Geocache Archive Requests

November 28, 2013

I wanted to raise awareness to something that I had not seen before in New Jersey. NNJC, a local caching club, has teamed with local park management to force the archival of existing geocaches that had originally approval from park personel. I am aware that NNJC scouted the area are determiend which geocaches should be archived. Mine were targetted by the NNJC President. When I ignored NNJC's request the land manager contacted me. Once NNJC got the land manager involved I felt I had no choce but to archive my geocaches.

The communications I received are as follows:

--------------

------------

Greetings,

I writing on behalf of the Northern New Jersey cachers (NNJC) and Kittatinny Valley State Park (KVSP) regarding you cache placed within KVSP.

NNJC is holding this years Caching Through the Snow event #10 on 12/8/13 at KVSP and we are partnering and working with the State Park to reclaim a loop trail for their new educational caches. The State park wants to use this trail for their geocaching programs.

Unfortunately, your cache(s) has been marked among others to be too near this new Geotrail. We are requesting that you please archive your cache to allow room for these new KVSP geotrail caches. NNJC's goal is to partner with many parks and land managers that let geocachers use their resources. But, with the abundance of caches already in these parks, we are forced to ask current cache owners to work with NNJC to recycle these parks to achieve the desired goals of creating new educational geotrails.

I hope you agree and understand that this requests benefits many and most important the land managers. If you are interested in becoming more involved with NNJC perhaps by working with new cache placements, maintenance, programs etc, please let me know. Future KVSP cache placements will be at the approval of the State park.

We are submitting the new KVSP Geotrail geocaches by next week and ask that you please archive your cache by next Monday 11/25/13 to allow the proper reviewer process.

Please email me with any questions and to also let me know when you have archived your cache(s).

Thanks you for understanding and working with NNJC.

<name redacted> ~ Old Navy

President NNJC.org

-------------

I then received this:

--------------

As a final follow-up to our face-to-face conversation on Saturday, October 5, as well as my additional email request dated November 22, and as the Kittatinny Valley State Park representative from whom you originally obtained permission to place your "Xmas" geocache series for "Caching Through the Snow 7," I require, on behalf of the staff at KVSP, that you archive and remove all of your geocaches from Kittatinny Valley State Park so as not to further impede the creation of a new interpretive geo-trail, the public launching of which will coincide with this year's "Caching Through the Snow 10" on Sunday, December 8, 2013.

As stated in my previous communications, other cache owners were asked to honor the same official request to make room for this family-friendly educational trail featuring geocaches that respect the interpretive themes of the park, namely its history and natural resources. I think you'll find that these geocaches will be more suitable for park visitors of all ages to discover during my monthly geocaching programs.

The archiving of GC2JJCE (Xmas Presents for Sue&Barry), GC2JFXX (Xmas Presents for Treequest), GC2JFY6 (Xmas Presents for klizich), and GC2JFXR (Xmas Presents for Briansnat) needs to be completed by Friday, November 28, 2013 to allow enough time for the reviewer process of the new geocaches. You have until the end of the calendar year to remove the actual containers, after which they will become property of KVSP.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Regards,

Resource Interpretive Specialist, Natural Resources

Kittatinny Valley State Park

November 28, 2013

This sounds like crap to me. If your caches were there first then the area is yours in my opinion. If the land owner is going to continue to allow caches then they should be yours that already exist. If they remove your containers themselves then you could use that as fodder for Groundspeak to not publish their new caches as they intentionally removed yours. I think you have a case and that the area is yours until Groundspeak says otherwise.

13.7k · November 28, 2013

I would have placed this thread in the general topic forums, where you'd get a few more replies. :lol:

I thought events that are created to simply go caching weren't allowed.

I'm sure some of those affected are also members of the group.

How were your caches "less suitable" than ones they're planning?

November 28, 2013

Wow....this is pretty surprising. I've only recently met Old Navy (recently nominated geocacher of the month) and up until now, I've had a very high opinion about him. It's worth saying that I'm a part of SJG (South Jersey Geocachers) and I've never heard of such a practice. We would never ask (force) a cacher to archive their caches against their will if they adhered to geocaching guidelines and were well maintained.

I honestly think that this is an issue that you may want to address with our local reviewer, Cotton Malone, as he may have a different prospective.

Unfortunately, something working against you is the fact that one of the very prolific cachers in NNJC (Ranger_*name redacted*) is also very active in that particular community and seems to be quite close with Old Navy. If that particular ranger/land manager is requesting archival of your caches, your back may be against the wall.

How unfortunate it is to hear that this practice is taking place in our very own state.

Since our local reviewer is not as active in the forums here, you may possibly get some insight from other area reviewers on how to go about dealing with this situation.

Things to consider -

Have your caches previously been approved by park rangers?

Are your caches properly maintained as far as geocaching.com and NJ state park rules are concerned?

Are you currently an active member of NNJC and is your opinion widely recognized in their forums?

-----------------------

My opinion above is unbiased and considering all of the possible outcomes as well as giving NNJC the benefit of the doubt.....however, as an NJ geocacher myself, I feel this is an unfortunate practice and I don't condone the archival of already established and well maintained caches for the purpose of an event driven geo trail.

I hope you don't mind, but I plan to forward this thread to both the south and central geocaching forums for further opinions on this topic.

Edited November 28, 2013 by billdavidsaurus

November 28, 2013

Hmmm... I'm not positive, but I believe a similar thing happened within the past few months for a new geotrail in Central NJ. Quality caches that had been around for six years were archived to put in 20+ new caches. One of the caches archived was a challenge cache that is the final for 26 caches hidden troughout central NJ--all of the other caches are still active, but now there is no final! I don't see why a geotrail couldn't have a few less caches (say 15 or so) so that the existing caches could remain. Also I have not done this new geotrail but in most cases these sorts of geotrail hides are all carbon copies of each other - identical containers, identical swag, standard ho-hum hides. It would be nice to have a few more interesting caches mixed in with a variety of hiders (IMHO).

Kittany Valley SP, however, has had an ongoing geocaching program for a number of years, so maybe they want to "refresh" the caches there. I dunno!

EDIT: oh I'm sorry - there were actually THIRTY-SEVEN caches in the new central jersey geotrail, yet they couldn't let the 5-6 that were already in the park remain...jeez!

Edited November 28, 2013 by trowel32

November 28, 2013

Wow....this is pretty surprising. I've only recently met Old Navy (recently nominated geocacher of the month) and up until now, I've had a very high opinion about him. It's worth saying that I'm a big part of SJG (South Jersey Geocachers) and I've never heard of such a practice. We would never ask (force) a cacher to archive their caches against their will if they adhered to geocaching guidelines and were well maintained.

I honestly think that this is an issue that you may want to address with our local reviewer, Cotton Malone, as he may have a different prospective.

Unfortunately, something working against you is the fact that one of the very prolific cachers in NNJC (Ranger_*name redacted*) is also very active in that particular community and seems to be quite close with Old Navy. If that particular ranger/land manager is requesting archival of your caches, your back may be against the wall.

How unfortunate it is to hear that this practice is taking place in our very own state.

Since our local reviewer is not as active in the forums here, you may possibly get some insight from other area reviewers on how to go about dealing with this situation.

Things to consider -

Have your caches previously been approved by park rangers?

Are your caches properly maintained as far as geocaching.com and NJ state park rules are concerned?

Are you currently an active member of NNJC and is your opinion widely recognized in their forums?

-----------------------

My opinion above is unbiased and considering all of the possible outcomes as well as giving NNJC the benefit of the doubt.....however, as an NJ geocacher myself, I feel this is an unfortunate practice and I don't condone the archival of already established and well maintained caches for the purpose of an event driven geo trail.

I hope you don't mind, but I plan to forward this thread to both the south and central geocaching forums for further opinions on this topic.

Three years ago The caches had been approved my the land manager who now requested they be archived so that is a no go.

November 28, 2013

.

Edited November 28, 2013 by trowel32

November 28, 2013

My core issue with this is that we're having caches forcibly archived based on someone elses perspective on what a quality/appropriate cache is all about. That has been, until now, the responsibility of the individual cacher, the approver and the caching community - democratic geocaching, if you will. Now, we're been confronted by a very slippery slope where the President of a local club (NNJC) partners with a land manager (also a cacher) to effectively control a park and unilaterally force archive approved and established caches. And, they're advocating this practice at other parks. Beware this could be coming to a park near you.

November 28, 2013

Wow....this is pretty surprising. I've only recently met Old Navy (recently nominated geocacher of the month) and up until now, I've had a very high opinion about him. It's worth saying that I'm a big part of SJG (South Jersey Geocachers) and I've never heard of such a practice. We would never ask (force) a cacher to archive their caches against their will if they adhered to geocaching guidelines and were well maintained.

I honestly think that this is an issue that you may want to address with our local reviewer, Cotton Malone, as he may have a different prospective.

Unfortunately, something working against you is the fact that one of the very prolific cachers in NNJC (Ranger_*name redacted*) is also very active in that particular community and seems to be quite close with Old Navy. If that particular ranger/land manager is requesting archival of your caches, your back may be against the wall.

How unfortunate it is to hear that this practice is taking place in our very own state.

Since our local reviewer is not as active in the forums here, you may possibly get some insight from other area reviewers on how to go about dealing with this situation.

Things to consider -

Have your caches previously been approved by park rangers?

Are your caches properly maintained as far as geocaching.com and NJ state park rules are concerned?

Are you currently an active member of NNJC and is your opinion widely recognized in their forums?

-----------------------

My opinion above is unbiased and considering all of the possible outcomes as well as giving NNJC the benefit of the doubt.....however, as an NJ geocacher myself, I feel this is an unfortunate practice and I don't condone the archival of already established and well maintained caches for the purpose of an event driven geo trail.

I hope you don't mind, but I plan to forward this thread to both the south and central geocaching forums for further opinions on this topic.

Three years ago The caches had been approved my the land manager who now requested they be archived so that is a no go.

Wow. I have some words for this topic that are not very appropriate, honestly. Unfortunately, if the land manager (who if I'm not mistaken is part of NNJC herself) is requesting archival and removal of your caches, you have no choice but to adhere.

However, just to let you know, your posting of this request has made a dent to the point that I have personally lost a piece of respect for the leaders of the NNJC society. I have forwarded this thread to the SJG forum to spread the awareness of this action as well. I'm sure that this whole underhanded situation will not sit well with the community as a whole regardless of what the outcome is for your caches.

Personally, I was planning on attending "Caching through the snow #10". Not anymore. This whole situation makes me sick to my stomach. It's as if I were to approach another cacher and say "HEY, your caches are in the way of my new event caches! Get rid of em so I can place MY caches or I'll make my park ranger friend do it for you!"

November 28, 2013

Hmmm... I'm not positive, but I believe a similar thing happened within the past few months for a new geotrail in Central NJ. Quality caches that had been around for six years were archived to put in 20+ new caches. One of the caches archived was a challenge cache that is the final for 26 caches hidden troughout central NJ--all of the other caches are still active, but now there is no final! I don't see why a geotrail couldn't have a few less caches (say 15 or so) so that the existing caches could remain. Also I have not done this new geotrail but in most cases these sorts of geotrail hides are all carbon copies of each other - identical containers, identical swag, standard ho-hum hides. It would be nice to have a few more interesting caches mixed in with a variety of hiders (IMHO).

Kittany Valley SP, however, has had an ongoing geocaching program for a number of years, so maybe they want to "refresh" the caches there. I dunno!

EDIT: oh I'm sorry - there were actually THIRTY-SEVEN caches in the new central jersey geotrail, yet they couldn't let the 5-6 that were already in the park remain...jeez!

They didn't let me keep even one in the park! Heck one of the containers is a mortar sized ammo can that I need to remove weighs about 20 pounds.

November 28, 2013

.

Edited November 28, 2013 by billdavidsaurus

November 28, 2013

Next Ramapo SF will want to establish an educational geotrail on the Blue Trail and they will archive the Gerbil :rolleyes:

November 28, 2013

Next Ramapo SF will want to establish an educational geotrail on the Blue Trail and they will archive the Gerbil

If left to the discretion of a few, with the majority not objecting,it will happen.

2k · November 28, 2013

I wouldn't archive my caches at the request of a geocaching club. I would wait until the land manager, park ranger, or whoever else is responsible to directly request. But when/if they do, it's up to them. Groundspeak and the reviewers really have no say in it.

November 28, 2013

Next Ramapo SF will want to establish an educational geotrail on the Blue Trail and they will archive the Gerbil

If left to the discretion of a few, with the majority not objecting,it will happen.

I suppose since NNJC has the power of the park rangers on their caching team, this is a very viable possibility should they want to host an event there.

Edited November 28, 2013 by billdavidsaurus

November 28, 2013

I wouldn't archive my caches at the request of a geocaching club. I would wait until the land manager, park ranger, or whoever else is responsible to directly request. But when/if they do, it's up to them. Groundspeak and the reviewers really have no say in it.

Unfortunately, the park rangers here are a major part of the particular geocaching group requesting the archival of these previously approved caches.

November 28, 2013

I also was looking forward to attending the event but will have to pass. When good things are sacrificed for an individual agenda, the satisfaction of participating isn't there any longer.

And what I find ironic, is that the cacher who started Caching Through The Snow 10 years ago and who's being honored for starting the event, TRL, would not have descended to this level to create caches.

Edited November 28, 2013 by CondorTrax

6.1k · November 28, 2013

A geocacher hides several caches in a state park with all of the proper permissions. A few years later he gets told to archive them all for a new geotrail. The president of a local geoclub along with a land manager, who is also a geocacher, decide on their own that they need to be archived and removed for the new trail and upcoming event. He is also given a deadline to remove them or they will become the property of the state park.

Thoughts?

This is the second instance that I have heard of this. The president is also known to hide identical clone like caches. The geocacher who was there first feels like he has no choice but to archive all of his hides in the park. Requesting is fine, but forcing doesn't seem too nice. Are geotrails forcing regular caches out of other areas also? :unsure:

5.3k · November 28, 2013

A geocacher hides several caches in a state park with all of the proper permissions. A few years later he gets told to archive them all for a new geotrail. The president of a local geoclub along with a land manager, who is also a geocacher, decide on their own that they need to be archived and removed for the new trail and upcoming event. He is also given a deadline to remove them or they will become the property of the state park.

Thoughts?

This is the second instance that I have heard of this. The president is also known to hide identical clone like caches. The geocacher who was there first feels like he has no choice but to archive all of his hides in the park. Requesting is fine, but forcing doesn't seem too nice. Are geotrails forcing regular caches out of other areas also?

So much for using a tablet. Now from my real computer, I think to archive a persons caches for another power trail is BS. I am tired of seeing so many power trails. I will admit that I have found the caches on them but I do not go out of my way to locate them. Of the few that I found two of them had illegal hides. In one of those only three cache were illegal, as far as the other one I got fed after I located (I say located because I do not claim illegal caches as finds) 8 buried caches in 30 minutes. I would like to see Groundspeak put an end to any new power trails, they are not good for the hobby and they only serve as a tool for power cachers. Beside I have never seen a power trail that displayed any real creativity they have been for the most parts things like 35mm film cans (yes you can still get them)pill bottles (I hate those crappy containers) those are the legal ones I have found.

Edited November 28, 2013 by JohnnyVegas

November 28, 2013

This is the first instance that I've heard of this. I was disgusted when I learned about it and can't believe that this cacher is being forced to archive their caches just to facilitate a geotrail.

After doing some more research I actually realized this is the second instance of this happening in my home state. What a shame it is to see quality caches force archived.

It doesn't help that the land manager in this particular situation is part of the group placing the new geotrail. Sounds like an agenda if you ask me.

Edited November 28, 2013 by billdavidsaurus

1.1k · November 28, 2013

The "prez" doesn't sound very presidential...IMPEACH! Land managers can do what they want even if it's lame.

November 28, 2013

If you look at other states' geocaching policies in state parks it is on a permit system, I know PA and NY along with several others have systems where you have to get permission from the state parks to place a cache, even then the placement is not permanent. You essentially lease a spot in the woods to place a cache for a limited time once that time is up you have to reapply and if the park feels like the cache is disrupting the ecosystem by creating a geotrail or disturbing a rock wall or something along those lines you have to remove it. The cache really isn't "yours", it's on state property therefore allowed by the state. If you do not remove it you are fined for littering. Look at maps of state parks in NJ and they are clustered with caches, look at other states and their parks, not nearly as many caches. There has been talk about NJ implementing the same sort of cache restrictions, even Morris County Parks at one time wanted to limit caches, even eliminate them altogether. I can see where some people see an agenda because of the people and the park where these caches are being archived. But who really stands to gain from this? Old Navy? As head of the organization he has to walk the line between caching interests and state park/land owner interests, and state park/land owner interests will always win out. And if anyone else wants to volunteer for this position I invite them to. I'd rather have him there to act as a go between--as he's done before on many occasions--than have no one there to at least speak for the interests of cachers. I don't see him purposely screwing over COs for some sort of agenda. I am sure it was with great reluctance that these caches were asked to be archived. A geotrail under the supervision of the CO keeps people on a designated path and off sensitive areas, keeps people from trampling around in the woods--essentially why PA has the policy they have. Times are changing, what was good 3-4 years ago may not be good now, a cache that was in a good spot a few years ago may be in the way of what the state wants to do with their land. NJ has had a pretty open policy with caching, but I can see in the near future how state parks will be controlled and caches will be limited. My suggestion is that we work with them not against them, keep in mind, they have every right to say no caching whatsoever. And if you think guys like Old Navy have an agenda, ask him, talk to him, he's an open guy, not afraid to debate the topics most important to cachers.

Edited November 28, 2013 by Joekirr

November 28, 2013

I had originally posted on WNC's cache pages how preposterous and presumptuous I found the "needs archived" log entry that the land manager had posted. I was then contacted, through the Groundspeak website, from this land manager in her official capacity (which I found incredibly ironic):

-------------

Dear brian b,

Despite my "needs archived" justification for the three "Xmas" caches, your statements are sadly inaccurate. As the land manager of Kittatinny Valley State Park, I'd be happy to find time in my schedule to discuss with you face-to-face our vision of creating quality geocaching experiences for our park visitors.

Regards,

[name withdrawn]

Resource Interpretive Specialist

Kittatinny Valley State Park

--------------

My point here is that I feel that NNJC and KVSP are not showing their whole hand. While they most definitely want to create a "quality geocaching experience" for the park visitors, they want to submit "the new KVSP Geotrail geocaches by next week and ask that [WNC] please archive [his] cache by next Monday 11/25/13 to allow the proper reviewer process" which would be just in time for the CTTS event.

I read this as a geocacher who is also a Land Manager forcing another fellow geocacher into archiving quality caches for their interpretation of quality caches -- WITH NNJC APPROVAL.

All in all, this smells a lot like bull feces.

7.3k · November 28, 2013

Here's the original thread:

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=317704

B.

3.3k · November 28, 2013

It also bothers me to see good approved caches ousted. A land owner or manager has power to do that, however. That right is clear if a new building is going in at GZ. The waters get muddied when those in power wear a second hat - that of cacher & CO.

Possibly compromises can be negotiated.

It wasn't clear to me whether the park's trail of caches was for a short-term project/event or event. If short term, then maybe the existing caches could be temporarily deactivated. If they need to be archived, maybe not all need to go. Perhaps others can be moved a short distance.

Just some thoughts to avoid battles....

2.6k · November 28, 2013

This is all about the president being in cahoots with the land manager....the OP has been ambushed and its a pretty sorry situation. In this case the land manager has the trump card ....he obviously likes caching and the visitors they bring to his park. It is his right to request all caches in his park to be archived but if I were the reviewer/TPTB I wouldn't approve ANY new caches for his park unless those in question were allowed to remain.

November 28, 2013

If you look at other states' geocaching policies in state parks it is on a permit system, I know PA and NY along with several others have systems where you have to get permission from the state parks to place a cache, even then the placement is not permanent. You essentially lease a spot in the woods to place a cache for a limited time once that time is up you have to reapply and if the park feels like the cache is disrupting the ecosystem by creating a geotrail or disturbing a rock wall or something along those lines you have to remove it. The cache really isn't "yours", it's on state property therefore allowed by the state. If you do not remove it you are fined for littering. Look at maps of state parks in NJ and they are clustered with caches, look at other states and their parks, not nearly as many caches. There has been talk about NJ implementing the same sort of cache restrictions, even Morris County Parks at one time wanted to limit caches, even eliminate them altogether. I can see where some people see an agenda because of the people and the park where these caches are being archived. But who really stands to gain from this? Old Navy? As head of the organization he has to walk the line between caching interests and state park/land owner interests, and state park/land owner interests will always win out. And if anyone else wants to volunteer for this position I invite them to. I'd rather have him there to act as a go between--as he's done before on many occasions--than have no one there to at least speak for the interests of cachers. I don't see him purposely screwing over COs for some sort of agenda. I am sure it was with great reluctance that these caches were asked to be archived. A geotrail under the supervision of the CO keeps people on a designated path and off sensitive areas, keeps people from trampling around in the woods--essentially why PA has the policy they have. Times are changing, what was good 3-4 years ago may not be good now, a cache that was in a good spot a few years ago may be in the way of what the state wants to do with their land. NJ has had a pretty open policy with caching, but I can see in the near future how state parks will be controlled and caches will be limited. My suggestion is that we work with them not against them, keep in mind, they have every right to say no caching whatsoever. And if you think guys like Old Navy have an agenda, ask him, talk to him, he's an open guy, not afraid to debate the topics most important to cachers.

Just seems strange that the land manager is contacting WNC now , pushing the urgency of the issue just one week before CTTS10, "rushing" their quality geotrail so that the review process may begin. Not to mention....I'm assuming it would be a much different situation had the land manager not been a very avid geocacher that's part of NNJC.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not bad mouthing the guy personally. I've only recently just met him a couple of weeks ago. Him and his ranger friend both. They seem like two very nice people, which is why I was quite surprised when I saw WNC post about this in another thread.

November 28, 2013

It also bothers me to see good approved caches ousted. A land owner or manager has power to do that, however. That right is clear if a new building is going in at GZ. The waters get muddied when those in power wear a second hat - that of cacher & CO.

Possibly compromises can be negotiated.

It wasn't clear to me whether the park's trail of caches was for a short-term project/event or event. If short term, then maybe the existing caches could be temporarily deactivated. If they need to be archived, maybe not all need to go. Perhaps others can be moved a short distance.

Just some thoughts to avoid battles....

They are trying to have a geotrail publish in time for CTTS #10 - http://coord.info/gc4p9zr

2.8k · November 28, 2013

Why do the caches on the educational geotrail have to be "official" geocaches?

1.2k · November 28, 2013

This is all about the president being in cahoots with the land manager....the OP has been ambushed and its a pretty sorry situation. In this case the land manager has the trump card ....he obviously likes caching and the visitors they bring to his park. It is his right to request all caches in his park to be archived but if I were the reviewer/TPTB I wouldn't approve ANY new caches for his park unless those in question were allowed to remain.

+1,000! I wonder if the reviewers/TPTB have the fortitude to stand up and say they will not participate in such petty turf wars. Guess we'll find out soon enough.

November 28, 2013

This is all about the president being in cahoots with the land manager....the OP has been ambushed and its a pretty sorry situation. In this case the land manager has the trump card ....he obviously likes caching and the visitors they bring to his park. It is his right to request all caches in his park to be archived but if I were the reviewer/TPTB I wouldn't approve ANY new caches for his park unless those in question were allowed to remain.

+1,000! I wonder if the reviewers/TPTB have the fortitude to stand up and say they will not participate in such petty turf wars. Guess we'll find out soon enough.

Yeah, +1 as well. I'm interested to see the reviewer's stand point on this whole debacle.

13.7k · November 28, 2013

We traveled to two CTTS events in '05 and '07.

Twenty people single file, snow up to your thighs, chatting along the way was (actually) fun.

Even back then, we'd sometimes hear folks grumble not about the bitter cold, or the guy always running ahead to make each find, but, "we already found that one...".

With so many now interested in high numbers, hopefully this "quality" geotrail is truly that, used for education purposes within the park and not just a simple way of giving everyone new smileys at an event.

1k · November 28, 2013

Why do the caches on the educational geotrail have to be "official" geocaches?

Yes, exactly. DuPage County in western Chicago has a yearly event of 'official' caches with passport books and stickers to get people to visit many different parks and preserves. Fill your passport with 8 stickers from 8 different preserves and get a free commemorative Geocoin. Very cool. They place a few caches of their own, plus they recruit CO's of some existing caches to participate. Really nice program, and it's fun for a CO to have one of his caches selected to be in that year's program. There's no need for them to take over any existing locations.

I'm wondering if we're hearing all there is to this story. Are these existing caches micro's and therefore unable to hold something that is required for their new program, for example. Have they updated their allowable placement rules and these existing caches no longer meet the requirements, perhaps. My County instituted new placement rules a few years ago that caused a few caches to be archived. Sad, but no evil agenda was involved.

November 28, 2013

Caching in a park is at the pleasure of the organization or individual who has stewardship responsibility for it. Property stewards are not required to recognize generally accepted geocaching ethics or etiquette. In this case it seems they are placing a higher priority on their current project than on respecting previously granted permission. Permission can always be withdrawn.

Unless you can go over the head of the property stewards, which is politically unlikely, it will be best to pick up your cache and find another place to hide it.

November 28, 2013

Caching in a park is at the pleasure of the organization or individual who has stewardship responsibility for it. Property stewards are not required to recognize generally accepted geocaching ethics or etiquette. In this case it seems they are placing a higher priority on their current project than on respecting previously granted permission. Permission can always be withdrawn.

Unless you can go over the head of the property stewards, which is politically unlikely, it will be best to pick up your cache and find another place to hide it.

Glad to hear a reviewer's stand point on the issue, thanks for weighing in gpsfun.

This is a unique situation wherein the land manager is a very prolific member of the caching organization. It's unfortunate and appears to be a case of cache bullying. While I understand that land managers have the final say of what can and can't be placed in the park, it seems unfair that weathernowcast's well maintained caches are being forced out to further the agenda of the caching club in question.

I suppose with land managers on their team, any caches placed in north Jersey state parks have to meet NNJC approval now as well as geocaching guidelines.

November 28, 2013

Why do the caches on the educational geotrail have to be "official" geocaches?

Yes, exactly. DuPage County in western Chicago has a yearly event of 'official' caches with passport books and stickers to get people to visit many different parks and preserves. Fill your passport with 8 stickers from 8 different preserves and get a free commemorative Geocoin. Very cool. They place a few caches of their own, plus they recruit CO's of some existing caches to participate. Really nice program, and it's fun for a CO to have one of his caches selected to be in that year's program. There's no need for them to take over any existing locations.

I'm wondering if we're hearing all there is to this story. Are these existing caches micro's and therefore unable to hold something that is required for their new program, for example. Have they updated their allowable placement rules and these existing caches no longer meet the requirements, perhaps. My County instituted new placement rules a few years ago that caused a few caches to be archived. Sad, but no evil agenda was involved.

It's my understanding that the caches that have been archived to make room are as big as they come. Here's just one of the caches that were forced out of the park - http://coord.info/Gc2jfxr

That one's big enough to hold a small child!

9.3k · November 28, 2013

The president of a local geoclub along with a land manager,

I bolded the key phrase. As the land manager, they have the right to determine how and where this hobby is represented in their property. Personally, I think it's a pretty crappy thing for this so called President to do. If I were the cache owner, I would have a sit down with the land manager and express my views on the matter.

November 28, 2013

As Brad/GPSFUN is 100% correct.... there are some major issue here

1...has ON and RL found, signed the log and logged online the caches in question?

** if they have, it is proof that there is not an issue on placement of these caches and that RL is over-stepping her powers as Land Management Personnel ( yes, i know permission given can be taken away)

2...This is a State Park and she must answer to State Officials in regards to her behavior and as there may be Politic powers she can pull...money being taken out of her pocket due to behavior unbecoming to her Title may make her re-think what she does...State Parks Commission people at a State level do not like waves being made that could hit the papers

3...the email that was sent should be sent to a Lackey at GC with the back up of the cut and paste of her logging the caches she demanded to be archived and proving she is contradicting herself in the email that she sent

4...the caches had permission by the same people that are demanding the archival so they can place caches ( yes, Brad i remember what you said ) and i know GC will not step in on this because of the Politics ...but wrong is wrong )

November 28, 2013

As Brad/GPSFUN is 100% correct.... there are some major issue here

1...has ON and RL found, signed the log and logged online the caches in question?

** if they have, it is proof that there is not an issue on placement of these caches and that RL is over-stepping her powers as Land Management Personnel ( yes, i know permission given can be taken away)

2...This is a State Park and she must answer to State Officials in regards to her behavior and as there may be Politic powers she can pull...money being taken out of her pocket due to behavior unbecoming to her Title may make her re-think what she does...State Parks Commission people at a State level do not like waves being made that could hit the papers

3...the email that was sent should be sent to a Lackey at GC with the back up of the cut and paste of her logging the caches she demanded to be archived and proving she is contradicting herself in the email that she sent

4...the caches had permission by the same people that are demanding the archival so they can place caches ( yes, Brad i remember what you said ) and i know GC will not step in on this because of the Politics ...but wrong is wrong )

My sentiments exactly. Wrong is wrong.

3k · November 28, 2013

I have to wonder if there is more going on here than we are aware of.

In any case, although I understand the sentiment, I disagree with the idea that reviewers/Groundspeak should consider dictating cache approval terms to land managers. I think such an approach would send the wrong message, and could result in more restrictive cache placement policies from land managers.

4.4k · November 28, 2013

You'd think that a well-written letter or three over the head of the local park manager would get this situation reversed.

Where is this game going? Crazy...

November 28, 2013

Before initiating a political firestorm, make sure the upside and downside are clearly understood. Winning a battle sometimes results in losing a war. Things can always get worse. Seriously.

21.9k · November 28, 2013

Since folks insist on having multiple threads on this subject, I am choosing the "Geocaching Topics" forum as center ground. I am moving the original thread from the Mid-Atlantic regional forum to the Geocaching Topics forum. Then I'm merging threads together. Don't nobody open no more threads, mmmm kay?

November 28, 2013

You'd think that a well-written letter or three over the head of the local park manager would get this situation reversed.

Where is this game going? Crazy...

The problem with that is that we don't want to send the wrong message about geocaching to TPTB. It could cause them to just ban caching altogether. What I'm more concerned about is this caching group dictating the placement of caches in NJ state parks, as if they're the elites. It's disappointing to think that even though you maintain your caches well, have prior permission to place them and they meet the geocaching guidelines for cache placement, that should they "get in the way" of this caching club's agenda....they'll just get their land manager to reverse your approval and fill up the area with a geotrail of their own.

6.8k · November 28, 2013

In any case, although I understand the sentiment, I disagree with the idea that reviewers/Groundspeak should consider dictating cache approval terms to land managers. I think such an approach would send the wrong message, and could result in more restrictive cache placement policies from land managers.

As a cache searcher I simply would boycott caching in such areas. I feel that what is behind this action is attracting a larger number of cachers and in particular also new cachers to the park and the facilities around. I recently visited a series of caches which start at an inn - the cache series has been hidden by people who are employed in the inn. I on purpose brought my own food and did not enter the inn. I'm allergic against using geocaches to earn more money.

In my opinion, a single multi cache or maybe up to three if the area is large and potentially some Earthcaches (if the area allows this) would be much more educational than a series of traditionals can ever be (even in the unrealistic case where one assumes that the visitors read the cache descriptions).

I do not believe the argument that the idea is to come up with something educational. To me it appears that the idea clearly is to attract more people into the area which of course will also have a monetary background.

I do not buy the statement that the caches that have to go are less educational than those that will come. If education were the main target, a multi cache that needs only a single place for a hideout would be the much better choice.

I'm also quite ambivalent about the geotrail project of Groundspeak. It is too much commercial from my point of view. I prefer if cachers decide which caches they want to have in their area without any authorities in the background which focus on touristic goals. I guess I rather would have a park with no geocaches at all than with geocaches hidden to attract people into the park and its facilities for monetary reasons. I detested the arguments pro the first version of the ET trail that referred to the increased income of gas stations, motels etc.

That does not fit with my idea of geocaching which is quite individualistic and anarchic to some extent whereever it goes beyond laws and things like that.

Cezanne

Edited November 28, 2013 by cezanne

4.4k · November 28, 2013

Vote with your feet and with your dollars. (Do your state parks charge admission?) Cache elsewhere. If I owned the cache(s) affected, I'd archive 'em anyway (who wants power-trail logs?) and move elsewhere.

I've saved almost $1000 in park admission fees in recent years by going where caches are welcome, and avoiding the pricey parks where caches were once banned, now regulated to near death. Consider it a one-cacher boycott. Imagine if the park authorities noticed more people doing that?

2.7k · November 28, 2013

Just adding my 2¢. Fair or unfair it is the land managers call on how the land that they manage is to be used. That being if a land manager ousted my cache in favor of another cache I'd visit it and it better be better than the one that I had placed!

5.3k · November 28, 2013

Looking at this as a business decision makes one wonder what is to be gained by having another power trail. Nothing at all. What is lost by having another power trail. It limits the area for other geocachers to place caches. This may turn away potential new players because new player want to hide there own caches. If these new players stay in the game they may upgrade to a premium membership which means more money for ground speak.

ChileHead: I wouldn't archive my caches at the request of a geocaching club. I would wait until the land manager, park ranger, or whoever else is responsible to directly request. But when/if they do, it's up to them. Groundspeak and the reviewers really have no say in it.

Maybe ground speak should decline the placement of the new caches, while the land manager may give his approval and has final say in what caches are in his area, this does not mean that ground speak must list the new hides.

5.3k · November 28, 2013

Maybe the caching community should send e-mails to the NNJC protesting their action. It only takes a minute.

November 28, 2013

Maybe the caching community should send e-mails to the NNJC protesting their action. It only takes a minute.

I posted this thread on the NNJC Facebook page last night. When I visited the page earlier today, it had been removed. Will try again and see what happens.

Geocache Archive Requests

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment