Jump to content

U.S. National Park Earthcache Approval


klipsch49er

Recommended Posts

I have tried to creat an Earthcache in Glacier National Part in Montana. Observing the requirement of having a "Land Manager" approve the cache I contacted the office at Glacier National Park and was advised that I could have an Earthcache at the desired location if I purchased a "Special Use Permit" which carries a $50.00 annual fee.

 

I though that the NPS is a partner in Earthcache.org? Shouldn't that mean that they understand and support Earthcaches without renumeration?

 

Any good advise or publication or ruling to provide to the "Land Manager" to helo get approval?

Link to comment

Each national park sets its own policies. Many don't allow Earthcaching at all. This is the first time I've heard of one charging a fee, but it doesn't surprise me. I've heard state parks in Pennsylvania have started charging fees for caches, so this could very well be the new normal.

 

Our national park here supports Earthcaching with no fee, but it took one of our local cachers a year of patient determination to get it done. Even then, it's quite a hassle getting an Earthcache approved.

 

In order to place an Earthcache at our national park, you have to sign an agreement to become a park volunteer. This provides an advantage for the park, because they receive federal funds for every hour of volunteer work they get. You might want to mention this to your land manager just in case they're not aware of it. I logged over 40 volunteer hours developing my Earthcache at our park.

Edited by Arby Gee
Link to comment

Who did you contact? It might be possible to seek review at a higher level, like the Park Superintendent. But in any case, I would probably ask if the fee could be waived, pointing out the educational aspect of earthcaching, the relationship between the NPS on a national level and earthcaching, and the way that various national parks have incorporated earthcaching into their programs.

 

In contacting a park, I assume that the park administrators know nothing about earthcaching, even if the park has approved others (our local NPS land had several earthcaches but I had to start over when the administration changed). In a sense, I try to sell the earthcaching program to them, but I know that with some parks it has taken a great deal of perseverance -- TerryDad2 went through a lot before he was able to convince Yosemite to approve earthcaches. You might want to contact him for specific advice.

Edited by mulvaney
Link to comment

Throw all the stones you want, but it should be unnecessary to obtain approval for an EC in a National Park in the first place. Where is Jeremy when you need him? He questioned the requirement a few weeks back and he was right to do so! B)

 

The NPS, of course, has a different opinion. Their policy review contemplates approval of park administrators for traditional geocaching, virtual and earth caches, and letterboxing. The review states that park managers should monitor all approved gps activity to ensure that problems do not develop, be vigilent for caches that are not approved, and work with web hosts to remove inappropriate caches.

 

It also states that some park managers may decide that gps activity should be subject to permits.

 

Waymarking was not specifically addressed and I have never heard that the NPS has asked Groundspeak to remove existing virtuals. But my understanding is that the NPS was brought into the earthcaching program because permission was made part of the process.

 

I can understand why park officials would want to know about gps activity in a particular location - offtrail gps activity, listings that require people to enter sensitive areas, or tasks that might impact an area all require some degree of monitoring and knowledge.

 

I'm not certain that Groundspeak will unilaterally ignore NPS policy, but it would be good to work with park officials so that fees are not required for earthcache permission and the process is seen as being less of a burden and more of a partnership.

Edited by mulvaney
Link to comment

Throw all the stones you want, but it should be unnecessary to obtain approval for an EC in a National Park in the first place. Where is Jeremy when you need him? He questioned the requirement a few weeks back and he was right to do so! :angry:

 

The NPS, of course, has a different opinion. Their policy review contemplates approval of park administrators for traditional geocaching, virtual and earth caches, and letterboxing. The review states that park managers should monitor all approved gps activity to ensure that problems do not develop, be vigilent for caches that are not approved, and work with web hosts to remove inappropriate caches.

 

It also states that some park managers may decide that gps activity should be subject to permits.

 

Waymarking was not specifically addressed and I have never heard that the NPS has asked Groundspeak to remove existing virtuals. But my understanding is that the NPS was brought into the earthcaching program because permission was made part of the process.

 

I can understand why park officials would want to know about gps activity in a particular location - offtrail gps activity, listings that require people to enter sensitive areas, or tasks that might impact an area all require some degree of monitoring and knowledge.

 

I'm not certain that Groundspeak will unilaterally ignore NPS policy, but it would be good to work with park officials so that fees are not required for earthcache permission and the process is seen as being less of a burden and more of a partnership.

Thanks for the information.

Just because NPS publishes regulations doesn't necessarily mean they are legal as in the "eyes of the law!" Talking to a member of Congress, "the Parks are public places and the fact that you "advertise" and/or encourage folks to visit those places doesn't abridge your freedom of speech!"

Bottom line meaning: NPS cannot prohibit publishing any information that is compatible with the "legally" intended purpose of the Park. To do so flies in the face of our constitutionally given freedom of speech! Like many tour books, photo essays, trail guides and other published aspects of OUR National Parks, there are no legal requirements to obtain Park permission!

According to a friend who is a Constitutional lawyer, " Placing a box may be prohibited, but you cannot be prohibited from publishing and/or encouraging someone to visit any Park! In a legal showdown, NPS would lose beside, they probably don't have the funds to battle a question of freedom of speech!"

 

Don't get me wrong, I certainly believe in developing a good relationship with park personnel and put my time where my mouth is by volunteering my time as a volunteer or "Friend of the Park"", but the approval process can be a pain.

 

Here is a recent (like today) note from a NPS official answering my complaint of the unnecessary time taken to process proposed EC:

 

"What you are experiencing is the result of too few employees (one third of

the employee positions on the (Park name edited for privacy) are vacant - unfilled, for

lack of funds) trying to keep up with not only the core work of keeping the

park operating for visitors and protecting the natural resources, but to

provide additional (and needed!) new experiences like Earthcaching. Most

employees are wearing many more 'hats' than they were even a few years ago.

 

Again, I am so sorry that it's taken us so long. And I truly appreciate

your time and energy devoted to making the visitor's experience richer and

more rewarding."

 

Believe it or not, I am a patient person, but the proposed EC was submitted early in August!

 

This is an example of the Park personnel having too many priorities and not enough staff. The problem is they do not realize that earthcaches should be among the highest of those priorities. After all, what is a better "free" method of advertising and encouraging visits to the Parks! :(

Edited by Konnarock Kid & Marge
Link to comment

...they probably don't have the funds to battle a question of freedom of speech!

 

Well, the same goes for me as well :angry:

 

I really don't think it's productive to fight the NPS on that front. They clearly have a Congressional Mandate to manage and restrict certain activities on the lands they manage. Something they do on a daily basis I'm afraid :(

 

... I certainly believe in developing a good relationship with park personnel and put my time where my mouth is by volunteering my time as a volunteer or "Friend of the Park".

 

I think this "Cooperative" attitude is much more productive and will pay dividends down the road at some point. I think it's matter of rephrasing the entire discussion, so that we, as a Community, are not so much just, "...another Recreational User", but a partner in preserving these priceless resources and educating people about the natural wonders that the NPS helps protect.

 

Thanks for Volunteering KK&M. That's awesome :D

Link to comment

This is an example of the Park personnel having too many priorities and not enough staff. The problem is they do not realize that earthcaches should be among the highest of those priorities. After all, what is a better "free" method of advertising and encouraging visits to the Parks! :angry:

 

I do not want to debate constitutional law or whether NPS policies are a reasonable "time, place, or manner" restriction. I have found in a number of contexts that the moment the discussion turns to principles of constitutional law is the moment that progress is stalled. If we had to litigate earthcaching, everyone would lose regardless of the outcome.

 

The NPS policies leave a lot of room for future dialogue and education. In fact, they seem to welcome that. The policy raised some flags for me by comparing traditional caching with buried treasure (the result of an unfortunate incident a few years ago) and regarding earthcaching as a recreational use that may require special permits. While the policies recognize that various parks have incorporated earthcaching into their programs, the NPS as a whole seems to take a hands off approach and leave it to local managers.

 

In general, working with the NPS has been a good experience for me. I have one pending request that has been referred to the park's geologist. I have two others at a park with striking geological features that are highlighted in the literature, but no earthcaches. The park superintendent wrote to me, unprompted, and apologized for the delay in responding (it had been pending since early September) -- the proposals are being referred to staff for review of the content. Some parks have treated me as a volunteer, which is a good thing. It has opened up doors to at least discuss traditional caching. And I have appreciated of the comments and suggestions that park officials have made to some of my earthcaches.

 

I would like to see that relationship expand to where local park officials have greater knowledge of earthcaching and would welcome proposals or develop them on their own -- rather than talking about permit fees as the OP experienced. Although earthcachers are only a very small percentage of park users, I agree that we can offer the parks a lot in terms of adding to the educational experience of visitors-- particularly with gpsr activity becoming much more mainstream than it has in the past. And parks can offer us much in return, by assisting us with our proposals, contributing their knowledge of the park lands, and making earthcaches available to park users.

 

So I think Touchstone hit it right, the discussion should be about how to increase our partnership with the NPS and other agencies. In that regard, I hope the OP does not give up on the proposal to Glacier NP. It certainly seems to be one of the parks where earthcaching would be a natural fit. Bringing earthcaching into new parks can require a great deal of perseverance and patience, but as more parks embrace the idea it may become easier for others down the line.

Edited by mulvaney
Link to comment

This is an example of the Park personnel having too many priorities and not enough staff. The problem is they do not realize that earthcaches should be among the highest of those priorities. After all, what is a better "free" method of advertising and encouraging visits to the Parks! :angry:

 

I do not want to debate constitutional law or whether NPS policies are a reasonable "time, place, or manner" restriction. I have found in a number of contexts that the moment the discussion turns to principles of constitutional law is the moment that progress is stalled. If we had to litigate earthcaching, everyone would lose regardless of the outcome.

 

The NPS policies leave a lot of room for future dialogue and education. In fact, they seem to welcome that. The policy raised some flags for me by comparing traditional caching with buried treasure (the result of an unfortunate incident a few years ago) and regarding earthcaching as a recreational use that may require special permits. While the policies recognize that various parks have incorporated earthcaching into their programs, the NPS as a whole seems to take a hands off approach and leave it to local managers.

 

In general, working with the NPS has been a good experience for me. I have one pending request that has been referred to the park's geologist. I have two others at a park with striking geological features that are highlighted in the literature, but no earthcaches. The park superintendent wrote to me, unprompted, and apologized for the delay in responding (it had been pending since early September) -- the proposals are being referred to staff for review of the content. Some parks have treated me as a volunteer, which is a good thing. It has opened up doors to at least discuss traditional caching. And I have appreciated of the comments and suggestions that park officials have made to some of my earthcaches.

 

I would like to see that relationship expand to where local park officials have greater knowledge of earthcaching and would welcome proposals or develop them on their own -- rather than talking about permit fees as the OP experienced. Although earthcachers are only a very small percentage of park users, I agree that we can offer the parks a lot in terms of adding to the educational experience of visitors-- particularly with gpsr activity becoming much more mainstream than it has in the past. And parks can offer us much in return, by assisting us with our proposals, contributing their knowledge of the park lands, and making earthcaches available to park users.

 

So I think Touchstone hit it right, the discussion should be about how to increase our partnership with the NPS and other agencies. In that regard, I hope the OP does not give up on the proposal to Glacier NP. It certainly seems to be one of the parks where earthcaching would be a natural fit. Bringing earthcaching into new parks can require a great deal of perseverance and patience, but as more parks embrace the idea it may become easier for others down the line.

It is all well and good to try to enhance our relationships with the NPS folks, but most "partnerships" are a two way street! The red tape is par for the course. One would think that once you find the appropriate staff member who claims to have the approval authority that would cut the red tape, but that is not necessarily true. Don't they know that our cooperation is only in their best interest?

You are not going to like this very much, but I believe CSA should have never placed earthcaching in this position in the first place. GS doesn't have the requirement for Waymarks and didn't for virtuals. We now have to bow and scrape before some bureaucrats only to do them a favor! We are advertising the Park and that is for free.

I feel somewhat qualified to take this position because as I said earlier I am a certified volunteer at several parks and do not want to see anything but success for OUR parks! I don't volunteer just to get some "brownie points" for EC approvals! By it's very existence, earthcaching is supportive of our National Parks not the other way around!

Yes I agree to do everything we can to be supportive and yes, that can pay dividends. A few National Forests and Parks have given permission without seeing the EC before hand. I tell them about it orally and give the coordinates and that's it! They know me and the developed trust is there, but with others it is an unnecessary bureaucratic nightmare!

Yes, I also agree that the OP shouldn't give up, but not many are so persistent! :(

Link to comment

You are not going to like this very much, but I believe CSA should have never placed earthcaching in this position in the first place. GS doesn't have the requirement for Waymarks and didn't for virtuals. We now have to bow and scrape before some bureaucrats only to do them a favor! We are advertising the Park and that is for free.

While Groundspeak didn't have EarthCaching.org's policy of identifying who gave you permission for an EarthCache, virtual caches were subject to the same adequate permission rule as physical caches. Since nothing was placed it was often simply a matter of indicating that the virtual cache was at a spot where no permission was required to be there in the first place and where the area would not be highly sensitive to extra traffic caused by vehicles or humans. When I hid my virtual in an NPS area, I did not need to get explicit permission, but I did need to let the reviewer know that the cache was accessible from the trail and that the particular object of my virtual appeared on NPS trail maps so visitors were expected.

 

GSA/EarthCaching.org has worked to get NPS to be a co-sponsor of EarthCaching. It is likely that part of the agreement was to allow NPS personal to review EarthCache placements and ensure they were in areas open to the public and that would not be highly sensitive to extra traffic. It may me that the NPS also wants to verify the facts/science on the cache page. The EarthCache reviewer may not be familiar with the particular geologic feature being shown, but a park geologist would be. It should be clear that such review may take some time as it might not be at the highest priority for park staff.

Link to comment

"virtual caches were subject to the same adequate permission rule as physical caches Since nothing was placed it was often simply a matter of indicating that the virtual cache was at a spot where no permission was required to be there in the first place."

"I did not need to get explicit permission"

You made my point, no permission was needed with virtuals and it isn't needed with WayMarks and ECs shouldn't be treated any differently. Sorry, but as much as I love ECs, they are virtuals with geologic theme/lessons and ALR overtones! WayMarks cover the map. Permission for them? No.

Just what has that co-sponsorship gained for us? I contend, nothing. That was with a different administration and isn't recognized with current Park administrators and each NP is free to do what they want! Some allow, some don't. Where I have received permission, didn't have anything to do with any so-called co-sponsorship! Permission was granted because of old fashioned selling or an enlightened individual Park policy!

Again, I don't want to do anything but support our parks, but privately, many admit it is silly to need permission.

I know this topic is getting no where unless Jeremy intervenes and it may be too late for even him!

Thanks for keeping everything civil! :rolleyes:

Edited by Konnarock Kid & Marge
Link to comment

I had to get a special use permit for the EarthCaches I listed in Devil's Postpile NM. The special use permit there had a clause that allowed the fee to be waived for educational activities. This may apply. You can use those as examples. I heard of one park, Smokey Mountains as I recall, wanted $200 for thier fee.

 

I have found many NP take quite a while to get back to me. Yosemite was the hardest but now they have approved another dozen that I still have to write up. Persistance and cooperation has paid off. Death Valley is going on 9 months of waiting as people change and they figure out who will actually approve it. I won't mention how long I've been waiting for Inyo National Forest. I hope I even remember the details of the spots when I start writing them up.

Link to comment

Yosemite was the hardest but now they have approved another dozen that I still have to write up.

 

That's awesome news :grin: maybe Ranger Greg Stock put in a good word for you. I know that a number of people were asking me for his email after the EC Event in order to thank him personally. Hopefully we will see some new EC's in Yosemite before next years CITO? :angry:

 

It is strange how inconsistent the process is between the Parks. The two I submitted in Sequoia NP were quickly approve, while another two were politely declined due to concerns of overuse of the locations (with a hint that some further restrictions to access may be forethcoming).

Link to comment

I had to get a special use permit for the EarthCaches I listed in Devil's Postpile NM. The special use permit there had a clause that allowed the fee to be waived for educational activities. This may apply. You can use those as examples. I heard of one park, Smokey Mountains as I recall, wanted $200 for thier fee.

 

I have found many NP take quite a while to get back to me. Yosemite was the hardest but now they have approved another dozen that I still have to write up. Persistance and cooperation has paid off. Death Valley is going on 9 months of waiting as people change and they figure out who will actually approve it. I won't mention how long I've been waiting for Inyo National Forest. I hope I even remember the details of the spots when I start writing them up.

You may be correct about Great Smokey Mountains National Park, we are not far from the area, and the only caches there are some old virtuals there. Seems odd that a site can be listed on the Waymark site, but call it an EarthCache and it is a no-no? Beats the heck outta me! :anibad:

Link to comment

I had to get a special use permit for the EarthCaches I listed in Devil's Postpile NM. The special use permit there had a clause that allowed the fee to be waived for educational activities. This may apply. You can use those as examples. I heard of one park, Smokey Mountains as I recall, wanted $200 for thier fee.

 

I have found many NP take quite a while to get back to me. Yosemite was the hardest but now they have approved another dozen that I still have to write up. Persistance and cooperation has paid off. Death Valley is going on 9 months of waiting as people change and they figure out who will actually approve it. I won't mention how long I've been waiting for Inyo National Forest. I hope I even remember the details of the spots when I start writing them up.

You may be correct about Great Smokey Mountains National Park, we are not far from the area, and the only caches there are some old virtuals there. Seems odd that a site can be listed on the Waymark site, but call it an EarthCache and it is a no-no? Beats the heck outta me! :laughing:

 

Hey Manville, it shouldn't beat the heck out of you! It's because earthcaching has to be different and we need to crawl and beg for unnecessary permission while WayMarks and virtuals get/got a pass! Jeremy, are ya out there? We need your help.

P.S. It would be one thing if the National Park Service had anything that resembled a consistent policy, but they don't. :anibad:

Link to comment

I had to get a special use permit for the EarthCaches I listed in Devil's Postpile NM. The special use permit there had a clause that allowed the fee to be waived for educational activities. This may apply. You can use those as examples. I heard of one park, Smokey Mountains as I recall, wanted $200 for thier fee.

 

I have found many NP take quite a while to get back to me. Yosemite was the hardest but now they have approved another dozen that I still have to write up. Persistance and cooperation has paid off. Death Valley is going on 9 months of waiting as people change and they figure out who will actually approve it. I won't mention how long I've been waiting for Inyo National Forest. I hope I even remember the details of the spots when I start writing them up.

You may be correct about Great Smokey Mountains National Park, we are not far from the area, and the only caches there are some old virtuals there. Seems odd that a site can be listed on the Waymark site, but call it an EarthCache and it is a no-no? Beats the heck outta me! :anitongue:

 

Hey Manville, it shouldn't beat the heck out of you! It's because earthcaching has to be different and we need to crawl and beg for unnecessary permission while WayMarks and virtuals get/got a pass! Jeremy, are ya out there? We need your help.

P.S. It would be one thing if the National Park Service had anything that resembled a consistent policy, but they don't. :D

I agree KK, after all of the bureaucratic steps I went through that took over 1 year to get permission to develop an EarthCache in a State Park, I soon found out that site less than 30 feet of my EC coordinates is listed on the Waymarking site. I have also started Waymarking some things that interest me, mostly historic things, but with all the categorys listed on the Waymarking site, I can likely post word for word without requiring ANY answers be emailed to me most EarthCaches. And I don't need permission. This is just not right, or are EarthCaches really that special? I would rather log an EC than a waymark just for the smiley, maybe others feel the same way, that could be why the Waymarking site in almost unused in our area. I think that the NPS should use the same policys too. :laughing:

Link to comment

I know in Yellowstone, you need to contact the Visitor Service Office, they are the ones that deal with permits and things like that. I noticed that someone noted to contact the Supe office. I would go there, they would refer you to the Visitor Sevices Office, at least thats the way it works here in Yellowstone Good Luck

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...