new forest service rules

[koz]

just found out us forest service now requires a special use permit w/$59 fee per cache per year...that pretty well ends the game for me...has anyone at gc.com held discussions w/fs about these overly-restrictive rules?...any plans to do so?

[+ohmelli]

just found out us forest service now requires a special use permit w/$59 fee per cache per year...that pretty well ends the game for me...has anyone at gc.com held discussions w/fs about these overly-restrictive rules?...any plans to do so?

 

Caches aren't allowed in National Forrests or Parks anyway... so to me this sounds like they would be allowing them... if we're willing to PAY to put one there? I'm not really understanding this...

[+Geodalf]

I knew caches in National Parks was a no no but I understood in National Forest was OK. I just called up the local ranger district and asked the question. The answer I got is anyone who puts anything on National Forest Land needs to get a special use permit. They said this is not a new requirement.

Edited May 7, 2012 by Geodalf

[+ohmelli]

Hmmmm... I'm not being sarcastic here... I'm truly wondering... how many National Forrests do we have that are NOT a part of a National Park?

[+Lil Devil]

how many National Forests do we have that are NOT a part of a National Park?

Most of them.

[+geodarts]

There are a number of different policies depending on the forest service region or the specific national forest. Some, like Coconino National Forest in New Mexico have no policy regarding our game. Others, like the Mount Hood National Forest link to this site. There are national forests, like the Shoshone, that provide general guidelines - others like the Allegheny designate certain areas - yet require no permits. North Carolina National Forests require permits and state that caches should be moved or removed within a year, but do not charge a fee unless a cache is associated with a commercial event.

 

It appears that the OP is from Virginia. The caching rules for these national forests have been discussed in this forum and elsewhere. The policy is found here. There are various issues that can be raised in regard to the Region 8 Forest Service Manual that is quoted (including the interpretation of when special use permits are required, which differs even within the region), but I am not sure if there have been any further developments since the matter was last discussed.

Edited May 7, 2012 by geodarts

[+uxorious]

Hmmmm... I'm not being sarcastic here... I'm truly wondering... how many National Forrests do we have that are NOT a part of a National Park?

 

People often confuse National Forest and National Parks. However, they are separate things ran by separate Government agencies, with different rules and goals.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

C'mon folks, in the U.S., National Forest (USFS administration) and National Parks (NPS administration) are two different animals, distinctly different. It's best not to confuse the two. Many of their policies are near opposite.

 

USFS parent agency is the Department of Agriculture. It is their policy to administer USE of federal lands under their control.

NPS parent agency is the Department of the Interior. It generally is their policy to PRESERVE lands under their control.

 

You can see how those policies may well differ. When you speak of these agencies, please make sure you refer to each correctly.

[+geodarts]

C'mon folks, in the U.S., National Forest (USFS administration) and National Parks (NPS administration) are two different animals, distinctly different. It's best not to confuse the two. Many of their policies are near opposite.

 

USFS parent agency is the Department of Agriculture. It is their policy to administer USE of federal lands under their control.

NPS parent agency is the Department of the Interior. It generally is their policy to PRESERVE lands under their control.

 

You can see how those policies may well differ. When you speak of these agencies, please make sure you refer to each correctly.

 

And recognize that neither agency has a monolithic stance on caching, which is why it is important to look at the specific policies in any given jurisdiction.

[+ocklawahaboy]

This pops up sometimes. We went through a round of it about two years ago. Your local group or reviewers might be able to work something out with the local ranger. Just remember you catch more flies with honey.

[+ohmelli]

C'mon folks, in the U.S., National Forest (USFS administration) and National Parks (NPS administration) are two different animals, distinctly different. It's best not to confuse the two. Many of their policies are near opposite.

 

USFS parent agency is the Department of Agriculture. It is their policy to administer USE of federal lands under their control.

NPS parent agency is the Department of the Interior. It generally is their policy to PRESERVE lands under their control.

 

You can see how those policies may well differ. When you speak of these agencies, please make sure you refer to each correctly.

Well excuuuuuuu-uuuuuuuuuse ME! :laughing: I am taking notes! And to THINK, my father used to work for the Dept. of Agriculture ... for 42 years! Wow... the things parents don't teach their kids... tsk tsk tsk...

[+hydnsek]

C'mon folks, in the U.S., National Forest (USFS administration) and National Parks (NPS administration) are two different animals, distinctly different. It's best not to confuse the two. Many of their policies are near opposite.

 

USFS parent agency is the Department of Agriculture. It is their policy to administer USE of federal lands under their control.

NPS parent agency is the Department of the Interior. It generally is their policy to PRESERVE lands under their control.

 

You can see how those policies may well differ. When you speak of these agencies, please make sure you refer to each correctly.

 

And recognize that neither agency has a monolithic stance on caching, which is why it is important to look at the specific policies in any given jurisdiction.

These.

 

The Pacific Northwest has huge areas of National Forest land, and we cache on all of them (except when sections are closed for logging). Currently no permits or fees required. I have several caches on USFS land. I've heard that USFS units in other areas are not always as relaxed about geocaching, but I've also seen posted signs in some areas (e.g., New Mexico) that specifically do allow geocaching. It really varies.

 

I also have two physical caches in North Cascades National Park, which did require specific permission from the superintendent. Caches in national parks / monuments / recreation areas are still a rarity, at least in the western U.S.

 

Wilderness Areas, however, are now strictly off-limits, at least out here.

Edited May 8, 2012 by hydnsek

[stldenise]

I have enough trouble finding things in my county park, I would never dream of wandering around a genuine forest looking for a cache! Plus, there aren't a lot of National Parks in my area--the two I know of here are either a historical place (a president's home) and the Gateway Arch. I think the feds would shoot anyone trying to hide something on the Arch, they added metal detectors after 9-11.

[+Manville Possum]

I'm hoping that things can be worked out, but I'm not paying the fees to place geocaches on NFS property. Hopefully the ones that are out there can be grandfathered, but things don't look so well. EarthCaches and Virtuals have different rules on NFS property, but seems geocaches were approved and listed here and there were already Laws on the books against leaving unattended property/geocaches being left on NFS property. I have already ran into problems with new placements on NFS property with my local reviewer, in fact my reviewer was the one that made me aware of some of the facts. I think all this really sucks, we enjoy geocaching on NFS property most of all. Geocaching to me is about getting outdoors, and not LPC's at WalMart.

[+terrkan78]

I have enough trouble finding things in my county park, I would never dream of wandering around a genuine forest looking for a cache! Plus, there aren't a lot of National Parks in my area--the two I know of here are either a historical place (a president's home) and the Gateway Arch. I think the feds would shoot anyone trying to hide something on the Arch, they added metal detectors after 9-11.

Ahh, but a genuine forest is balm to the soul! At least until you get to GZ, your GPS is reading 30 ft accuracy under thick trees, the hint is "stump" and there's at least 12 in the immediate vicinity, none of which seem to be hiding a cache.

 

National Parks - meh (way too many people). But forests (national or otherwise)...if you can find a chunk that hasn't seen a chainsaw in a long while, find a trail with a geocache along the way (you'll likely have it all to yourself)...oh yeah, caching doesn't get any better than that!

[+hydnsek]

[National Parks - meh (way too many people). But forests (national or otherwise)...if you can find a chunk that hasn't seen a chainsaw in a long while, find a trail with a geocache along the way (you'll likely have it all to yourself)...oh yeah, caching doesn't get any better than that!

Not all of them. North Cascades is beautiful and unpopulated, partly cos you can't drive through it. But amazing vistas!

 

Cascade Pass

Hidden Lake Lookout

[+wimseyguy]

Just work with your local reviewer as has already been stated. In NC we need to get permits, but there aren't any fees. And from what I hear from my geopals most of the permits are being issued over the phone with minimal fuss. YMMV

[+chaosmanor]

The best thing to do in regards to caching on USFS land is to go to the USFS website - http://www.fs.fed.us/ - and then use the search boxes in the orange bar ("By State" or "By Name"), and then go to the NAtional Forest in question. ON that Forest's home page is a Search box. Type "Geocache" in it; you should also type "Geocaching" in it, in a second search, just to cover the bases.

 

If you get a "No pages were found" message, then that particular National Forest has no policy pro or con. As long as your cache hides are along a trail, not near any historically or naturally sensitive area, are not on a private "in-holding", etc. etc. etc, then you are OK.

 

OTOH, if you get a result from your search, read what you get, and follow whatever rules, etc. apply. Out here in The West, National Forests are large, many are within an hour's drive of large population centers, and some of them are for public recreation only, or have very limited lumbering, mining, etc, so the opportunities for geocaching, letterboxing, etc. are many. I guess it isn't quite that way back East.

 

BTW: I'm a pedant and a stickler. The acronyms are USFS, as in United States Forest Service, and NPS, as in National Park Service. Please try to keep these straight, especially if you need to talk to an employee of either. Using NFS shows a lack of knowledge, and you are likely to be rebuffed if you are asking permission, because it looks like you don't even know to whom you are speaking. And USPS would be even worse: that's the movers of snail-mail.

[+geodarts]

Just work with your local reviewer as has already been stated. In NC we need to get permits, but there aren't any fees. And from what I hear from my geopals most of the permits are being issued over the phone with minimal fuss. YMMV

 

I am not sure the extent that a reviewer can help (at least in the role of being a reviewer). The links I provided in an earlier post indicates that the Virginia policies (where the original poster lives) are more restrictive than North Carolina. And the Groundspeak Virginia wiki, maintained by a reviewer (honeychile), simply cites these rules.

 

Virginia relies upon a particularly restrictive section of the Region 8 Forest Service Manual. Certainly, the example of North Carolina indicates that the manual is subject to local interpretation and has not been uniformly adopted throughout the region. The thread in these forums that I linked to above contains discussion about this, so there is no need to repeat it here. But from what I can gather, there are members of local geocaching groups (such as the Northern Virginia Geocachers Organization) that continue to be concerned about the policy - and hopefully people can work together to change it.

 

It would be interested to get an update about whether they have had specific communication or meetings with the local forest service.

Edited May 8, 2012 by geodarts

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

If you get a "No pages were found" message, then that particular National Forest has no policy pro or con. As long as your cache hides are along a trail, not near any historically or naturally sensitive area, are not on a private "in-holding", etc. etc. etc, then you are OK.

 

I am not sure this is the best approach in this case. If there is nothing found, I'd contact the office for the Forest in question. Just because there is nothing on the website doesn't necessarily mean there's no policy.

[+Corfman Clan]

Some, like Coconino National Forest in New Mexico have no policy regarding our game.

The Coconino is in Arizona, not New Mexico.

[+Chrysalides]

Some, like Coconino National Forest in New Mexico have no policy regarding our game.

The Coconino is in Arizona, not New Mexico.

This brought a grin - not that I knew what state it is in. Just that after the confusion with National Parks and National Forests earlier, it struck me as funny.

 

Out of curiosity I clicked on that link, and noticed the following :

 

Caches should be removed after one year regardless of site activity and moved to a new location or removed from the national forest.

 

Should still be OK under the Geocache Permanence guidelines, which states "less than 3 months" as temporary. But interesting.

[+farrtom]

The best thing to do in regards to caching on USFS land is to go to the USFS website - http://www.fs.fed.us/ - and then use the search boxes in the orange bar ("By State" or "By Name"), and then go to the NAtional Forest in question. ON that Forest's home page is a Search box. Type "Geocache" in it; you should also type "Geocaching" in it, in a second search, just to cover the bases.

 

After going to this site I searched four of the Nation Forests in my state and only one had a written policy. This happened to be a very favorable policy not requiring a permit.

It did restrict cache locations with the following statement "Geocaching is not allowed in designated wilderness areas or in any other designated area such as national scenic areas, wild and scenic river corridors, or historic or scenic trails. Geocaching is not allowed within areas designated as national historic landmarks, sites, or pre-historic sites."

There was additional information but this was the meat of the policy.

[+geodarts]

Some, like Coconino National Forest in New Mexico have no policy regarding our game.

The Coconino is in Arizona, not New Mexico.

 

Yes. I had been clicking too many forest service sites during a quick break from work . Although the state had nothing to do with the point of the post I am certainly glad that the record is straight.

[+ohmelli]

I went to USFS website and did a "Search by State"... and Maryland doesn't HAVE any National Forrests! NO WONDER I don't know anything!!!

[+chasclifton]

This thread's subject line caught my attention, as I have five caches on the San Isabel National Forest. Its website says "Your search - geocache - did not match any documents." Whew!

 

So c'mon down to southern Colorado.

 

I have had one or two individual staffers express the view that geocaches were "litter," but they were not on the law-enforcement side of things, and we were having our conversation in town.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

This thread's subject line caught my attention, as I have five caches on the San Isabel National Forest. Its website says "Your search - geocache - did not match any documents." Whew!

 

 

You need to search again.

[+Don_J]

If you get a "No pages were found" message, then that particular National Forest has no policy pro or con. As long as your cache hides are along a trail, not near any historically or naturally sensitive area, are not on a private "in-holding", etc. etc. etc, then you are OK.

 

I am not sure this is the best approach in this case. If there is nothing found, I'd contact the office for the Forest in question. Just because there is nothing on the website doesn't necessarily mean there's no policy.

 

Well, it works around here. Our local forest has 1360 caches in it and to date, I don't think there has ever been an issue. It's common around here for fire fighters to find an ammo can and sign the log while mopping up a fire.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I went to USFS website and did a "Search by State"... and Maryland doesn't HAVE any National Forrests! NO WONDER I don't know anything!!!

 

Don't feel too bad. New York State only has one (Finger Lakes National Forest...about 17 miles from me). However, we have a lot of state parks, including Adirondack State Park, the largest state park in the contiguous United States. The park covers some 6.1 million acres, a land area greater than Yellowstone, Yosemite, Grand Canyon, Glacier, and Great Smoky Mountains National Parks combined. Even within the park geocaching policies may vary widely. There are several wilderness areas within the park boundary and about half of the land is privately owned, including several villages and hamlets.

[+ngrrfan]

This thread's subject line caught my attention, as I have five caches on the San Isabel National Forest. Its website says "Your search - geocache - did not match any documents." Whew!

 

 

You need to search again.

Thanks for the link. I knew that caches were not allowed in wilderness areas but wasn't aware of the historic district restriction.

[+chasclifton]

This thread's subject line caught my attention, as I have five caches on the San Isabel National Forest. Its website says "Your search - geocache - did not match any documents." Whew!

 

 

You need to search again.

 

Thanks for pointing that out. I was planning to look for some caches in the Sangre de Cristo Range this summer — not sure if they are inside the wilderness area boundary or not, but if they are, I won't tell. None of my caches are within designated wilderness areas.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

...not sure if they are inside the wilderness area boundary or not, but if they are, I won't tell.

 

Why not? If they violate the rules set forth by the property owner/management, it does everyone a favor by getting them removed. Better "us" doing it, than the Rangers.

[+chasclifton]

Why not? If they violate the rules set forth by the property owner/management, it does everyone a favor by getting them removed. Better "us" doing it, than the Rangers.

 

Local knowledge, for one thing.

 

I know where the wilderness area boundaries are, and how close they are to trails that are not designated wilderness. I know where the boundaries are marked and where they are not. If I saw a flagrant violation (like a cache way up on one of the high peaks), I might tell a cache owner, but you have to allow for honest mistakes, don't you agree?

 

Still, it is interesting to know that someone at the Pike-San Isabel has even thought about geocaching at the level of the supervisor's office. But given the ratio of wilderness rangers and trail crews to square miles of territory, a (theoretical) cache purge is probably about number 873 on their list of work priorities.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Why not? If they violate the rules set forth by the property owner/management, it does everyone a favor by getting them removed. Better "us" doing it, than the Rangers.

 

Local knowledge, for one thing.

 

I know where the wilderness area boundaries are, and how close they are to trails that are not designated wilderness. I know where the boundaries are marked and where they are not. If I saw a flagrant violation (like a cache way up on one of the high peaks), I might tell a cache owner, but you have to allow for honest mistakes, don't you agree?

 

Honest mistake or not, they should be removed. If not removed by the CO, they will eventually get the attention of the property manager. And then it's too late.