Relations with the National Parks

[+ATXTracker]

I'm curios if/how Groundspeak has tried building a relationship with the National Parks/Forrest/Certain States etc. Anyone know?

 

I threw this 'idea' up on the feedback site: http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/75775-geocaching-com/suggestions/2129907-work-with-national-parks-to-avoid-fees?ref=title

 

I cringe every time I hear about cachers being evicted from large portions of the country. Obviously, I think caching is a reasonable activity for our public-owned lands.

Edited August 10, 2011 by ATXTracker

[+briansnat]

The answer is yes.

[+edscott]

There is a procedure in place to put caches in National Parks. Problem is that most park administrators choose to ignore it. NPS geocaching policy I currently have placed 4 caches in a National Park.

Edited August 10, 2011 by edscott

[WanderingWoodsman]

I've volunteered at some National Parks and this summer put together a small program teaching kids how to use GPS technology by finding boxes I hid then later retrieved. I also put together a few Earthcaches inside the park. Even to do these things I had to come up with a fairly detailed plan for preventing any off trail activity and/or harm to the area. I'm not about to say that this is unwarranted because I have been told that this park has had some trouble with unauthorized (and somewhat harmful) geocaches. Something like 6 or 7 have been removed because of destruction to vegetation or safety issues. As much as I like traditional geocaches I feel that for this park, and perhaps others, earthcaches are the answer. The rangers and administrators I've talked to have convinced me that their top priority is protecting the resources and the safety of visitors. And if they do that by closely examining and regulating not just cachers but all recreational participants I find it difficult to blame them.

[+Hank30721]

I work closely with USFS and NPS employees in my line of work. I understand the issues they face. My concern is that USFS regions run their areas completely different from each other. I have filed permits for placement in NC that were free of charge - very easy process. The supervisor there was a cacher himself. He thought this was a great way to get more people out in the forest to enjoy "their" forest.

 

In TN, I was quoted $112 to place A cache. That permit would need to be reapplied for each year for $112. I was told at the particular district office that geocaching was not a legitimate use of the forest along with rock-climbing, telescope use, orienteering, etc. He said they were working to keep as many people out of the forest as they could to make resource management easier. He said they were making great strides with motorized vehicle prohibition and equestrian use and now this was another issue they had to manage. He was very bitter and defensive - all I did was ask what was the authorization process....

 

I understand resource constraints and users that are less respectful of the land than they should be, but this isn't 3rd grade where we all have to stay after class because one idiot was chewing gum when he wasn't supposed to. Don't treat us like sheep. The national forests are there for public recreation - they should be managed to that end. I make compromises every day to live and work to not unduly infringe on my fellow man, forest management should take that same approach. Define cache placement specifically, determine what the appropriate punishment is for violating that policy and carry out discipline to those that violate.

 

I feel like the USDA is using logic again that they used in removing trash cans from certain areas in the forest - that way people wouldn't pollute?!!

Edited August 10, 2011 by Hank30721

[+geodarts]

There is a procedure in place to put caches in National Parks. Problem is that most park administrators choose to ignore it.

 

There is a alightly more current policy review. It gives local officials a great deal of discretion in determining whether gps activities and letterboxing should be allowed. I am not sure that park administrators are ignoring it rather than certain areas reach different conclusions when assessing "the impact on park resources and values and on other visitor uses."

 

It is my understanding that after caches began to be placed in park areas, a ranger discovered one that might have been buried and spread the alert. But in any event, park officials have taken a number of different approaches.

 

Earthcaching brought the NPS into the game as a partners. Some parks have embraced the program and feature earthcaches on their web site; others were brought into the program through hard work by various cachers. The first earthcaches in Yosemite, for example, went through major hurdles with park officials and were approved only on a trial basis, but it was so successful that officials ended up asking that others be developed there.

 

Some parks have more recently allowed traditional caches to be placed on their land; some have placed caches themselves on their land; most still do not allow it. The NPS is one of the sponsors with the Star Spangled Geotrail - so partnerships have been developed with them beyond earthcaching.

 

In my area, there were several caches on NPS land that had been grandfathered by Groundspeak after the area was closed down to new listings. Park officials went back and removed about 95% of these caches. The current administrator of one of the largest areas has told me that he considers traditional caches to be litter, believes that the caches caused unacceptable impact, and will never approve traditional caching on his watch. However, just across the bay, the land trust administering an area of NPS land placed a few caches. So perhaps there is hope that caching will continue to be accepted into the parks, although I suspect that we are a long way from getting traditional caches approved in parks like Yosemite or the Grand Canyon.

Edited August 10, 2011 by geodarts