Jump to content

Moratorium on placing new caches in NJ state parks?


4wheelin_fool

Recommended Posts

I had tried working with the park supervisor at Wawayanda, to no avail. And that was for an EarthCache. She was not willing to work with me. I guess he didn't want to stick her neck out. Oh, well.

Three years max? Terrace Pond North has been there for nine years, without any problems.

Within ten feet of a trail? That certainly eliminates my five remaining caches. How about a 4.5 terrain for a quarter mile bushwhack to one of Passaic County's five possible high points? Of course the Hi-Pointers will still go there. Or the benchmark at Bearfort? That is probably the highest point. At least the NGS thinks so. Benchmark hunters will still go for it!

Within ten feet of a trail? That will eliminate most of the good caches! Oh, well. I've been working on archiving my state park caches. Guess I'll let the state park service do it for me.

I'll be very sorry to see some of the old caches go: gerbiL cacHe, Washington's Crossing 1, da\/|ds0n c^chE , Rat Team 6's caches.

What a sad happening!

 

gerbiL is not on state controlled land. I looked at the state controlled overlay on Google Earth and it appears that da\/|ds0n c^chE is also OK. Some of this depends on how far NJDEP plans to push its jurisdiction into county and municipal land.

Link to comment

the major factor is that the Groundspeak liberal proximity guideline of a tenth of a mile is probably gone, the feeling in some area is that there will most likely be one cache per trail mile. There is also an under current that the three local organization failure to self govern the local scene created some of the issues leading up to the policy adoption. we have an enormous number of caches that are abandoned and not maintained, thus the state policy requirement of two annual maintenance visits per annum and a limit of three year cache life.

 

Speak for your own area please. We have NOT had an enormous number of abandoned caches in the paltry number of parks that the state has deigned to establish in South Jersey: Parvin, Rancocos and Fort Mott.

Link to comment

Visible from the trail and non-breakable? Say hello to LOTS of CO maintenance (and money) as the caches get taken. If that's not the case, then you'll be seeing lots of bison tubes in the woods.

 

I don't think it's going to be an issue since must of us are not very motivated to cache on state managed lands anymore. I plan to archive and remove all of my state land caches at their deadline as opposed to pursuing a permit and I'm not the only one who is planning on doing so.

 

Sad situation? Yes. Inevitable? Yes. Anything we can do about it? Nope.

Link to comment

the major factor is that the Groundspeak liberal proximity guideline of a tenth of a mile is probably gone, the feeling in some area is that there will most likely be one cache per trail mile.

 

Is that a bad thing? (IMO, no it isn't a bad thing)

 

There is also an under current that the three local organization failure to self govern the local scene created some of the issues leading up to the policy adoption. we have an enormous number of caches that are abandoned and not maintained, thus the state policy requirement of two annual maintenance visits per annum and a limit of three year cache life.

 

What do the three caching groups and "self governance" have to do with anything? We have no "formal" group in RI and have no issues with the local DEM.

 

I did not say that a change in proximity was a bad thing. I did not opine one way or the other, I simply said there is likely to be a change resulting in a fewer number of caches. Ramapo State Forest has long been thought to be over saturated by many. But if the burden of permitting is too great, the park superintendent can simply limit the number by application of the State Proximity policy. That will be a major change from that which was previously employed.

 

The three groups failed to address the issues that the parks people were encountering in the form of abandoned un maintained and guideline violation caches. It was free range and there were associated problems. These problems came to the fore when one group attempted to become the arbiter of who could and who could not place caches, forced archival of caches for an event they sponsored and to make way for their own powertrail. The group was not anticipating the reaction and they did not go about it with a bad intent, they are nice people , but they were extremely heavy handed and they refused to discuss the matter with other in the group. They produced a bit of animus in the local community and the parks were drawn into the fray. The parks responded with a policy formation program when none had been necessary before. The animus still exist today, more than a year later. I do not say this is a good or bad thing, it simply is what it is. The formal adoption of a twice annual maintenance visit in the policy will make it difficult for the hider with 200 hides, I can't imagine certifying to 400 maintenance visits per year. That is now a policy requirement.

 

We had enjoyed a relationship of benign neglect from the Parks in NJ, we were under the radar and caused no problems until the interaction and clashes within the community drew the parks into the idea that they now needed to police the activity because no one else was taking the responsibility to clean up geo litter or to maintain neglected and abandoned caches. Our landscape in NJ is dotted with unmaintained caches.

I can PQ 5 miles and hit 500 caches with the needs maint attribute, and nearly 50% of them are owned by cachers no longer involved.

 

The relationship that your group in RI has with your local Parks body has no relevancy to that which is occurring in NJ. In NJ there has been a woeful lack of group giveback. Aside from private cacher trail maintenance , there has been but one or two CITO events in the northern third of the state in the last year. There are currently none listed for the entirety of the state. We have one cacher , who was among the most prolific and skilled hiders, who put an extreme amount of effort and creativity into his hides who has abandoned about 100 hides, all of which are now fallen into geolitter status. Yet the local organization remained silent in the face of that. Some of this has produced a negative reaction from local park personnel.

 

I believe that the net effect will be a great reduction in numbers of caches within state controlled lands, which in NJ is almost 1/3 of the land area. But on the positive side, many old caches will be removed and a new generation of caches will be placed. I have always believed that if we are to have a good working relationship with land managers we must show ourselves to be good stewards of the latitude given us. I think in NJ we have come up a little short lately.

Link to comment

the major factor is that the Groundspeak liberal proximity guideline of a tenth of a mile is probably gone, the feeling in some area is that there will most likely be one cache per trail mile.

 

Is that a bad thing? (IMO, no it isn't a bad thing)

 

There is also an under current that the three local organization failure to self govern the local scene created some of the issues leading up to the policy adoption. we have an enormous number of caches that are abandoned and not maintained, thus the state policy requirement of two annual maintenance visits per annum and a limit of three year cache life.

 

What do the three caching groups and "self governance" have to do with anything? We have no "formal" group in RI and have no issues with the local DEM.

 

I did not say that a change in proximity was a bad thing. I did not opine one way or the other, I simply said there is likely to be a change resulting in a fewer number of caches. Ramapo State Forest has long been thought to be over saturated by many. But if the burden of permitting is too great, the park superintendent can simply limit the number by application of the State Proximity policy. That will be a major change from that which was previously employed.

 

The three groups failed to address the issues that the parks people were encountering in the form of abandoned un maintained and guideline violation caches. It was free range and there were associated problems. These problems came to the fore when one group attempted to become the arbiter of who could and who could not place caches, forced archival of caches for an event they sponsored and to make way for their own powertrail. The group was not anticipating the reaction and they did not go about it with a bad intent, they are nice people , but they were extremely heavy handed and they refused to discuss the matter with other in the group. They produced a bit of animus in the local community and the parks were drawn into the fray. The parks responded with a policy formation program when none had been necessary before. The animus still exist today, more than a year later. I do not say this is a good or bad thing, it simply is what it is. The formal adoption of a twice annual maintenance visit in the policy will make it difficult for the hider with 200 hides, I can't imagine certifying to 400 maintenance visits per year. That is now a policy requirement.

 

We had enjoyed a relationship of benign neglect from the Parks in NJ, we were under the radar and caused no problems until the interaction and clashes within the community drew the parks into the idea that they now needed to police the activity because no one else was taking the responsibility to clean up geo litter or to maintain neglected and abandoned caches. Our landscape in NJ is dotted with unmaintained caches.

I can PQ 5 miles and hit 500 caches with the needs maint attribute, and nearly 50% of them are owned by cachers no longer involved.

 

The relationship that your group in RI has with your local Parks body has no relevancy to that which is occurring in NJ. In NJ there has been a woeful lack of group giveback. Aside from private cacher trail maintenance , there has been but one or two CITO events in the northern third of the state in the last year. There are currently none listed for the entirety of the state. We have one cacher , who was among the most prolific and skilled hiders, who put an extreme amount of effort and creativity into his hides who has abandoned about 100 hides, all of which are now fallen into geolitter status. Yet the local organization remained silent in the face of that. Some of this has produced a negative reaction from local park personnel.

 

I believe that the net effect will be a great reduction in numbers of caches within state controlled lands, which in NJ is almost 1/3 of the land area. But on the positive side, many old caches will be removed and a new generation of caches will be placed. I have always believed that if we are to have a good working relationship with land managers we must show ourselves to be good stewards of the latitude given us. I think in NJ we have come up a little short lately.

 

Many prolific south Jersey geocachers have always been great stewards of our forests and I don't think we've come up short at all. While that statement may be true for north Jersey, it certainly does not apply down here. We've always had a fantastic relationship with our park and forest rangers and if it were up to them, I think this policy would be much different. We've held many CITO events over the years, both published and unpublished and many before my time as a cacher as well.

 

You say that this policy will introduce a new generation of caches, but I tend to disagree. Maybe with a new generation of cachers, this may be true but most of us yearn for the "good ole days" when we had blanket permission from our rangers based on the reputation we've built with them in the past.

 

In any case, the policy is here to stay now regardless of what we do or say and we'll just need to grin and bear it or stay out of the state forests which unfortunately for south Jersey, the pine barrens cover most of our lands.

Link to comment

CaN someone summarize the biggest changes/restrictions in the new policy? Also, what brought this new policy about?

 

I don't live near NJ but this seems relevant to everyone as an example of what other state parks might consider adopting in the future.

 

Must be 10 feet from trails, no more than 6 feet off ground, and prohibited near rivers or streams. It's likely the most restrictive state policy out there and not anything to be encouraged elsewhere. The good part is that they are not charging any fees, and having the taxpayers absorb the costs, probably because there are state workers who have very little to do, and this will keep them employed. If it was a reasonable policy it would have taken into account low traffic areas, and adjusted the distance from trails as needed. NJ does not have the fragile environment seen in other states, so it's an overreaching policy enforced by people who do not own the property.

Link to comment

New York has a similar policy, slightly less restrictive in some ways, but with at two year limit. You can see the difference in cache density if you look along the border of NJ and NY. I won't be surprised if, after the NJ policy goes into effect, the cache density drops to a similar level as NY.

 

In my opinion, this kind of policy is the kiss of death for caching on state lands. The time limit, even three years, will stop anyone from placing caches that require much effort, imagination, or creativity. Combine that with having to stay close to trails and close to ground, all that will be left are unimaginative, cookie cutter caches. It is true that old caches will be cleared out and room will be made for a new generation of caches, but it will be a new generation that will not be as good as the old generation was.

 

The sad thing is that this kind of policy will be hard to change once it is implemented, because it promotes the exact type of caching that has a higher impact on the environment (in my experience). Unfortunately, easy caches in predictable locations along the trails are the ones that get the most visits. A high difficulty, high terrain cache that is a significant hike and bushwhack from parking will see far fewer visits and have less impact.

.

This policy appears to have been designed to be implemented and maintained with minimum time or effort on the part the park management. I would actually prefer to see a pay for permit system in place if it would allow more flexibility, such as archival being dependent on environmental impact (i.e. low impact caches are allowed to stay, high impact ones need to be moved or archived), allowing placement in areas that have few or no trails (i.e. bushwhacking required), and so on.

 

To reverse this, cachers will need to work hard at it, the way mountain bikers did back when land managers started banning biking. Behaving properly, obeying rules, policing themselves, forming relationships with park management,and giving back, all of that eventually made a difference.

Link to comment

the major factor is that the Groundspeak liberal proximity guideline of a tenth of a mile is probably gone, the feeling in some area is that there will most likely be one cache per trail mile.

 

Is that a bad thing? (IMO, no it isn't a bad thing)

 

There is also an under current that the three local organization failure to self govern the local scene created some of the issues leading up to the policy adoption. we have an enormous number of caches that are abandoned and not maintained, thus the state policy requirement of two annual maintenance visits per annum and a limit of three year cache life.

 

What do the three caching groups and "self governance" have to do with anything? We have no "formal" group in RI and have no issues with the local DEM.

 

I did not say that a change in proximity was a bad thing. I did not opine one way or the other, I simply said there is likely to be a change resulting in a fewer number of caches. Ramapo State Forest has long been thought to be over saturated by many. But if the burden of permitting is too great, the park superintendent can simply limit the number by application of the State Proximity policy. That will be a major change from that which was previously employed.

 

The three groups failed to address the issues that the parks people were encountering in the form of abandoned un maintained and guideline violation caches. It was free range and there were associated problems. These problems came to the fore when one group attempted to become the arbiter of who could and who could not place caches, forced archival of caches for an event they sponsored and to make way for their own powertrail. The group was not anticipating the reaction and they did not go about it with a bad intent, they are nice people , but they were extremely heavy handed and they refused to discuss the matter with other in the group. They produced a bit of animus in the local community and the parks were drawn into the fray. The parks responded with a policy formation program when none had been necessary before. The animus still exist today, more than a year later. I do not say this is a good or bad thing, it simply is what it is. The formal adoption of a twice annual maintenance visit in the policy will make it difficult for the hider with 200 hides, I can't imagine certifying to 400 maintenance visits per year. That is now a policy requirement.

 

We had enjoyed a relationship of benign neglect from the Parks in NJ, we were under the radar and caused no problems until the interaction and clashes within the community drew the parks into the idea that they now needed to police the activity because no one else was taking the responsibility to clean up geo litter or to maintain neglected and abandoned caches. Our landscape in NJ is dotted with unmaintained caches.

I can PQ 5 miles and hit 500 caches with the needs maint attribute, and nearly 50% of them are owned by cachers no longer involved.

 

The relationship that your group in RI has with your local Parks body has no relevancy to that which is occurring in NJ. In NJ there has been a woeful lack of group giveback. Aside from private cacher trail maintenance , there has been but one or two CITO events in the northern third of the state in the last year. There are currently none listed for the entirety of the state. We have one cacher , who was among the most prolific and skilled hiders, who put an extreme amount of effort and creativity into his hides who has abandoned about 100 hides, all of which are now fallen into geolitter status. Yet the local organization remained silent in the face of that. Some of this has produced a negative reaction from local park personnel.

 

I believe that the net effect will be a great reduction in numbers of caches within state controlled lands, which in NJ is almost 1/3 of the land area. But on the positive side, many old caches will be removed and a new generation of caches will be placed. I have always believed that if we are to have a good working relationship with land managers we must show ourselves to be good stewards of the latitude given us. I think in NJ we have come up a little short lately.

 

Many prolific south Jersey geocachers have always been great stewards of our forests and I don't think we've come up short at all. While that statement may be true for north Jersey, it certainly does not apply down here. We've always had a fantastic relationship with our park and forest rangers and if it were up to them, I think this policy would be much different. We've held many CITO events over the years, both published and unpublished and many before my time as a cacher as well.

 

You say that this policy will introduce a new generation of caches, but I tend to disagree. Maybe with a new generation of cachers, this may be true but most of us yearn for the "good ole days" when we had blanket permission from our rangers based on the reputation we've built with them in the past.

 

In any case, the policy is here to stay now regardless of what we do or say and we'll just need to grin and bear it or stay out of the state forests which unfortunately for south Jersey, the pine barrens cover most of our lands.

 

I think it's save to say that all three groups have had really good relationships with some of the local state park.

In Central Jersey, many members have volunteered time to State Park functions including clean ups and Geocaching classes.

 

I do think we've come up short with this policy. While I never really had a problem with getting a permit (fee or no fee) and the term limit, I'm disappointed at the policy in a whole. Then again, from what started at 2ft off the trail and only regular and large containers being permitted, getting 10ft off the trail and only having to label the container with the ID# seems like a sweet deal! dry.gif

Link to comment

Although this policy has been finalized, it isn't correct to consider it a done deal. If even one quarter of everyone who lived in New Jersey called their elected officials to complain about it, I'm pretty sure the policy would get revised again pretty easily.

I myself find it overly restrictive, too generalized for the many state lands it covers, and paying someone to permit existing caches a waste of my tax dollars.

 

Travel and Tourism is the third largest business sector in New Jersey!

I will be contacting the official tourism website of NJ to tell them why I'll be picking other states to geo-vacation in.

I am going to hit them up via the social media as well.

Truly, I find the lack of any organized advocacy group for geocaching a major deficiency of what geocaching forums could be useful for.

Link to comment

Although this policy has been finalized, it isn't correct to consider it a done deal. If even one quarter of everyone who lived in New Jersey called their elected officials to complain about it, I'm pretty sure the policy would get revised again pretty easily.

I myself find it overly restrictive, too generalized for the many state lands it covers, and paying someone to permit existing caches a waste of my tax dollars.

 

Travel and Tourism is the third largest business sector in New Jersey!

I will be contacting the official tourism website of NJ to tell them why I'll be picking other states to geo-vacation in.

I am going to hit them up via the social media as well.

Truly, I find the lack of any organized advocacy group for geocaching a major deficiency of what geocaching forums could be useful for.

 

Although I like your passion, I really doubt that 2 million people are going to write their elected officials over geocaching, which most likely affects fewer than 2000 active cachers in the entire state. We view our geocaching world as large and populous, when in actuality it remains small and insular.

 

And furthermore, being that this policy did not come from any enacted legislation, the legislators could care less. The policy is a regulatory policy which comes completely from the body charged with the running of the parks. In this country, runaway regulatory function adds almost 100K new laws to the books every year. Thus is almost impossible to keep up with them. The Bureau of Land Management burdens farmers and ranchers with almost 20K new ones per year. It is mind boggling. That is one reason why I will not participate, I do not want to give any legitimacy to the idea that this proliferation of regulations is in any way proper. I mean, how ridiculous is the premise that we need to regulate a hobby such as this in the first instance. It is as if we opened a Pandora's box of nonsensical thought. So we stack cost and time and bureaucracy into a simple game for no real genuine pressing reason. In the area of Park management issues I would suspect that geocaching regulation is one up from the bottom on the level of importance, the last being what to do with snow melt. I think the entire matter could have been resolved much more easily and with less burden. I have said this before, but I do not know how it would be possible for someone to personally make 2x per year cache inspections on a cache inventory of 80 or 100 caches. So I can only conclude that the intention was to limit the number of caches owned by any one individual, and I wonder where this idea sprang from. It might have been easier to just ask for a voluntary reduction of caches by the organization, rather than beat the numbers down by regulatory action. I had a discussion with an owner of 80 caches over the weekend and he still does not know where he will fall on the issue, but admits that with job, family, other pursuits he can not personally inspect 80 caches, so he is trying to determine which ones will go.

 

Your point about the lack of geocaching advocacy group is well taken. That is a responsibility that should have fallen to the shoulders of the groups in the state and at the risk of annoying some, I will say that any issues regarding problems in the State Parks could have been handled very easily by the Groups. Even to this date, we have no explanation of the positions taken by the groups or even who participated with the State in discussion of policy, that in my view is a group that does not act properly and is not responsive to its membership.

 

Over the weekend, I went out to retrieve and archive one of my State Park Caches and I decided to pick up a couple along the hike to my cache. I found a cache , with no log, and placed by a cacher who had 14 finds, 1 hide and who had last participated by logging in 4 years ago. That cache was placed and abandoned on the same day. It was terribly irresponsible for our local group to not police that type of cache. An one would think that the last ten cachers who logged a find with no log would have marked it for maintenance or archival . Despite all the good things that the local group has done, it gets marked down significantly for that single failure to take some form of action, even it the form of action was to ask cachers to mark a deficient cache for maint or archival, something many seem reluctant to do even though it is better for the game, just as marking a DNF may alert an owner to a missing cache, a maintenance attribute alerts the owner to a problem. It is a little known fact that reviewers do not automatically see those attributes, but surely other cachers who form the groups do see them and can take some action.

 

The failure of the our local group to address absentee cache owners and abandoned caches is in my mind the single most likely reason why the State Parks view it as necessary to impose 2x annual personal inspections by owners, independent contact information and 3 year cache life. Had the local organization been proactive in eliminating some of the geo litter, the entire problem would have disappeared. I can PQ 500 caches with the needs maintenance log within 10 miles of my home. Many of these placements are owned by people who stopped caching over 2 years ago. Those caches should have been archived and should have been removed. Increasingly the geo litter issue becomes an annoyance to park and land managers.

Edited by Packanack
Link to comment

... In the area of Park management issues I would suspect that geocaching regulation is one up from the bottom on the level of importance, the last being what to do with snow melt.

 

Actually, from an environmental stand point, I think snow melt run off IS a bigger concern for the NJDEP over Geocaching.

 

I'm pretty much with you 100% on your other points and with minimal knowledge I have and minimal discussions I've had with park supers and creating members of this policy, limiting cache saturation and abandonment are a big part of the driving force behind this policy, but more importantly a policy needed to be written that was inline with casual use of the state parks with the use of a Special Permit on the cache finder.

 

As for the local cache groups/clubs. It's very hard to get members motivated in anything other then finding mass quantities of caches. I've heard many cacher complain/state that the local clubs are very cliche-ish. But, with that said, the input from the local groups did have an impact on the final draft.

Link to comment

... In the area of Park management issues I would suspect that geocaching regulation is one up from the bottom on the level of importance, the last being what to do with snow melt.

 

Actually, from an environmental stand point, I think snow melt run off IS a bigger concern for the NJDEP over Geocaching.

 

I'm pretty much with you 100% on your other points and with minimal knowledge I have and minimal discussions I've had with park supers and creating members of this policy, limiting cache saturation and abandonment are a big part of the driving force behind this policy, but more importantly a policy needed to be written that was inline with casual use of the state parks with the use of a Special Permit on the cache finder.

 

As for the local cache groups/clubs. It's very hard to get members motivated in anything other then finding mass quantities of caches. I've heard many cacher complain/state that the local clubs are very cliche-ish. But, with that said, the input from the local groups did have an impact on the final draft.

 

Nik, I know of no one who knows for certain the identity of the persons who engaged in discussions with the Park personnel. I would be interested in learning that and in what capacity they did so? NNJC was not authorized by by law or referendum or poll of its members to do . I'm of the opinion that those who presumed to approach the Park personnel should also be willing to explain to their fellow catchers by what right they believed they were acting properly.

Link to comment

I'm of the opinion that those who presumed to approach the Park personnel should also be willing to explain to their fellow catchers by what right they believed they were acting properly.

 

If cachers approached and worked with the Parks Department, were they not acting within their right as concerned/affected citizens? Why do they need any sort of approval from anyone?

Link to comment

I'm of the opinion that those who presumed to approach the Park personnel should also be willing to explain to their fellow catchers by what right they believed they were acting properly.

 

If cachers approached and worked with the Parks Department, were they not acting within their right as concerned/affected citizens? Why do they need any sort of approval from anyone?

First , it is not a Parks Department.And, secondly State Law does not allow for Public Business to be conducted in a private setting. We have what is called the Open Public Meetings Act. But it would probably take me the better part of the day to explain the nuances of that law to you. But simply put, all business of the State or its subdivisions that administer public funds , except for those specifically exempted from the law, must conduct their business in an open meeting. An open meeting is one announced and scheduled with a printed agenda for a specific time and place allowing for public comment.

 

It would perhaps have been better if those persons ostensibly speaking for "All Geocachers in NJ" had solicited some form of input from those who form membership in the clubs, but even to this late date no one has stepped up and said, Oh yes a group constituted by Joe, Jane, John and Bill met with the Parks Personnel and formulated a policy. None of that has happened. As it currently stands there are more questions regarding the policy than answers. First and foremost in my mind is the identification of and removal of abandoned caches.

Link to comment

... In the area of Park management issues I would suspect that geocaching regulation is one up from the bottom on the level of importance, the last being what to do with snow melt.

 

Actually, from an environmental stand point, I think snow melt run off IS a bigger concern for the NJDEP over Geocaching.

 

I'm pretty much with you 100% on your other points and with minimal knowledge I have and minimal discussions I've had with park supers and creating members of this policy, limiting cache saturation and abandonment are a big part of the driving force behind this policy, but more importantly a policy needed to be written that was inline with casual use of the state parks with the use of a Special Permit on the cache finder.

 

As for the local cache groups/clubs. It's very hard to get members motivated in anything other then finding mass quantities of caches. I've heard many cacher complain/state that the local clubs are very cliche-ish. But, with that said, the input from the local groups did have an impact on the final draft.

 

Nik, I know of no one who knows for certain the identity of the persons who engaged in discussions with the Park personnel. I would be interested in learning that and in what capacity they did so? NNJC was not authorized by by law or referendum or poll of its members to do . I'm of the opinion that those who presumed to approach the Park personnel should also be willing to explain to their fellow catchers by what right they believed they were acting properly.

 

With the exception of two caches I have on State Property (The two I adopted) I visited the park office to get permission/inform them that I was hiding a cache.

 

So, the relationship I have with some of the park supers and naturalist go back 10 years. I never assumed that because I placed a cache previously, that all was good today. But, mostly, I did this just to keep a good relationship going. Only once was there a concern and I was able to find a better spot.

Link to comment

I'm of the opinion that those who presumed to approach the Park personnel should also be willing to explain to their fellow catchers by what right they believed they were acting properly.

 

If cachers approached and worked with the Parks Department, were they not acting within their right as concerned/affected citizens? Why do they need any sort of approval from anyone?

First , it is not a Parks Department.And, secondly State Law does not allow for Public Business to be conducted in a private setting. We have what is called the Open Public Meetings Act. But it would probably take me the better part of the day to explain the nuances of that law to you. But simply put, all business of the State or its subdivisions that administer public funds , except for those specifically exempted from the law, must conduct their business in an open meeting. An open meeting is one announced and scheduled with a printed agenda for a specific time and place allowing for public comment.

 

It would perhaps have been better if those persons ostensibly speaking for "All Geocachers in NJ" had solicited some form of input from those who form membership in the clubs, but even to this late date no one has stepped up and said, Oh yes a group constituted by Joe, Jane, John and Bill met with the Parks Personnel and formulated a policy. None of that has happened. As it currently stands there are more questions regarding the policy than answers. First and foremost in my mind is the identification of and removal of abandoned caches.

 

Again, why does anyone, interacting with whatever agency is involved, need to consult anyone else, be it a club, or group or their neighbor? Was the policy publicly posted with an allowance for public comment? What's to stop ANYONE from submitting comments? You make it sound like no one is allowed to give their two cents without approval from any of the local caching groups.

Link to comment

I'm of the opinion that those who presumed to approach the Park personnel should also be willing to explain to their fellow catchers by what right they believed they were acting properly.

 

If cachers approached and worked with the Parks Department, were they not acting within their right as concerned/affected citizens? Why do they need any sort of approval from anyone?

First , it is not a Parks Department.And, secondly State Law does not allow for Public Business to be conducted in a private setting. We have what is called the Open Public Meetings Act. But it would probably take me the better part of the day to explain the nuances of that law to you. But simply put, all business of the State or its subdivisions that administer public funds , except for those specifically exempted from the law, must conduct their business in an open meeting. An open meeting is one announced and scheduled with a printed agenda for a specific time and place allowing for public comment.

 

It would perhaps have been better if those persons ostensibly speaking for "All Geocachers in NJ" had solicited some form of input from those who form membership in the clubs, but even to this late date no one has stepped up and said, Oh yes a group constituted by Joe, Jane, John and Bill met with the Parks Personnel and formulated a policy. None of that has happened. As it currently stands there are more questions regarding the policy than answers. First and foremost in my mind is the identification of and removal of abandoned caches.

 

Again, why does anyone, interacting with whatever agency is involved, need to consult anyone else, be it a club, or group or their neighbor? Was the policy publicly posted with an allowance for public comment? What's to stop ANYONE from submitting comments? You make it sound like no one is allowed to give their two cents without approval from any of the local caching groups.

 

You do not know enough about what was going on locally to truly understand where this all stemmed from.

No one was invited to give comment. It was fait accompli.

Link to comment

For the record, SJG (South Jersey geocachers) choose a few individuals within our group to represent our club and meet quite a few times with park personnel from south Jersey region parks to discuss the policy. It wasn't a secret or private meeting. It was openly posted on our forums and the members of our organization were all invited to attend, but we left it up to the few that stepped up to discuss OUR woes with the policy. I didn't attend any of the meetings so I don't know what type of involvement the other two major NJ groups had and can't speak for them, but I know SJG had their say.

Link to comment

For the record, SJG (South Jersey geocachers) choose a few individuals within our group to represent our club and meet quite a few times with park personnel from south Jersey region parks to discuss the policy. It wasn't a secret or private meeting. It was openly posted on our forums and the members of our organization were all invited to attend, but we left it up to the few that stepped up to discuss OUR woes with the policy. I didn't attend any of the meetings so I don't know what type of involvement the other two major NJ groups had and can't speak for them, but I know SJG had their say.

 

And that is the way it should have been done, and that is not the way it was done elsewhere. But of interest to me is did you have pre policy discussions or were you just told this is it ?

Edited by Packanack
Link to comment

For the record, SJG (South Jersey geocachers) choose a few individuals within our group to represent our club and meet quite a few times with park personnel from south Jersey region parks to discuss the policy. It wasn't a secret or private meeting. It was openly posted on our forums and the members of our organization were all invited to attend, but we left it up to the few that stepped up to discuss OUR woes with the policy. I didn't attend any of the meetings so I don't know what type of involvement the other two major NJ groups had and can't speak for them, but I know SJG had their say.

 

And that is the way it should have been done, and that is not the way it was done elsewhere. But of interest to me is did you have pre policy discussions or were you just told this is it ?

We've had a ton of pre policy discussion. We've been discussing this in our forums for well over a year now. Nobody was left in the dark about anything. That's always been how SJG operates.....at least ever since I joined over two and a half years ago.

Link to comment

Thanks for that OReviewer.

 

Probably a dumb question...

Every year CJ and I celebrate that this old fart's still standing (March). :D

So, "as they focus on getting the already published caches permitted" means by the new policy of none more than 6' up a tree, no cliffs, etc ?

A lot goes into planning and I was just looking at some now.

We probably wouldn't waste time on even the planning end if there's more than a good chance they'll be gone before the 4/10 deadline.

Link to comment
Every year CJ and I celebrate that this old fart's still standing (March). :D

So, "as they focus on getting the already published caches permitted" means by the new policy of none more than 6' up a tree, no cliffs, etc ?

A lot goes into planning and I was just looking at some now.

We probably wouldn't waste time on even the planning end if there's more than a good chance they'll be gone before the 4/10 deadline.

My guess is they will not tell us to archive old caches but I can't promise that. Probably more of a case by case, park by park kind of thing. Your best bet is to contact the cache owner and find out their plan and make your plans based on that. They may ask you to pull them for them.

Link to comment

Thanks for that OReviewer.

 

Probably a dumb question...

Every year CJ and I celebrate that this old fart's still standing (March). :D

So, "as they focus on getting the already published caches permitted" means by the new policy of none more than 6' up a tree, no cliffs, etc ?

A lot goes into planning and I was just looking at some now.

We probably wouldn't waste time on even the planning end if there's more than a good chance they'll be gone before the 4/10 deadline.

 

I developed a personal nomenclature to help me keep track of geocaches that I must remove.

 

Geocaches of mine in New Jersey that will remain that I have reviewed are marked with a ":-)" in their name.

 

Geocaches of mine that I must pick up according to the text in the policy are now marked with an "x-" in their name. All my caches with an "x-" will be archived but should have one LTF log.

Edited by weathernowcast
Link to comment

Thanks for that OReviewer.

 

Probably a dumb question...

Every year CJ and I celebrate that this old fart's still standing (March). :D

So, "as they focus on getting the already published caches permitted" means by the new policy of none more than 6' up a tree, no cliffs, etc ?

A lot goes into planning and I was just looking at some now.

We probably wouldn't waste time on even the planning end if there's more than a good chance they'll be gone before the 4/10 deadline.

 

I developed a personal nomenclature to help me keep track of geocaches that I must remove.

 

Geocaches of mine in New Jersey that will remain that I have reviewed are marked with a ":-)" in their name.

 

Geocaches of mine that I must pick up according to the text in the policy are now marked with an "x-" in their name. All my caches with an "x-" will be archived but should have one LTF log.

I looked at some (not the pmo ones w/o CJ). Good idea. :)

Link to comment

Couldn't get out on a birthday run, with all the snow and single digit temps we're getting.

Next week (above 40) it'll be strolls on ice (though crampons and an axe are fun in itself).

Our new neighbors do "5" rope hides, high terrain, lonely caches, long hikes too, and already asked about a group outing.

- But rather than stress out COs already upset with "Still there?" emails, guess we'll think about other areas.

Link to comment

I am down to six non-compliant geocaches.

Upon removing the last geocaches I am now looking at each log and posting my favorites. this is one of them: "perhaps the best log:

 

"Found on my way to Glory this morning. The terrain is brutal but beautiful. The tree near GZ is an incredible demonstration of nature taking whatever course needed to survive. Thanks for bringing me to this incredible spot" lego-kings"

Link to comment

I just logged an archived cache a few days ago along the Batona trail near Rt 563. In my opinion,the net effect of this new policy will be a HUGE reduction of geocaches in the area! I have 4 caches hidden in NJ and so far have recieved no e mails telling me to remove or modify them. People are responsible for their own safety,we don`t need the government to hold our hands and guide us! I fear that this is the beginning of the end of geocaching as more states,municipalities,etc impose restrictions. Many cachers won`t want to be bothered and will abandon the sport! In light of this,I may not renew my premium membership this year.

Edited by jpamusher
Link to comment

Just an idea that would somewhat offset the reduction in geocaches that will result. Perhaps Groundspeak should allow logging benchmarks as part of your find total---a smiley for it. This new policy probably wouldn`t affect benchmarks. I`ve never done benchmarking yet. Also,I recently logged a cache in the Wharton State Forest that had (unknown to me when I made the find)been archived the day before and it still showed on my page as a find. I suspect many cachers will just archive their caches and not actually remove them. I can`t see too many park personel scouring the state forests just to remove archived caches,thus they will still actually be there and you could hunt them down and log them. I will try anyway!

Link to comment
Who is going to handle GC5 ?

?

Sorry, please explain.

 

GC5 is a remote cache that was placed in 2002, by a cacher who logged 6 caches in total and left the game about a year later. each of the cache placements ultimately became an unmaintained. GC5 was found once last year, and 4 years before that. There are literally 100s of similar caches in the field in NJ . GC5 is a metaphore for all those . responsible cachers all over the state are permitting, archiving, removing......but no one is speaking to the community standard of geolitter and abandoned caches. GC5 is still out there. Geolitter was of late given as a primary inducement for policy implementation, yet our groups continue to ignore it.

Link to comment

Wharton State Forest Superintendent has declared that he will not consider processing permits until the total number of caches in his jurisdiction is less than 300. The state currently lists the size of the Wharton Tract as 122,880 acres!

 

Wharton has also threatened littering citations for each non permitted cache that is not removed. From a quick reading of the state regs that's $71 each.

 

I have been watching the state page and the total number of active/disabled caches listed (including events) has decreased about 400 in the last month.

 

I benchmark regularly these days. There are a number in Wharton and I intend to keep hunting them. I am perfectly content for my benchmark finds to reside in a separate category as is currently the case.

Link to comment

Wharton State Forest Superintendent has declared that he will not consider processing permits until the total number of caches in his jurisdiction is less than 300. The state currently lists the size of the Wharton Tract as 122,880 acres!

 

Wharton has also threatened littering citations for each non permitted cache that is not removed. From a quick reading of the state regs that's $71 each.

 

I have been watching the state page and the total number of active/disabled caches listed (including events) has decreased about 400 in the last month.

 

I benchmark regularly these days. There are a number in Wharton and I intend to keep hunting them. I am perfectly content for my benchmark finds to reside in a separate category as is currently the case.

 

sound like an imperious blowhard

Link to comment

GC5 is a remote cache that was placed in 2002, by a cacher who logged 6 caches in total and left the game about a year later. each of the cache placements ultimately became an unmaintained. GC5 was found once last year, and 4 years before that. There are literally 100s of similar caches in the field in NJ . GC5 is a metaphore for all those . responsible cachers all over the state are permitting, archiving, removing......but no one is speaking to the community standard of geolitter and abandoned caches. GC5 is still out there. Geolitter was of late given as a primary inducement for policy implementation, yet our groups continue to ignore it.

 

How many of these have you NA'd?

Link to comment

GC5 is a remote cache that was placed in 2002, by a cacher who logged 6 caches in total and left the game about a year later. each of the cache placements ultimately became an unmaintained. GC5 was found once last year, and 4 years before that. There are literally 100s of similar caches in the field in NJ . GC5 is a metaphore for all those . responsible cachers all over the state are permitting, archiving, removing......but no one is speaking to the community standard of geolitter and abandoned caches. GC5 is still out there. Geolitter was of late given as a primary inducement for policy implementation, yet our groups continue to ignore it.

 

How many of these have you NA'd?

 

in last few months, a few. Those were the most egregious, on several occasions I received specific e mails asking me to go get a cache and check it out from other cachers who were concerned about opining, in several of those I have requested reviewer input, I have also directly e mailed owners regarding their continued presence in the game.

Link to comment
Who is going to handle GC5 ?

?

Sorry, please explain.

 

GC5 is a remote cache that was placed in 2002, by a cacher who logged 6 caches in total and left the game about a year later. each of the cache placements ultimately became an unmaintained. GC5 was found once last year, and 4 years before that. There are literally 100s of similar caches in the field in NJ . GC5 is a metaphore for all those . responsible cachers all over the state are permitting, archiving, removing......but no one is speaking to the community standard of geolitter and abandoned caches. GC5 is still out there. Geolitter was of late given as a primary inducement for policy implementation, yet our groups continue to ignore it.

 

So far you are the only person I have heard claiming "geolitter" as a valid reason for the state to impose draconian regulation on geocaching in New Jersey. This fallacy (that geolitter is a significant problem) cannot go unchallenged.

 

Here are some pertinent calculations: total number of active/disabled caches in New Jersey 15,171 (includes events)

 

Total volume of all micro caches: 167,000 cubic cm (assuming average volume of 31 cubic cm, the volume of a 35 mm film can)

Total volume of all small caches: 2,612,000 cubic cm (assuming an average volume of 500 cubic cm, a typical sandwich container)

Total volume of all other/unknown caches: 43,000 cubic cm(assuming average volume of 31 cubic cm)

Total volume of all large caches: 840,000 cubic cm (assuming average volume of 10,000 cubic cm)

Total volume of all regular caches: 4,644,000 cubic cm (assuming average volume of 1,500 cubic cm)

 

The total volume is approximately 8.3 million cubic cm.

 

A group of volunteer geocachers filled a 30 cubic yard (approximately 23 million cubic cm) dumpster with trash at Whitesbog last year. In two hours. It wasn't even a CITO event.

 

ALL the currently listed caches in New Jersey: 8.3 million cubic cm; one dumpster in 2 hours at one location 23 million cubic cm.

 

Please do not allow public officials to use geolitter as a reasonable justification for extreme limitations on our sport in OUR public lands!

Link to comment
Who is going to handle GC5 ?

?

Sorry, please explain.

 

GC5 is a remote cache that was placed in 2002, by a cacher who logged 6 caches in total and left the game about a year later. each of the cache placements ultimately became an unmaintained. GC5 was found once last year, and 4 years before that. There are literally 100s of similar caches in the field in NJ . GC5 is a metaphore for all those . responsible cachers all over the state are permitting, archiving, removing......but no one is speaking to the community standard of geolitter and abandoned caches. GC5 is still out there. Geolitter was of late given as a primary inducement for policy implementation, yet our groups continue to ignore it.

 

So far you are the only person I have heard claiming "geolitter" as a valid reason for the state to impose draconian regulation on geocaching in New Jersey. This fallacy (that geolitter is a significant problem) cannot go unchallenged.

 

Here are some pertinent calculations: total number of active/disabled caches in New Jersey 15,171 (includes events)

 

Total volume of all micro caches: 167,000 cubic cm (assuming average volume of 31 cubic cm, the volume of a 35 mm film can)

Total volume of all small caches: 2,612,000 cubic cm (assuming an average volume of 500 cubic cm, a typical sandwich container)

Total volume of all other/unknown caches: 43,000 cubic cm(assuming average volume of 31 cubic cm)

Total volume of all large caches: 840,000 cubic cm (assuming average volume of 10,000 cubic cm)

Total volume of all regular caches: 4,644,000 cubic cm (assuming average volume of 1,500 cubic cm)

 

The total volume is approximately 8.3 million cubic cm.

 

A group of volunteer geocachers filled a 30 cubic yard (approximately 23 million cubic cm) dumpster with trash at Whitesbog last year. In two hours. It wasn't even a CITO event.

 

ALL the currently listed caches in New Jersey: 8.3 million cubic cm; one dumpster in 2 hours at one location 23 million cubic cm.

 

Please do not allow public officials to use geolitter as a reasonable justification for extreme limitations on our sport in OUR public lands!

 

Point of fact: I do not and have not claimed geolitter to be a valid reason for the policy. Nik Cap who participated in the Park Personnel Discussion reported in this very thread that the DEP noted "cache abandonment" as a very important consideration in their policy determination, I like you think it is a specious reason and has a de minimist impact. However, I believe it is incumbent on the user groups to "play ball" to get that which benefits us the most.

 

Personally, I like many think that there are much more pressing concerns than having a "geocaching policy" and I as many think that it really is a waste of public resources, given as you say the overall stewardship that cachers have shown.

 

But I am powerless to " not allow" public officials to use geocaching litter or abandonment as justification for their limittions, I like you just don't buy into it. But that was what they reported to the discussion groups. As for the way they work, they are looking for quid pro quo, years back when Mountain Biking was coming into vogue, we worked with Ramapo State Forest, building , maintaining , setting out trails just to be allowed access. It worked well, but they were up front about it, no work no ride. I think they are looking for the same type of effort .

 

Be well.

Link to comment

"Geo-Litter" is really an small tiny portion of the whole equation.

But, let's think about it like this. The NJSPF built a geocaching policy around existing rules and regulations. This was the easy route. The NJDEP could have written an amendment to the State Park Policy Service Code, or could have created a pay permit and special use permit system for Geocachers.

 

Geocachers leave their personal property in State run parks. There is a law against this. Do Geocachers consider hiding caches littering?

I don't, and everyone reading this probably doesn't either.

Is leaving caches in the woods littering to hikers, hunters, bird watchers, photographers, mountain bikers, tree-huggers, etc ...?

Maybe, maybe not.

 

Other then a special use permit for hunting, is there any other activity that is permitted in State Parks and forest that allow for visitors to wander off trails?

Nope. We should all be familiar with N.J.A.C State Park Service Code 7:2-12.3 Hiking trail restrictions.

"No person should leave a designated hiking trail.

Anything a hiker brings into a state park should be removed by that person."

 

Here's the kicker, we advertise that we're leaving stuff in the woods on this (and various other Geocaching) websites. I've yet to see website for shady and cheap contractors listing ideal locations to dump their waste in State Parks and WMA. We're like fish in a barrel.

 

The one thing I've learned with this whole process, is that for the most part, the State Parks have no problem with geocaching and see geocaching as a low impact and passive activities in the parks. But, if the Supers are going to approve caches and take some kind of responsibilities for the caches, they will need to CYA ... just in case Saul Goodman take up caching in the great state of New Jersey.

 

I highly doubt that NJSPF will go around looking for abandoned caches and seeking out the owners, but why give them any reason?

But, by the same token, littering/abandoned property is one of the key points that park personal and DEP employees keep bringing up when I've talked to them. When it come down to it, the littering/abandoned property aspect is the only thing that has teeth.

Edited by nikcap
Link to comment

and now that I've given my option about what the NJDEP can and can't and would and wouldn't do about geo-little; if you have access to the SJG facebook page see chstress53's (a former NJSP Naturalist) reply about how the state parks handles abandoned property in the woods.

Basically, the NJDEP can't do anything unless they have an iron clad case.

Link to comment

and now that I've given my option about what the NJDEP can and can't and would and wouldn't do about geo-little; if you have access to the SJG facebook page see chstress53's (a former NJSP Naturalist) reply about how the state parks handles abandoned property in the woods.

Basically, the NJDEP can't do anything unless they have an iron clad case.

 

The first time a bureaucrat threw the idea of geolitter on the table someone should have challenged that notion with the statistics I generated above. I am willing to bet that the volume of abandoned tree stands on public lands exceeds the volume of geocaches on public lands.

 

As for CYA as relates to climbing caches, have you seen the statistics for tree stand accidents? And how could finding water access caches be more inherently dangerous than fishing from a watercraft?

Link to comment

and now that I've given my option about what the NJDEP can and can't and would and wouldn't do about geo-little; if you have access to the SJG facebook page see chstress53's (a former NJSP Naturalist) reply about how the state parks handles abandoned property in the woods.

Basically, the NJDEP can't do anything unless they have an iron clad case.

 

The first time a bureaucrat threw the idea of geolitter on the table someone should have challenged that notion with the statistics I generated above. I am willing to bet that the volume of abandoned tree stands on public lands exceeds the volume of geocaches on public lands.

 

As for CYA as relates to climbing caches, have you seen the statistics for tree stand accidents? And how could finding water access caches be more inherently dangerous than fishing from a watercraft?

 

Michaelcycle, I agree with you.

 

And, as geocachers, we should be reporting tree stands that are nailed to trees and are still in place after the season. As well, any tree stand that is not properly tagged and permitted, we should report too.

 

Once, again, we need to be careful about comparing Geocaching to hunting and fishing. In NJ, you need to purchase a permit for participating in these activities, and even with that, you are limited to the time you can actually do the activities. If you think the permit policy is bad, I'm sure the idea of limited caching times and paying to find caches wouldn't go over much better. Even though several geocachers have expressed that they wouldn't mind paying if they could have carte blanche on their hides.

 

Once again, I believe the idea of "littering" is being thrown around because it one of the only violations that the State Park Police can issue. I once heard that they could only issue disorderly person, trespassing and littering ... this might be different now as I was told this by a park ranger about 6-7 years ago.

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...