see me doing their job for them while they steal our caches using our tax dollars.

 

But you do whatever you like. Knock yourself out.

I didn't realize it was their job to clean up after others.

You didn't? Then why do YOU suppose they are removing geocaches on a wholesale basis?

[+KBI]

Simple logic:

 

Either the feds make it their job to clean up after others in federal public forest lands ... or they don’t.

 

If they do, then why don’t they do anything about the piles of garbage?

 

If they don’t, then why do they hoover up so many Geocaches?

If they cleaned up the garbage and left the caches alone I would not only applaud them, I would also be happy to help them via a CITO event with my buds, a Cub Scout project with my son, or even if I was just bored.

 

If they randomly picked up both (the caches AND the garbage) using no discretion – treating the caches and the garbage equally – then I would be less happy, but I could live with that.

 

The fact is, however, that they provably go out of their way to remove geocaches while ignoring huge piles of trash. This tells me they have an agenda; that they have it in for our hobby.

[+ecanderson]

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.

 

I think this oversimplifies the issue in a way that unfairly paints the government as being draconian.

 

The ideal is: Set aside some land that we are allowed to visit, but not alter, so that our children can visit, and also not alter.

Could be worse. If that were the philosophy of Boulder Cty Colorado, I'd still be voting for their use of taxpayer funds for open space acquisition. Here, it's "Set aside some land that no one will be allowed to visit, period. Now, set aside some more land that no one will be allowed to visit, either." We are developing a large inventory of land here that no one can even SEE unless they've got access to an aircraft or thinks Google Earth is a reasonable alternative. Here in the Peoples' Republic, it's "People bad, fence good". The percentage of land being acquired that is accessible to the public is very low indeed compared to other areas of the country. So here, there's not much issue about whether a geocache is placed on THAT land.

 

The County finally budged at least a bit on the accessible open space, but requires a form be filled out and that the cache be pulled or moved after 6 months -- even if it only gets a find every other month. Better than nothing, but not great.

 

http://webpubapps.bouldercounty.org/pos/ge...e2/default.aspx

[+briansnat]

briansnat-

"The Wilderness Act of 1964 allowed for the grazing of animals in wilderness areas..."

"So I can bring a herd of cattle to graze in a wilderness area..."

 

Specifically the act says:

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.

"the grazing of livestock, where established prior to September 3, 1964, shall be permitted to continue subject to such reasonable regulations as are deemed necessary by the Secretary of Agriculture."

 

Unless you were grazing your livestock in areas that were designated as Wilderness prior to 1964, your livestock will have to graze elsewhere.

 

Point is that they still can graze livestock in these supposedly pristine areas in which the presence of a

concealed tupperware container ostensibly ruins it.

Edited August 30, 2009 by briansnat

[+KBI]

Point is that they still can graze livestock in these supposedly pristine areas in which the presence of a concealed tupperware container ostensibly ruins it.

There is no judgment or sanity in the way big government runs ANY enterprise it commands.

 

And these are the people we want taking over our health care system? (I’m sorry ... was that out loud?)

[+briansnat]

There is no judgment or sanity in the way big government runs ANY enterprise it commands.

 

NY state banned caching in one state park. They also had long ago outlawed ATV riding in the same park. It's become an ATV playground over the years, with the rogue riders tearing up hiking trails and ripping their own trails through the woods.

 

A few years ago they sent out their rangers to remove all the geocaches in the park. I've been to some of these and there was no visible impact around them. They weren't bothering a thing.

 

ATVers are still blithely ripping up the hiking trails, but when the hiking community complains about the illegal riding and significant damage they are told "We are aware of the problem but we don't have the resources for enforcement".

[+KBI]

"We are aware of the problem but we don't have the resources for enforcement."

That’s the same lame argument you’ll hear from the cops who lay around all day on the side of the road with their radar guns snagging otherwise safe drivers who bend the speed limit to plus eleven, yet who are NEVER seen doing anything about the weavers, close-followers, sudden-lane-darters, non-signalers, loose-bumper-draggers and truck overloaders who post the true threats to other traffic. In fact the ones who behave the worst in traffic, the ones who regularly startle the heck out of the safe drivers, are the cops themselves. The very folks who should be setting the ideal examples.

 

Why should the Forest Service and other federal land wonks be any different?

[+bittsen]

"We are aware of the problem but we don't have the resources for enforcement."

That’s the same lame argument you’ll hear from the cops who lay around all day on the side of the road with their radar guns snagging otherwise safe drivers who bend the speed limit to plus eleven, yet who are NEVER seen doing anything about the weavers, close-followers, sudden-lane-darters, non-signalers, loose-bumper-draggers and truck overloaders who post the true threats to other traffic. In fact the ones who behave the worst in traffic, the ones who regularly startle the heck out of the safe drivers, are the cops themselves. The very folks who should be setting the ideal examples.

 

Why should the Forest Service and other federal land wonks be any different?

 

Selective enforcement is easy to justify with enough big words but it boils down to this. It's easier to do your job if you spend the majority of your work time doing the easiest parts of your job.

 

Whether it's a ranger reporting that they went out and removed geocaches and burying doodoo or a cop with a radar detector generating revenue for the municipality, they ARE doing their job. Just not doing the job that really needs to be done.

[+Rockin Roddy]

People seem to harp about the trash which is left behind yet caches are being removed...who's to blame for the trash to begin with? Yep, people who think they can do whatever whenever just because!

 

Wanna make nice with the PTB, try a CITO....publically announce it and make sure to coordinate your efforts with the PTB so they can see we truly do care about the lands we wish to use. A small but worthy step IMHO!

Sorry, but I'm not interested in trying to appease those goobers. It's been tried around here, in fact, but with no effect.

 

They use the "people who think they can do whatever whenever" argument when removing the caches, but they obviously have no problem with leaving the actual garbage behind.

 

When I see a major turnaround in the attitudes and actions of the federal public land agents I will reconsider. Until then you won't see me doing their job for them while they steal our caches using our tax dollars.

 

But you do whatever you like. Knock yourself out.

I didn't realize it was their job to clean up after others.

You didn't? Then why do YOU suppose they are removing geocaches on a wholesale basis?

 

I see them protecting lands from uses they apparently see as damaging. There may not be logic to all of what they do, but I am under the opinion they are at least trying to do their job which ISN'T trash collecting!

[+Rockin Roddy]

Simple logic:

 

Either the feds make it their job to clean up after others in federal public forest lands ... or they don’t.

 

If they do, then why don’t they do anything about the piles of garbage?

 

If they don’t, then why do they hoover up so many Geocaches?

If they cleaned up the garbage and left the caches alone I would not only applaud them, I would also be happy to help them via a CITO event with my buds, a Cub Scout project with my son, or even if I was just bored.

 

If they randomly picked up both (the caches AND the garbage) using no discretion – treating the caches and the garbage equally – then I would be less happy, but I could live with that.

 

The fact is, however, that they provably go out of their way to remove geocaches while ignoring huge piles of trash. This tells me they have an agenda; that they have it in for our hobby.

 

Provably...really?

[+KBI]

I see them protecting lands from uses they apparently see as damaging. There may not be logic to all of what they do, but I am under the opinion they are at least trying to do their job which ISN'T trash collecting!

I'm not quite as willing to excuse their charming cluelessness as you apparently are.

[+KBI]

Simple logic:

 

Either the feds make it their job to clean up after others in federal public forest lands ... or they don’t.

 

If they do, then why don’t they do anything about the piles of garbage?

 

If they don’t, then why do they hoover up so many Geocaches?

If they cleaned up the garbage and left the caches alone I would not only applaud them, I would also be happy to help them via a CITO event with my buds, a Cub Scout project with my son, or even if I was just bored.

 

If they randomly picked up both (the caches AND the garbage) using no discretion – treating the caches and the garbage equally – then I would be less happy, but I could live with that.

 

The fact is, however, that they provably go out of their way to remove geocaches while ignoring huge piles of trash. This tells me they have an agenda; that they have it in for our hobby.

 

Provably...really?

Yes.

 

If you believe my own direct observations, that is. AND Briansnat's. AND Mtn-Man's.

 

Until you are prepared to call all three of us liars, you might want to drop this particular line of challenge.

 

So, apart from questioning my integrity ... and the integrity of two of our admittedly shady Moderators ... did you see any holes in my "simple logic" as described above?

Edited August 30, 2009 by KBI

[+Rockin Roddy]

Simple logic:

 

Either the feds make it their job to clean up after others in federal public forest lands ... or they don’t.

 

If they do, then why don’t they do anything about the piles of garbage?

 

If they don’t, then why do they hoover up so many Geocaches?

If they cleaned up the garbage and left the caches alone I would not only applaud them, I would also be happy to help them via a CITO event with my buds, a Cub Scout project with my son, or even if I was just bored.

 

If they randomly picked up both (the caches AND the garbage) using no discretion – treating the caches and the garbage equally – then I would be less happy, but I could live with that.

 

The fact is, however, that they provably go out of their way to remove geocaches while ignoring huge piles of trash. This tells me they have an agenda; that they have it in for our hobby.

 

Provably...really?

Yes.

 

If you believe my own direct observations, that is. AND Briansnat's. AND Mtn-Man's.

 

Until you are prepared to call all three of us liars, you might want to drop this particular line of challenge.

 

So, apart from questioning my integrity ... and the integrity of two of our admittedly shady Moderators ... did you see any holes in my "simple logic" as described above?

 

My but aren't we touchy??

 

So, you're saying that you could go to court and prove beyond a doubt that your statement is true? Really??

 

Get back off your high horse, no one questions your integrity. I do question the "provability" though....is your integrity somehow directly connected to that proof? But, your dramatic posting sure shows how logical you're acting....

 

And SURE, I'll happily drop this line of challenge (as you see it) just as soon as you can prove your stance....prove!

Edited August 30, 2009 by Rockin Roddy

[+rjb43nh]

KBI-"The fact is, however, that they provably go out of their way to remove geocaches while ignoring huge piles of trash. This tells me they have an agenda; that they have it in for our hobby."

 

We eagerly await your posting the photos of the huge piles of trash you claim they ignore.

 

If you have been reading this thread you would see where I posted: “I had a long talk with the Wilderness Supervisor in another district when the regulations were changed and my cache that was in a Wilderness Area had to be removed.” I know for a fact that my cache was removed when they visited this remote peak to remove a summit cairn, sign, and blazes of an unofficial trail that had been there for many years and it wasn’t a special trip to remove my cache. When the rules concerning Wilderness were last changed for the WMNF they started being more proactive. Yes, they do have an agenda and that is to follow the mandate of the law and do the best job they can with limited funds.

 

While I can’t speak for every instance of cache removal, neither can you, and to insinuate that all Federal employees are lazy and just trying to annoy cachers by removing caches is simply ludicrous. The people I see displaying “charming cluelessness” are some of the posters here who are misrepresenting what the Wilderness Act says and what they speculate the Government employees may be doing just to promote the agency's agenda.

[knowschad]

Something that just struck me as humorous is that it seems as though it is OK to hunt furry (and/or wet) creatures on federal lands but hunting ammo cans is forbidden.

 

Funny, I tell ya!

 

 

 

yeah, hilarious.

 

 

What part of Class 4 Wilderness are you missing here?

[+KBI]

So, you're saying that you could go to court and prove beyond a doubt that your statement is true? Really??

Probably, but I don't really care what you believe.

 

I know it happened. I watched it happen right here in my own neighborhood. Mtn-Man saw it too. In fact he was more involved with it than I, and can probably provide more detail.

 

All I know is there were about a half-dozen cool-sounding caches near me in a nearby federal forest – a "National Recreation (hah!) Area." The logs indicated they were some pretty outstanding hides. I had them on my to-do list, but by the time I got around to getting out there they had all* been gathered up by our loving and benevolent Gubmint. I got to log a bunch of DNFs that day, pretty much the first DNF each cache had seen. If those were murders, I’d have been the witness that discovered the bodies.

 

*All but one, that is. This rather clever hide stumped our hero on his first pass. He figured it out later, though, and it too was gone.

 

Yet the trash piles remained.

 

I can give you the names of several locals who were there and saw the same thing I did. Why don’t I send you a list so you can email each of them and tell them they were imagining the trash piles too? I’m sure you’ll make lots of friends.

 

Briansnat watched the same debacle play out in another location. Wanna call him a liar too?

 

So anyway, you haven’t answered my question. Did you find any holes in my logic yet?

 

 

While I can’t speak for every instance of cache removal, neither can you, and to insinuate that all Federal employees are lazy and just trying to annoy cachers by removing caches is simply ludicrous.

I never said all federal employees are lazy. All I have done is (1) express the rage I felt when I learned what happened near me, and (2) explain that it’s going to take a LOT of impressive behavior on their part to re-earn my respect.

 

But I do stand by my claim of an anti-caching agenda, at least on the part of the officials who burned up tax dollars collecting up our local caches while leaving the trash. No other explanation stands to reason. (See the "simple logic" post above.)

[knowschad]

People seem to harp about the trash which is left behind yet caches are being removed...who's to blame for the trash to begin with? Yep, people who think they can do whatever whenever just because!

 

Wanna make nice with the PTB, try a CITO....publically announce it and make sure to coordinate your efforts with the PTB so they can see we truly do care about the lands we wish to use. A small but worthy step IMHO!

 

 

Guess you missed Mtn-man's mysterious and intriguing post:

 

 

 

As one who was threatened by the NPS people that KBI was talking about (with jailtime and fines over the phone while talking to them about final plans for a CITO, thank you very much),

 

Edited August 31, 2009 by knowschad

[+KBI]

I have discussed this issue before, in a similar thread some time back, and come to think of it I seem to remember Mtn-Man posted some photos to that thread of the CITO event he mentioned in that quoted post. I'm pretty sure they were CITO-ing out trash from that very Nat'l Rec Area in the hopes of giving Geocachers a good reputation with the officials in charge. Or I may be remembering wrong.

 

Could Mtn-Man please re-post those photos? Or could someone who is more skilled than me at using the Search function find that earlier thread?

[+Castle Mischief]

Perhaps the supervisors were unaware of the dumping grounds, and the underlings were merely following the marching orders of the supervisors with the narrowest viewpoint.

When I read KBI's comment I wondered if perhaps they were underfunded and unable to transition large piles of trash and/or potentially hazardous substances? Most ammo cans I've seen come with a nice handle. Most dumped couches and dishwashers not so much.

Fair point. They actually are underfunded for removing all the various dump sites they are aware of, and the future ones that haven't been found and which have yet to be created.

They weren't too underfunded to acquire a GPS receiver.

 

Show me how the cost of a handheld GPS unit is remotely comparable to the cost of removing massive piles of appliances, furniture and garbage (in the wilderness!) and you might have a point.

[+KBI]

Perhaps the supervisors were unaware of the dumping grounds, and the underlings were merely following the marching orders of the supervisors with the narrowest viewpoint.

When I read KBI's comment I wondered if perhaps they were underfunded and unable to transition large piles of trash and/or potentially hazardous substances? Most ammo cans I've seen come with a nice handle. Most dumped couches and dishwashers not so much.

Fair point. They actually are underfunded for removing all the various dump sites they are aware of, and the future ones that haven't been found and which have yet to be created.

They weren't too underfunded to acquire a GPS receiver.

Show me how the cost of a handheld GPS unit is remotely comparable to the cost of removing massive piles of appliances, furniture and garbage (in the wilderness!) and you might have a point.

I didn't say it was comparable to the cost of removing massive piles of appliances, furniture and garbage.

 

The implication, however, is that the few hundred dollars for the price of a GPS unit (or few "thousand" – government purchasing anomalies are well documented) would have been much better spent on removing even a small fraction of the actual garbage – garbage that nobody wants there – instead of harassing geocachers who are there for actual recreational purposes.

 

I thought that implication was obvious. Sorry if I was too vague.

[+mtn-man]

I have discussed this issue before, in a similar thread some time back, and come to think of it I seem to remember Mtn-Man posted some photos to that thread of the CITO event he mentioned in that quoted post. I'm pretty sure they were CITO-ing out trash from that very Nat'l Rec Area in the hopes of giving Geocachers a good reputation with the officials in charge. Or I may be remembering wrong.

You are correct. But...

 

You are painting all Federal agencies with a broad brush. That is wrong. We have a great relationship with the Forest Service in GA (and the US Army Corps of Engineers, or USACE). With the NPS, not so good, but few NPS divisions are receptive. Painting with a broad brush is just plain wrong. You have to evaluate each based on their actual attitude toward geocaching. It would be like someone saying that since you and I are from GA that we are uneducated rednecks. Sorry KBI, and I understand being jaded, but "its all the same" is taking a giant step backwards. Above the dam on Lake Lanier in the USACE area you can hide caches except in a few places they protect. Below the dam in the National Recreation Area, no way no how. For the Forest Service, the topic here, 486,530 acres is Wilderness Area out of 37,295,360 acres. Lots of room for caches in the other 98+ percent of land available to us.

 

Could Mtn-Man please re-post those photos? Or could someone who is more skilled than me at using the Search function find that earlier thread?

This was an NPS area where they did actively remove caches. It is apples and oranges to the current discussion, but here is what he is talking about. We did a second one in the same area. While talking to them about the CITO I asked about meeting with them to try to get caches back in the area (one of mine included). In a follow up phone call to CITO finalize plans, I was told that the head ranger did not want to meet and said all caches had to be removed or they would seek legal action (not might, and they have already been removed years before) including fines and jail time. Pretty sad to threaten people who are doing free work for you.

 

From 2003:

 

From 2007, but my heart wasn't really in it for some reason:

[+Renegade Knight]

...We eagerly await your posting the photos of the huge piles of trash you claim they ignore. ...

 

I'll vouch for KBI on this sight unseen. I'll qualify it by saying that they don't ignore them, though KBI and others may not really worry about the difference between ignor and "do nothing at this time."

 

I have both seen dump sites, and lists of dump sites with notes about the chemicals that were dumped in the mix (which can get in the way of just going out there with your handy truck and loading it up).

 

With your staunch defence of the public lands I would have thought you would have both seen more of them (and thus dump sites) and known a bit about how agencies track these dump sites.

[+rjb43nh]

KBI - "The implication, however, is that the few hundred dollars for the price of a GPS unit (or few "thousand" – government purchasing anomalies are well documented) would have been much better spent on removing even a small fraction of the actual garbage – garbage that nobody wants there – instead of harassing geocachers who are there for actual recreational purposes.

 

I thought that implication was obvious. Sorry if I was too vague."

A GPS is one of the standard tools that anyone who works in the backcountry would use, no different than a shovel or an axe. I'm sure they didn't just buy them to hunt down geocaches. I would think that implication was obvious.

[+Renegade Knight]

...There is no judgment or sanity in the way big government runs ANY enterprise it commands.

 

And these are the people we want taking over our health care system? (I’m sorry ... was that out loud?)

 

It's been my experience that "the people" injected all the insantiy into the system via their elected representatives. Every stupid thing I have to do that wastes time and money and which I've called BS on and traced back to the source typically has at it's root, a lawsuit or a law brought about by massive protests, or even well positioned folks who can influence congress and other legislative bodies. "The People" need to inject the sanity back into the process and laws. That's not so easy becasue not enough of the "The People" care enough to make a difference. It's like the forums, you can't inject good, but you can inject a lot of interest in the negative.

 

In working for the public vs. private sectors though, I'd have to say I have more leeway to do the right thing on the public side than I ever did (if I wanted to keep my job) on the private side.

 

You have made a complaint that there are dump sites that they do nothing about. In my area often this is farmers dumping their crap. Looking at some of the lists of dump sites (there are a lot of them) maintained by the BLM (and I have no reason to think the Forest Service is materially different in both methods and concerns) they had a nice long list. Some were marked "Cleaned Up". Some were marked "new". A lot were marked with the name of the checimal they thought was dumped and which needed further work (time, money, investigatio) to determin if they could remove it safety or if they had to make special arragments. Malathion comes up a lot as a dumped chemical here. Not too toxic but metabolizes into much more toxic forms. Of course seeing a common chemical that was dumped tends to make you aware that they likely dumped different chemicals as well. Hard to tell in a big pile what's what, just that the most common lables and containers would be more visable.

[+Renegade Knight]

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.

 

I think this oversimplifies the issue in a way that unfairly paints the government as being draconian.

 

The ideal is: Set aside some land that we are allowed to visit, but not alter, so that our children can visit, and also not alter.

 

Now matter how small a percentage of the US surface area is set aside as protected wilderness, there are still those who believe that the land poses no value unless we use it in some way....

 

First you need to understand that the only value land has is what we give it. Nature itself is indifferent. To nature a wetland and a desert, is all the same. We give wetlands a very high value in the scheme of things. We humans assign all the values we think land has.

 

The concept of preservation for the people not from the people accuratly paints things as they are. If you preserve lands from the people "for the people" and they get nothing out of it, you are being draconian.

 

Your concept of sustainable use is great. That's preservation for the people. Step outside that and it is draconian. "Set aside some land that we can't enjoy, to preserveit so our children can't enjoy it either". That's no way to do business.

 

It may be worth noting I've lived in AK, and ID most of my life. The two states with more wilderness than anywhere else in the country. It's my back yard and I want to play in it. It's not a special place that I have to drive a long ways to get to surrouned by massive development. Maybe my perspective is different because I'm so used to having so much of it and even the lands outside the wilderness are pretty much undeveloped lands. I love having federal lands in my state. It's open, undeveloped, (though I like roads so I can get there, whever there is), with wildlife and things to do and explore. No tresspassing signs are few and far between, and it's just nice.

[+Renegade Knight]

People seem to harp about the trash which is left behind yet caches are being removed...who's to blame for the trash to begin with? Yep, people who think they can do whatever whenever just because!...

 

Them folks ain't cachers. However you bring up a fair point. Look to the cost and ease of using a dump or the trash service. When I was a kid the policy was. "If you can get it to the curb, we can haul it away". Over time the policy has changed to "If it fits in this plastic can, isn't too heavy, isn't on this list of stuff we don't take, doesn't hold the lid up, we will take it, but don't pack your can too tight, if it doesn't fall out we don't care either".

 

Trash service is no longer about collecting things to dispose of them in a way that does the job best for us all. It's about make it easy for the collector to use mechanized tools to stretch the dollar. In other words if Joe Redneck cleans up his place and can't afford the dump, it's going somewhere and Joe Public who can't won't fund trash service right, gets to fund the clean up another way.

 

The fix is easy, but expensive. Clean up is for now a hidden cost. When the cost to society isnt' hidden I suspect it will make the real fix (whatever you get to the curb we will haul away) reasonable.