Forest Service taking caches

[+KBI]

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 ...

 

... 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 ...

I see your point. I agree that generalizing is bad, but:

 

I think an average citizen like me can be excused for lumping them together. The government has dozens, if not hundreds, of different agencies tasked with the management of our country’s lands. I have neither the time nor the interest to keep up with who is what and which is who in the vast and ever-changing federal org chart.

 

Similar concept: I fly for XYZ airline, a regional carrier. XYZ is owned by ABC, another regional airline. XYZ, under the auspices of ABC, and similar to a half-dozen other sister units, is contracted to fly passengers for LMNOP Airlines, a mainline carrier whose colors and logos adorn our airplanes. So when one of our XYZ passengers has a bad experience and wants to complain they’ve been done wrong by LMNOP (because that’s the logo on the tail), do they want to hear a bunch of detail about how they are over-generalizing and lumping the wrong people together? Would you? I know I wouldn’t if I were the disgruntled customer. It's not really relevant, and they shouldn't have to take a class before they're allowed to make a legitimate complaint.

 

These various government land managers are all ultimately accountable to the same boss, and that’s you and me. And all I know is one (or more) of these federal agents performed an act that only makes sense in the light of my theory that they seek to actively harass geocachers.

 

Whether it was an official from-the-top policy decision to harass cachers, or a lone cacher-harasser acting on his own discretion, either way it made me extremely angry. The only reason I didn’t seriously fly off the handle at the time was because both you and our other respected local reviewer convinced me to calm down and let you guys handle it, which I was happy to do. I really appreciate all of you guys and your efforts in the area of cacher-to-government relations.

 

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.

You have a lot more patience than me. I’d have bagged it right then and there.

 

And I was inaccurate before when I said I would never again volunteer for CITO on government lands. I’m sure you recall last year when you and I and several others proudly and happily spent an entire sweaty, nasty day picking up garbage on a piece of park land not far from the scene of the source of my resentment. Why did I? Because I concur with the theory that we must give government agencies plenty of reason to respect and accept Geocaching as a wholesome recreational activity instead of seeing it as vandalism.

 

I do not wish to contaminate any positive progress you have made in this regard, and I sincerely hope that I haven’t done that here. On the other hand I think it’s asking too much for anyone to tell me to ignore, excuse, or not be livid about the atrocious act that was done by that alleged public servant.

 

One definition of the word 'diplomacy:' the art of saying "nice doggy" while reaching for a rock.

 

I have nothing against reasonable diplomacy. What I don’t care for is roll-over-and-take-it appeasement. I am no doormat. I am a citizen and a taxpayer, and I have expectations. I have plenty of patience with government ineptitude, but like everyone else I have my limits. I’m willing to give these agencies lots of second chances to demonstrate how beneficial they are to have around, but after the aforementioned cache purge incident it’s going to take some pretty impressive stuff on their part to win me back over.

Edited September 1, 2009 by KBI

[+Renegade Knight]

...Fine. I accept that logic, but it still doesn’t address this question: Why climb over or walk around all that garbage, which nobody wants to be there, and take away ONLY the geocaches, which serve an actual, known recreational purpose? If he only had room in the back of his Park Service Jeep for those caches that day, then why didn’t he haul off a couple of those old tires instead?...

 

In the canyon at Twin Falls there is a very nice hike that takes you up along a dump site. The stuff ranges from small things like tin cans to busses. We have poked through that heap dozens of times. It's always been interesting and often something found it's way out of the canyon. Once we found an old rusty container. We opened it up. Arkinn got woozy from whatever was in there and had to sit down for a while. Naturally I had to take a look and while I didn't get woozy I did get something. We like to think it was harmless.... This was before meth dump sites became common.

 

That's why some piles sit. They need to figure out how to deal with the known toxins, and make sure there aren't random chemicals in what looks like a standard pile of trash.

 

I don't doubt that they would pick up an obvious soup can or junk mail walking by or on their way out. I do doubt they would dig deep and disturb the larger pile without the right gear. Especially now that meth garbage is more common.

 

I think you have a perfectly good question on why the heck would they spend the extra time to deal with a cache that ultimatly will remove itself when it's life is up, when the other trash really does need help.

Edited September 2, 2009 by Renegade Knight

[+Rockin Roddy]

...Fine. I accept that logic, but it still doesn’t address this question: Why climb over or walk around all that garbage, which nobody wants to be there, and take away ONLY the geocaches, which serve an actual, known recreational purpose? If he only had room in the back of his Park Service Jeep for those caches that day, then why didn’t he haul off a couple of those old tires instead?...

 

In the canyon at Twin Falls there is a very nice hike that takes you up along a dump site. The stuff ranges from small things like tin cans to busses. We have poked through that heap dozens of times. It's always been interesting and often something found it's way out of the canyon. Once we found an old rusty container. We opened it up. Arkinn got woozy from whatever was in there and had to sit down for a while. Naturally I had to take a look and while I didn't get woozy I did get something. We like to think it was harmless.... This was before meth dump sites became common.

 

That's why some piles sit. They need to figure out how to deal with the known toxins, and make sure there aren't random chemicals in what looks like a standard pile of trash.

 

I don't doubt that they would pick up an obvious soup can or junk mail walking by or on their way out. I do doubt they would dig deep and disturb the larger pile without the right gear. Especially now that meth garbage is more common.

 

I think you have a perfectly good question on why the heck would they spend the extra time to deal with a cache that ultimatly will remove itself when it's life is up, when the other trash really does need help.

 

Your last comment seems to be in conflict with the rest of your post...

[+AstroDav]

 

I suspect having written permission would have stopped a lot of the problems we see already. I see this as a good thing (asking for written proof), it'll end a lot of the removals which aren't on their lands (as has been complained about in this thread somewhere). I think too many have already tried the "I told them I placed it on my land" approach, I suspect some have overstepped their boundaries (figuratively)...either purposely or not. Sometimes, the lands are hard to differentiate.

 

Obvioulsy, the Forest Service can't stop you from pacing caches on your property, verifying it is your property is their goal with this!

 

The Forest Service can't....but some reviewers seem intent on showing THEY can. Actually, it IS easy to differentiate between land boundarys. The maps that I use show EXACTLY where each land-owner stops & starts, even including the exact names & acreage. They are the official maps that the courthouse uses to determine boundaries. I don't think you can get much more official than that.

 

Surprising thing is...these maps don't cost hundreds of $$$ either....or even dozens of $$$. I have offered to include a copy of the small area where any of my caches is set which borders Nat'l Forest land to this reveiwer, to show him that it was a completely legal cache. He has previously used the lame reason, "I can't tell the difference". Well...I can, so why can't he?? His response to the offer by me was typical.....no reply at all.

 

My point is, we don't NEED the Forest Service getting involved in land disputes which have nothing at allto do with their land. And Groundspeak is allowing this, by allowing reviewers to enforce their own made-up rules like this. It's in no way beneficial to the sport. If a cache placer can PROVE that a cache is set on private land, or land otherwise completely open to caching....why do you need to have an uninvolved 3d-party come in to say, "We don't own that land"?? Makes no sense.

[Keystone]

The Forest Service can't....but some reviewers seem intent on showing THEY can. Actually, it IS easy to differentiate between land boundarys. The maps that I use show EXACTLY where each land-owner stops & starts, even including the exact names & acreage. They are the official maps that the courthouse uses to determine boundaries. I don't think you can get much more official than that.

 

Surprising thing is...these maps don't cost hundreds of $$$ either....or even dozens of $$$. I have offered to include a copy of the small area where any of my caches is set which borders Nat'l Forest land to this reveiwer, to show him that it was a completely legal cache. He has previously used the lame reason, "I can't tell the difference". Well...I can, so why can't he?? His response to the offer by me was typical.....no reply at all.

 

My point is, we don't NEED the Forest Service getting involved in land disputes which have nothing at allto do with their land. And Groundspeak is allowing this, by allowing reviewers to enforce their own made-up rules like this. It's in no way beneficial to the sport. If a cache placer can PROVE that a cache is set on private land, or land otherwise completely open to caching....why do you need to have an uninvolved 3d-party come in to say, "We don't own that land"?? Makes no sense.

Why not just pick a spot that is well distant from the property boundary? The "I'm staying on my side of the line" argument reminds me of the discussions I had with my little sister while traveling in the back seat of the family station wagon.

 

Reviewing caches is a volunteer effort, not a paying job. For caches very close to property boundaries, I am going to err on the side of caution. I may not have access to an ultra-accurate map with precise property lines. I have Google maps, Mapquest, online Topo, Bing maps -- the same as any other user of the site. When the cache is right on the border, or in a right of way, I ask about permission.

 

Because of my reviewer work, I am a lucky recipient of a threatening message from the National Park Service. Apparently my publishing of geocaches on lands which are next to NPS lands is part of the "geocaching problem." Once you've gotten such a message, one is understandably more cautious about publishing "edge case" caches such as the one you keep bringing up.

[+Rockin Roddy]

 

The Forest Service can't....but some reviewers seem intent on showing THEY can. Actually, it IS easy to differentiate between land boundarys. The maps that I use show EXACTLY where each land-owner stops & starts, even including the exact names & acreage. They are the official maps that the courthouse uses to determine boundaries. I don't think you can get much more official than that.

 

Surprising thing is...these maps don't cost hundreds of $$$ either....or even dozens of $$$. I have offered to include a copy of the small area where any of my caches is set which borders Nat'l Forest land to this reveiwer, to show him that it was a completely legal cache. He has previously used the lame reason, "I can't tell the difference". Well...I can, so why can't he?? His response to the offer by me was typical.....no reply at all.

 

My point is, we don't NEED the Forest Service getting involved in land disputes which have nothing at allto do with their land. And Groundspeak is allowing this, by allowing reviewers to enforce their own made-up rules like this. It's in no way beneficial to the sport. If a cache placer can PROVE that a cache is set on private land, or land otherwise completely open to caching....why do you need to have an uninvolved 3d-party come in to say, "We don't own that land"?? Makes no sense.

 

If you truly believe even half of what you complain about, you might take that to GS, I'm sure they'll be happy to explain things and better than most anyone here can (although Keystone did a fairly good job up above).

Edited September 2, 2009 by Rockin Roddy

[+ecanderson]

 

Because of my reviewer work, I am a lucky recipient of a threatening message from the National Park Service. Apparently my publishing of geocaches on lands which are next to NPS lands is part of the "geocaching problem." Once you've gotten such a message, one is understandably more cautious about publishing "edge case" caches such as the one you keep bringing up.

Had no plan to get involved in this, but your post intrigues me.

 

What exactly was the nature of the "threat"? Caches placed outside of their area of authority, followed up by threats? Even my skin isn't that thick. I'd have been working my way up the supervisory chain as a matter of principle, if for no other reason than to assure that someone, somewhere, learned some better manners.

[Keystone]

What exactly was the nature of the "threat"? Caches placed outside of their area of authority, followed up by threats? Even my skin isn't that thick. I'd have been working my way up the supervisory chain as a matter of principle, if for no other reason than to assure that someone, somewhere, learned some better manners.

Site volunteers are equipped with Kevlar flak jackets and a generous supply of Admin Bricks®. It's in the forum guidelines - you can look it up! That is all I need by way of "thick skin." Appealing actions up the food chain at NPS (or any other land manager) is above my pay grade. Fortunately, there are people who are paid to do that once the issue is highlighted. They are very good at it, and I am grateful for their support.

[+ecanderson]

What exactly was the nature of the "threat"? Caches placed outside of their area of authority, followed up by threats? Even my skin isn't that thick. I'd have been working my way up the supervisory chain as a matter of principle, if for no other reason than to assure that someone, somewhere, learned some better manners.

Site volunteers are equipped with Kevlar flak jackets and a generous supply of Admin Bricks®. It's in the forum guidelines - you can look it up! That is all I need by way of "thick skin." Appealing actions up the food chain at NPS (or any other land manager) is above my pay grade. Fortunately, there are people who are paid to do that once the issue is highlighted. They are very good at it, and I am grateful for their support.

I wasn't suggesting that you appeal an action. That's typically pointless anyway.

 

I was suggesting that perhaps someone up the chain far enough to give a rip should have been made aware of the "threat". You haven't yet described the nature of the threat you received. If your use of that word is accurate, it all sounds as though it was handled in a very unprofessional manner by the sender.

 

So ... what was it???

[+bittsen]

I wasn't suggesting that you appeal an action. That's typically pointless anyway.

 

I was suggesting that perhaps someone up the chain far enough to give a rip should have been made aware of the "threat". You haven't yet described the nature of the threat you received. If your use of that word is accurate, it all sounds as though it was handled in a very unprofessional manner by the sender.

 

So ... what was it???

 

I agree.

Once someone in an "official" position is rude to me, I take off the kid gloves. If they threaten me in any way, shape, or form....you can bet I will go above their head. I have had great success with this approach.

[+mcvouty]

Somehow, I managed to read this entire thread before commenting. And I'm not sure if I even want to throw my hat into this, but here goes...

 

A line from the ranger's log post that I find disturbing, and that has been largely overlooked, is the following:

 

Virtual caching is legal, however it is discouraged in Wilderness because of attracting use to remote and fragile areas, and affecting the experience of solitude important to wilderness visitors.

 

Now, I am fully on the side of the government on this so far. Physical caches are against the letter and the spirit of the law: Wilderness should bear no signs of human trespass. (That also goes for all the other violations previously mentioned, so I'm not wanting to beat that horse any further, please!)

 

However, the very notion that virtual caching is discouraged is INSANE. Does this ranger -- or the "supervisors and law enforcement" of which she has the "full support" -- foresee a day when all physical chaches are properly tended to, and they can shift their focus to photographers and note takers? How might this "discouragement" manifest itself in meantime? Will they run up and place their hats in front of our lenses?

 

I'm sure this will in no way satisfy the more hard-core elements of the sport, but it seems to me that we might want to throw in the towel on the physical cache debate right now and start really gathering support from the Park Service to turn the issue around entirely when it comes to virtual caching.

 

I'm not being naive, and I know virtual caching is seen as "less than" by most folks, but upon which side of the debate do you believe the architects of the National Park system would fall? We wouldn't HAVE a park system if it weren't for photographers and writers. If GPS coordinates are necessary for people to find breathtaking vistas in far-afield wilderness areas, and if those people, quite sensibly, want to take some pictures and scribble some notes to remember the moment...is this really discouraged? In my opinion, it is the ultimate use of our protected areas.

[+bittsen]

Somehow, I managed to read this entire thread before commenting. And I'm not sure if I even want to throw my hat into this, but here goes...

 

A line from the ranger's log post that I find disturbing, and that has been largely overlooked, is the following:

 

Virtual caching is legal, however it is discouraged in Wilderness because of attracting use to remote and fragile areas, and affecting the experience of solitude important to wilderness visitors.

 

Now, I am fully on the side of the government on this so far. Physical caches are against the letter and the spirit of the law: Wilderness should bear no signs of human trespass. (That also goes for all the other violations previously mentioned, so I'm not wanting to beat that horse any further, please!)

 

However, the very notion that virtual caching is discouraged is INSANE. Does this ranger -- or the "supervisors and law enforcement" of which she has the "full support" -- foresee a day when all physical chaches are properly tended to, and they can shift their focus to photographers and note takers? How might this "discouragement" manifest itself in meantime? Will they run up and place their hats in front of our lenses?

 

I'm sure this will in no way satisfy the more hard-core elements of the sport, but it seems to me that we might want to throw in the towel on the physical cache debate right now and start really gathering support from the Park Service to turn the issue around entirely when it comes to virtual caching.

 

I'm not being naive, and I know virtual caching is seen as "less than" by most folks, but upon which side of the debate do you believe the architects of the National Park system would fall? We wouldn't HAVE a park system if it weren't for photographers and writers. If GPS coordinates are necessary for people to find breathtaking vistas in far-afield wilderness areas, and if those people, quite sensibly, want to take some pictures and scribble some notes to remember the moment...is this really discouraged? In my opinion, it is the ultimate use of our protected areas.

 

I noticed that as well but wasn't about to get involved in the discussion further. Especially since it turned into a mess where typos were being used as arguments and the like.

What I found odd was that they said "virtual caching interfered with the solitude blah blah blah..

I thought, What? Does the wilderness act guarantee solitude? How is virtual caching interfering with solitude?

 

That argument was WAYYYYY out there...

[+AstroDav]

The Forest Service can't....but some reviewers seem intent on showing THEY can. Actually, it IS easy to differentiate between land boundarys. The maps that I use show EXACTLY where each land-owner stops & starts, even including the exact names & acreage. They are the official maps that the courthouse uses to determine boundaries. I don't think you can get much more official than that.

 

Surprising thing is...these maps don't cost hundreds of $$$ either....or even dozens of $$$. I have offered to include a copy of the small area where any of my caches is set which borders Nat'l Forest land to this reveiwer, to show him that it was a completely legal cache. He has previously used the lame reason, "I can't tell the difference". Well...I can, so why can't he?? His response to the offer by me was typical.....no reply at all.

 

My point is, we don't NEED the Forest Service getting involved in land disputes which have nothing at allto do with their land. And Groundspeak is allowing this, by allowing reviewers to enforce their own made-up rules like this. It's in no way beneficial to the sport. If a cache placer can PROVE that a cache is set on private land, or land otherwise completely open to caching....why do you need to have an uninvolved 3d-party come in to say, "We don't own that land"?? Makes no sense.

Why not just pick a spot that is well distant from the property boundary? The "I'm staying on my side of the line" argument reminds me of the discussions I had with my little sister while traveling in the back seat of the family station wagon.

 

Reviewing caches is a volunteer effort, not a paying job. For caches very close to property boundaries, I am going to err on the side of caution. I may not have access to an ultra-accurate map with precise property lines. I have Google maps, Mapquest, online Topo, Bing maps -- the same as any other user of the site. When the cache is right on the border, or in a right of way, I ask about permission.

 

Because of my reviewer work, I am a lucky recipient of a threatening message from the National Park Service. Apparently my publishing of geocaches on lands which are next to NPS lands is part of the "geocaching problem." Once you've gotten such a message, one is understandably more cautious about publishing "edge case" caches such as the one you keep bringing up.

 

#1 - Because it's a legal area to set caches. Why should Goundspeak be adding to rules like this, & allowing pretty much anyone who wants to add more to them to do so, that encourages actual SHRINKAGE of land that is completely cache-friendly?? So tell me, what IS "well distant"? Is 10 feet okay....or 100 feet...or 1/4 mile...or 1 mile? See where the problem is? I hope you do. This attitude is encouraging the denial of caches in "legal" caching areas, by purposeful intention or not. It has nothing to do with the example of children arguing which you chose to use. (I'm assuming that you are referring to when you both were children...it seems that was where you were trying to take that. If not, then I apologize.) I personally think that's an unprofessional way to try to make your point, but that's beside the point.

 

#2 - If the NPS sent you a threat letter for publishing a cache which was NOT on their land....they are legally in the wrong & that would be easy to prove if they ever tried to take the issue further. Why make it more difficult on cache hiders to do what they enjoy, simply because you personally might think their cache is too close to someone else's land. Is it really your place to make these type rules about where exactly a person can set a cache on land they own, or land they have permission to cache on? Other than the obvious written rules...such as no underground caches, the 528 rule, near traintracks, on bridges, etc...most all of these type rules are "reviewer developed".

 

Here's an idea. Although the maps that I mention are easily available from most courthouses, abstract offices, etc. (I actually got mine at a local BANK....who was making them available in cooperation with the courthouse).....if a reviewer doesn't have the ability to determine a cache location as accurately as the person who hid it, which is beginning to seem to be a common reason given, then simply ask the CO for a small scan of the map he used, showing the cache location & the boundarys of the land in question. Problem solved. If the hider is so sure that his location is on "legal" land, then I bet you would find that most of te time he has consulted a map which shows that....at least I do, along with several other cachers I know personally.

 

And to stave off the inevitable question, yes, at least with my specific case, the copyright allows copying of small sections of the maps for purposes such as this. I feel at least that's a MUCH better answer than the one I have received on the issue, which is none at all when I've offered this. It's also a much better answer to encourage the sport of geocaching than something like, "Yeah, it's on YOUR land, but I think it's too close to THEIR land."

 

Roddy....it appears that there are "official" representatives of Groundspeak in this very forum. Cache reviewers, who have been given the sometimes broad authority to determine their own rules, obviously have at least some say-so with the company. I have also seen a number of posts where the poster used terms like "We at Groundspeak" & were obviously insinusting that they held some type of official position there. And many of these same posts were worded as giving guidelines & such, even if not completely "official" & written. So it appears that Groundspeak at least partially uses this forum to distribute information. Likewise, things posted here such as I have SHOULD come to their attention.....although I'm NOT sure if they actually will or not.

 

P.S. Keystone, I did notice that you mention that in cases of caches close to a border, you ask for a statement of permission. If so, then that pretty much is what I'm getting at. That's a MUCH better method than the situation I'm referring to, which was just a plain & simple, "Caches WON'T be approved if adjacent to Nat'l Forest land". Maybe not an EXACT quote, but it was very clear about the intent. Whether you are in the right or not, I won't consider the cache. That permission you speak of, I would hope, would include a copy of a map like I mentioned, showing the exact boundaries & location. But again, my request for clarification on this was met by days of.........silence. Even to this day, I have not received the courtesy of even a "No, I won't consider it even then" reply.

 

This issue may seem small to many, but in my area, I am in a valley quite literally sandwiched on all 4 sides by Nat'l Forest. ANY cache set ANYWHERE could be considered as not being "well distant" from their land. And it shows. On a 25+ mile stretch of state highway, about 7/8's in private land & 1/8 in Nat'l Forest land, there are NO caches.....except 7 or 8 of my own & 1 from another cacher. And I've hadto jumpd through hoops just to get most of those published, even though every single one is either on my land, or on private land, or on a right-of-way bordered by private land.

 

Maybe not a big deal to most, but a VERY big deal to those of us who live in these type situations.

Edited September 3, 2009 by astrodav

[+Rockin Roddy]

The Forest Service can't....but some reviewers seem intent on showing THEY can. Actually, it IS easy to differentiate between land boundarys. The maps that I use show EXACTLY where each land-owner stops & starts, even including the exact names & acreage. They are the official maps that the courthouse uses to determine boundaries. I don't think you can get much more official than that.

 

Surprising thing is...these maps don't cost hundreds of $$$ either....or even dozens of $$$. I have offered to include a copy of the small area where any of my caches is set which borders Nat'l Forest land to this reveiwer, to show him that it was a completely legal cache. He has previously used the lame reason, "I can't tell the difference". Well...I can, so why can't he?? His response to the offer by me was typical.....no reply at all.

 

My point is, we don't NEED the Forest Service getting involved in land disputes which have nothing at allto do with their land. And Groundspeak is allowing this, by allowing reviewers to enforce their own made-up rules like this. It's in no way beneficial to the sport. If a cache placer can PROVE that a cache is set on private land, or land otherwise completely open to caching....why do you need to have an uninvolved 3d-party come in to say, "We don't own that land"?? Makes no sense.

Why not just pick a spot that is well distant from the property boundary? The "I'm staying on my side of the line" argument reminds me of the discussions I had with my little sister while traveling in the back seat of the family station wagon.

 

Reviewing caches is a volunteer effort, not a paying job. For caches very close to property boundaries, I am going to err on the side of caution. I may not have access to an ultra-accurate map with precise property lines. I have Google maps, Mapquest, online Topo, Bing maps -- the same as any other user of the site. When the cache is right on the border, or in a right of way, I ask about permission.

 

Because of my reviewer work, I am a lucky recipient of a threatening message from the National Park Service. Apparently my publishing of geocaches on lands which are next to NPS lands is part of the "geocaching problem." Once you've gotten such a message, one is understandably more cautious about publishing "edge case" caches such as the one you keep bringing up.

 

#1 - Because it's a legal area to set caches. Why should Goundspeak be adding to rules like this, & allowing pretty much anyone who wants to add more to them to do so, that encourages actual SHRINKAGE of land that is completely cache-friendly?? So tell me, what IS "well distant"? Is 10 feet okay....or 100 feet...or 1/4 mile...or 1 mile? See where the problem is? I hope you do. This attitude is encouraging the denial of caches in "legal" caching areas, by purposeful intention or not. It has nothing to do with the example of children arguing which you chose to use. (I'm assuming that you are referring to when you both were children...it seems that was where you were trying to take that. If not, then I apologize.) I personally think that's an unprofessional way to try to make your point, but that's beside the point.

 

#2 - If the NPS sent you a threat letter for publishing a cache which was NOT on their land....they are legally in the wrong & that would be easy to prove if they ever tried to take the issue further. Why make it more difficult on cache hiders to do what they enjoy, simply because you personally might think their cache is too close to someone else's land. Is it really your place to make these type rules about where exactly a person can set a cache on land they own, or land they have permission to cache on? Other than the obvious written rules...such as no underground caches, the 528 rule, near traintracks, on bridges, etc...most all of these type rules are "reviewer developed".

 

Here's an idea. Although the maps that I mention are easily available from most courthouses, abstract offices, etc. (I actually got mine at a local BANK....who was making them available in cooperation with the courthouse).....if a reviewer doesn't have the ability to determine a cache location as accurately as the person who hid it, which is beginning to seem to be a common reason given, then simply ask the CO for a small scan of the map he used, showing the cache location & the boundarys of the land in question. Problem solved. If the hider is so sure that his location is on "legal" land, then I bet you would find that most of te time he has consulted a map which shows that....at least I do, along with several other cachers I know personally.

 

And to stave off the inevitable question, yes, at least with my specific case, the copyright allows copying of small sections of the maps for purposes such as this. I feel at least that's a MUCH better answer than the one I have received on the issue, which is none at all when I've offered this. It's also a much better answer to encourage the sport of geocaching than something like, "Yeah, it's on YOUR land, but I think it's too close to THEIR land."

 

Roddy....it appears that there are "official" representatives of Groundspeak in this very forum. Cache reviewers, who have been given the sometimes broad authority to determine their own rules, obviously have at least some say-so with the company. I have also seen a number of posts where the poster used terms like "We at Groundspeak" & were obviously insinusting that they held some type of official position there. And many of these same posts were worded as giving guidelines & such, even if not completely "official" & written. So it appears that Groundspeak at least partially uses this forum to distribute information. Likewise, things posted here such as I have SHOULD come to their attention.....although I'm NOT sure if they actually will or not.

 

I've seen many maps which were supposed to be accurate have completely wrong info...plat maps, maps on google and even maps on GPS units. Just because you think they're accurate, or the bank touts them as accurate...well, mistakes do happen.

 

As far as your last comment, hoping someone from GS happens upon your comment here, well, good luck! Although the volunteers do come here, I'm fairly certain there's plenty of content in here that they don't bother to send off to TPTB. If you truly want your voice heard by people who can do something, my suggestion stands!

[knowschad]

Somehow, I managed to read this entire thread before commenting. And I'm not sure if I even want to throw my hat into this, but here goes...

 

A line from the ranger's log post that I find disturbing, and that has been largely overlooked, is the following:

 

Virtual caching is legal, however it is discouraged in Wilderness because of attracting use to remote and fragile areas, and affecting the experience of solitude important to wilderness visitors.

 

 

 

I have pretty much been in support of the Forest Service in this thread, but I must admit that this bothers me, too:

 

 

Virtual caching is legal, however it is discouraged in Wilderness because of attracting use to remote and fragile areas, and affecting the experience of solitude important to wilderness visitors.

 

 

Aren't virtual cachers wilderness visitors, too? Just how is the experiencing (finding) of a virtual cache affecting other wilderness visitors? Just who are these wilderness visitors that have such delicate sensibilities that my going to the same area (it wouldn't bother them if it was a different area now, would it?) with a GPS would ruin their experience? Do they think that the geocachers will be the ones whooping and hollaring, while all the rest will be staring in reverant awe of the scene?

 

 

I understand that the quoted statement by the ranger is not the USFS's official statement on the matter, but I do think that it displays an attitude issue at work against geocaching that should be noticed.

[+AstroDav]

Roddy

 

You didn't read all of my post...these ARE maps which are used by the abstract office, the courthouse, & surveyors to determine land boundaries. Yes, they can have mistakes, they were surveyed & printed by humans. But as I said, they are as accurate as you are going to get & are easily available. If you really wanted to get THAT nit-picky about it, then every single cache placed would need to have a certified surveyor come & make sure it is where it's suppose to be. I HOPE it never comes to that, as I'm sure resulting in micro-management such as that would rapidly lead to the destruction of geocaching.

 

I have suggested them to many cachers in the state for that reason, it is just becoming so difficult for some of us to get ANY cache published, simply because the reviewer "can't tell the difference". The bank has nothing to do with MAKING the maps, nor touting their accuracy. As I mentioned, they are only cooperating with the local government in giving the public easy access to them. Just a specific case, not meant to imply that ALL banks do this,because I know they 100% DON'T.

 

As far as me not realizing Groundspeak takes no information from thisforum, you are probably correct. It would sadden me for that to be the case, since they seem to occasionally GIVE information via this forum. But I will be the first to admit that I'm new to geocaching with this specific organization. If they choose to ignore what their customers are saying here....little I can do to change that. If I see that is being done & something happens which requires it, hopefully not, then I most certainly will go trough "official" channels. Being new to Groundspeak however, I have no idea how much of an "open door policy" they have though.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

... As far as me not realizing Groundspeak takes no information from thisforum, you are probably correct...

...Being new to Groundspeak however, I have no idea how much of an "open door policy" they have though...

Trust me on this, if anything is said in these forums that interests Groundspeak, they know about it. They may choose not to respond, but they know!

 

And, Groundspeak is very open and interested. Contact them if you have an issue and you will find that they will go out of their way to help.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Roddy

 

You didn't read all of my post...these ARE maps which are used by the abstract office, the courthouse, & surveyors to determine land boundaries. Yes, they can have mistakes, they were surveyed & printed by humans. But as I said, they are as accurate as you are going to get & are easily available. If you really wanted to get THAT nit-picky about it, then every single cache placed would need to have a certified surveyor come & make sure it is where it's suppose to be. I HOPE it never comes to that, as I'm sure resulting in micro-management such as that would rapidly lead to the destruction of geocaching.

 

I have suggested them to many cachers in the state for that reason, it is just becoming so difficult for some of us to get ANY cache published, simply because the reviewer "can't tell the difference". The bank has nothing to do with MAKING the maps, nor touting their accuracy. As I mentioned, they are only cooperating with the local government in giving the public easy access to them. Just a specific case, not meant to imply that ALL banks do this,because I know they 100% DON'T.

 

As far as me not realizing Groundspeak takes no information from thisforum, you are probably correct. It would sadden me for that to be the case, since they seem to occasionally GIVE information via this forum. But I will be the first to admit that I'm new to geocaching with this specific organization. If they choose to ignore what their customers are saying here....little I can do to change that. If I see that is being done & something happens which requires it, hopefully not, then I most certainly will go trough "official" channels. Being new to Groundspeak however, I have no idea how much of an "open door policy" they have though.

 

I read your post, my comment still stands. You think your maps are the truth on paper, maybe so, maybe not. As I've said, I've seen maps (from banks and even surveyors0 with inaccuracies...haven't you? Asking that you get permission isn't such a bad thing, it's actually something I would like to see more of. It means BOTH the CO and LO are in agreement and no problems should (that's right, should) come up in the future...a good thing, right?

 

If you're already going through all the trouble to get a map from your bank how much harder can it be to ask permission for a properly placed cache??

 

As for your last part there, GS may read the info or may not. If you really have a concern, bringing it here isn't your best option...nuff said there!

[Nomex]

...most all of these type rules are "reviewer developed".

 

Ummm....not quite. Most, if not all, were developed from a handful of Listings that had some adverse negative outcomes, usually with Law Enforcement involvement (the "528" Guideline excluded of course).

 

From looking at three of the Listings you had rejected, I'd have to agree with your Reviewer action, even though that may sound a bit self serving

 

It even appears that on the most recent Listing, your local Reviewer took the rather extraordinary step of contacting the NFS Office for clarification on the boundary question (clearly a Cache Owner responsibility in my book).

 

I'm not sure how it can be made any clearer for you, but I think hammering on the Reviewer and maps is the wrong end to be working on this problem. I think you'd make better progress by developing some relationships with the nearby NFS and providing contact information and/or permit status in the future.

[+Castle Mischief]

In regard to the "officialness" of maps, etc. The way the guy at the county explained to me when I asked him about our own property and the boundary between our neighbor's land- "Maps don't indicate legal boundaries, survey teams do."

 

At least in my case, there's much more involved than pointing to a map and saying "This here is mah land. Geet off."

[+Castle Mischief]

 

I agree.

Once someone in an "official" position is rude to me, I take off the kid gloves. If they threaten me in any way, shape, or form....you can bet I will go above their head. I have had great success with this approach.

 

I think we've already seen the "success" of taking such an approach.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Your last comment seems to be in conflict with the rest of your post...

It would seem that way. However if you think in terms of priortizing time.

 

Should they spend the time to seek out a hidden cache that will remove itself, or doing the legwork needed to start removing dump sites of concern which are actual eyesores? They only have so much time and there can be a lot of legwork to removing the dump sites.

 

It's easier to remove a cache. It's more productive to work on the dump sites.

[+Renegade Knight]

...A line from the ranger's log post that I find disturbing, and that has been largely overlooked, is the following:

Virtual caching is legal, however it is discouraged in Wilderness because of attracting use to remote and fragile areas, and affecting the experience of solitude important to wilderness visitors.

...

 

Nice catch. A classic illistration of the concept of "preservation from the people" ironicly in the name of "the fewer people who rate higher than those other people" when you can't actually tell them apart.

 

Our government (and we as a people) do this a lot. We give value to something at a higher level than another thing when they are actually about the same. Often without realizing it. Why is a wilderness hiker the height of wilderness use? Why does that hiker drop down a notch if his goal is a cache vs. a waterfall when they are enjoying the wilderness either way?

 

Fragile and sensative areas exist, however they have suffered the same definition creep as Terrorist in modern times. If wilderness areas were in fact too sensative for public use (at the levels of actual use in the wilderness which is to say they can actually sustain some kind of hiking a some level in most cases) they would be fenced off and marked which is fully in compliance with the wilderness act that gives the forest service the authority to do this kind of thing to adminster the land.

[+Renegade Knight]

In regard to the "officialness" of maps, etc. The way the guy at the county explained to me when I asked him about our own property and the boundary between our neighbor's land- "Maps don't indicate legal boundaries, survey teams do."...

 

Survey guys can give an opinion on a boundary. It's an informed opinion, and one that a judge and other professionals do rely on. However only a judge can say, what's what, in the event of a dispute. If there is no dispute, that's the boundary.

 

It chaffes the britches of some of the surveyors I know. More annoying to a lot of them are the lawyers retained ablity to write a legal description which often creates the problems a judge has to rule on later. Lawyers ain't surveyors but know enough to get everone into trouble.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Why not just pick a spot that is well distant from the property boundary? The "I'm staying on my side of the line" argument reminds me of the discussions I had with my little sister while traveling in the back seat of the family station wagon.

....

Because of my reviewer work, I am a lucky recipient of a threatening message from the National Park Service. Apparently my publishing of geocaches on lands which are next to NPS lands is part of the "geocaching problem." Once you've gotten such a message, one is understandably more cautious about publishing "edge case" caches such as the one you keep bringing up.

 

While I don't eveny your email from the NPS. There is a reason land has a boundary. It's so you can put a cache right up to the line on your side. While the NPS sometimes like to exert an impact area, adjoining property owners like to use their land as they see fit and as is their right.

 

Ignoring maps, I'd be more interested in the actual use on the ground in that spot. Is it in use by the NPS or the adjoining owner. Maps are fuzzy, and this isn't news to you. Lines of actual use that have been acepted by the adjoiing landowners more solid for practical purposes.

[+Team Cotati]

In regard to the "officialness" of maps, etc. The way the guy at the county explained to me when I asked him about our own property and the boundary between our neighbor's land- "Maps don't indicate legal boundaries, survey teams do."...

 

Survey guys can give an opinion on a boundary. It's an informed opinion, and one that a judge and other professionals do rely on. However only a judge can say, what's what, in the event of a dispute. If there is no dispute, that's the boundary.

 

It chaffes the britches of some of the surveyors I know. More annoying to a lot of them are the lawyers retained ablity to write a legal description which often creates the problems a judge has to rule on later. Lawyers ain't surveyors but know enough to get everone into trouble.

 

Don't judges still listen to lawyers prior to rendering their decisions? And I'd wager that there are still what's called Plat Books wherein the boundaries of land units are carefully recorded. I think that the input to those books is largely from survey's and if the division of the land goes back far enough, more quaint boundaries were in use. You know, like big rocks, rivers, streams and the like.

 

But as with most every other element of our society, legal entities can be challenged in a court of law and if you can establish to a judges satisfaction that your determination of a land boundary is more acurate that what is officially recorded, then there is a pretty good chance that what is recorded will be changed.

 

So in fact, with rare exception, there are reliable sources of land boundaries and quite often these are on maps, maps that are commonly used to inform as to where a boundary is. Most times these map sources are not challenged but they can be.

 

It's geocaching. Not oil exploration or logging operations or sub-division planning or the building of Airforce ICBM launch facilities in deepest darkest North Dakota.

 

It's geocaching.

Edited September 3, 2009 by Team Cotati

[+Renegade Knight]

Survey guys can give an opinion on a boundary. It's an informed opinion, and one that a judge and other professionals do rely on. ....

 

Don't judges still listen to lawyers prior to rendering their decisions?...

 

That's what I said. If by laywer you meant surveyor.

 

Plat's do exist as you have noted. They are great tools.

 

I remember when my neighbor pulled the pin (carefully called out on the plat and lovingly placed by a surveyor) out of the ground to tie a string on for the fenceline. He moved it to where he thought the property line was. Then asked my opinion. The results of that confab will be the line of "control" between property owners for a long while. It's not quite where the plat says. It's close though.

Edited September 3, 2009 by Renegade Knight

[+Team Cotati]

Survey guys can give an opinion on a boundary. It's an informed opinion, and one that a judge and other professionals do rely on. ....

 

Don't judges still listen to lawyers prior to rendering their decisions?...

 

That's what I said. If by laywer you meant surveyor.

 

Plat's do exist as you have noted. They are great tools.

 

I remember when my neighbor pulled the pin (carefully called out on the plat and lovingly placed by a surveyor) out of the ground to tie a string on for the fenceline. He moved it to where he thought the property line was. Then asked my opinion. The results of that confab will be the line of "control" between property owners for a long while. It's not quite where the plat says. It's close though.

 

No, if I had meant surveyor, I'd have said surveyor.

 

Plats are not just 'tools'. They are the official record. Now if you want to change the official record, then they become a tool used in the process. Then depending upon the outcome, there might be a new official record created....or not. In in any event at any given point in time they are the official record.

Edited September 3, 2009 by Team Cotati

[+Castle Mischief]

I may have not been clear or my understanding may be flawed.

 

If I understood my county level guy correctly, he presented the facts as such:

 

1) There is a defined record of the limits of my property. This record exists as numbers and words on a document in the archives.

 

2) If I want these numbers and words to be brought into the "ouch that hurts" real world a surveyor will come out and do his thing and put little stakes in the ground.

 

That was what he meant, in my understanding, when he said that "Maps don't indicate legal boundaries, survey teams do."

 

YMMV

[+AstroDav]

...most all of these type rules are "reviewer developed".

 

Ummm....not quite. Most, if not all, were developed from a handful of Listings that had some adverse negative outcomes, usually with Law Enforcement involvement (the "528" Guideline excluded of course).

 

From looking at three of the Listings you had rejected, I'd have to agree with your Reviewer action, even though that may sound a bit self serving

 

It even appears that on the most recent Listing, your local Reviewer took the rather extraordinary step of contacting the NFS Office for clarification on the boundary question (clearly a Cache Owner responsibility in my book).

 

I'm not sure how it can be made any clearer for you, but I think hammering on the Reviewer and maps is the wrong end to be working on this problem. I think you'd make better progress by developing some relationships with the nearby NFS and providing contact information and/or permit status in the future.

 

Actually, the truth about that listing you mention is that the reviewer personally told me that caches within the right-of-way of a state highway or county road, running through Nat'l Forest, were a legal cache location, NOT requiring permit. I still have that e-mail. That cache was set at the location 2 days after receiving his e-mail. Before hiding the cache, I located the actual right-of-way markers for the highway...the square concrete posts. I then located the obvious boundary where the Forest Service stopped their maintanance on the little park & the Hwy. Dept. picked up maintanance on the right-of-way. (In truth, the little park by the highway is simply a parking area, much like a trailhead. The historic location itself is in the woods, down a 500 ft +/- trail, in the exact opposite direction from the cache)

 

After finding this boundary between Nat'l Forest maintained area & Hwy Dept. maintained area, I went another 10-12 feet INTO the right-of-way, & AWAY from the little park. This placed the cache firmly inside the very location that the reiewer had previously told me was fine to cache without permit.....just like many dozen other caches in this Nat'l Forest. All of the info I just wrote, plus measurements, etc., were included for the reviewer to look at. The only thing I DIDN'T include was photos showing the cache & it's location in respect to the highway markers & the parking area loop. When your reviewer says that's not needed....I bet you don't go through that much trouble either, do you?

 

My relationship with the NFS is fine. I have relatives who work in 2 local offices & have had caching conversations with representatives in at least 2 others. There was no need to get them involved here because the location was pre-approved by the reviewer, per guidelines from the NFS.

 

Only AFTER all ths was done, did the reviewer decide to tighten the restrictions & decided that THIS type of right-of-way cache wasn't okay. I replied back with a "why", & reminded him of his earlier guideline e-mail, but also stated that I would go ahead & ask. That's when he went off on me, told me to ask the NFS for a permit (on land that didn't require a permit a couple days earlier), then followed that up with ANOTHER e-mail saying that he was going to ask them hisself....after I had already told him that I would.

 

Rather than contend with it anymore, I just pulled the cache & archived it. But his little exploit DID cause us to have to get permits for EVERY right-of-way cache within the Nat'l Forest, & also any cache on private property bordering the Nat'l Forest....within a distance apparently being decided by the reviewer.

 

As far as those other 2 which weren't approved, if they are the ones I'm thinking of. Those were my very first 2 hides, when I didn't even know that a Nat'l Forest permit was required. You'll notice that I pulled & archived them within just a few days, because they were quite obviously located right in the middle of NF land.

 

So, since you brought it up, as Paul Harvey would say, "Now you know the rest of the story".

 

P.S. This type of micro-management, getting the NFS involved in something that's not even theirs to get involved in, is showing now too. After a full 6 days, there was finally ONE cache published within 25 miles of my location. It was my own & it's on my own land.

[+Team Cotati]

I may have not been clear or my understanding may be flawed.

 

If I understood my county level guy correctly, he presented the facts as such:

 

1) There is a defined record of the limits of my property. This record exists as numbers and words on a document in the archives.

 

2) If I want these numbers and words to be brought into the "ouch that hurts" real world a surveyor will come out and do his thing and put little stakes in the ground.

 

That was what he meant, in my understanding, when he said that "Maps don't indicate legal boundaries, survey teams do."

 

YMMV

 

There is no requirement that someone be a surveyor to put little stakes in the ground.

 

And when the members of the survey team all have died?

[+Parzival]

WOW..I go out of town for a week and come back to see this has gone on for 5 pages? Nice..

Edited September 8, 2009 by Parzival

[+EscapeFromFlatland]

Ok. So next time I place a cache I need 3 opinions from well respected citizens on who owns the land, written affidavits by the current land owner and the neighboring landowners. Opinion paper by a survey team and the decision of a judge.

[+jellis]

Isn't it differ from state to state? I know National is totally off limits in most cases. But States like Washington they also have to have permission by the Park Manager of the park you intend to place a cache. They don't have to allow it at all if they don't want them there. I had 3 in one park in Washington. I met up with the Manager and I had to fill out forms, let him know where they were place and he went out to find them. All was good.

Here where I live most parks allow it but occasionally you get some that don't. But in most cases you don't need permission. But it is nice to let the rangers know.

In Montana there didn't seem a problem with mine but you also have to be careful because some Forest Service land you have to share with hunters.

[knowschad]

Isn't it differ from state to state? I know National is totally off limits in most cases. But States like Washington they also have to have permission by the Park Manager of the park you intend to place a cache. They don't have to allow it at all if they don't want them there. I had 3 in one park in Washington. I met up with the Manager and I had to fill out forms, let him know where they were place and he went out to find them. All was good.

Here where I live most parks allow it but occasionally you get some that don't. But in most cases you don't need permission. But it is nice to let the rangers know.

In Montana there didn't seem a problem with mine but you also have to be careful because some Forest Service land you have to share with hunters.

 

 

You didn't read the entire thread, did you? This is referring to a certain class of protected wilderness areas. Its a bit more complicated than your post would suggest.