Geocaches and the National Seashore

[+mockkkk]

Hello everyone! Wanted to bring a query to you all.

 

I recently started working on hiding a series of geocaches near my home, on Long Island, in NY. I have placed around ten or so caches. I noticed that in Smith Point County Park, which is a very large park on Fire Island just south of where I live, there were a very limited number of geocaches.

 

I figured that this was either A: Because the area is unpredictable with regard to weather, flooding and erosion, or B: Because placing geocaches in the area (Which is not only a county park, but also part of the Fire Island National Seashore) was prohibited.

 

Anyway, I figured I would try to place a hide and if it got rejected, so be it. So, I drove my car into the massive parking lot, parked, and walked from the parking lot onto a small fishing pier that extends north from Fire Island into Moriches Bay.

 

The cache I placed was a small black bison tube, attached to a plastic conduit box at the end of the dock. You weren't able to see the box or the cache without leaning way over the railing and reaching down. I thought it was pretty clever!

 

However, as you might expect, I received a notification from our reviewer stating that geocaching is not permitted within the boundaries of the Fire Island National Seashore (FINS). Sure, I get it.

 

Then, I looked up a map just to double check- and saw that yes, the parking lot and dock, despite being completely man made structures, are within the seashore. The reviewer was right in rejecting my placement.

 

At the same time, I also compared that map to the map on Geocaching.com's website, and to my surprise, realized that there is another traditional geocache on Fire Island, which is well within the boundaries of the FINS. It is located at the far eastern end of the island, which is only accessible by 4x4 vehicle, boat, or a 6 mile hike.

 

This cache is placed in the wilderness, where supposedly things are left in their natural state.

 

So there are a number of questions I have here. Before I get to them, let me state that I am not trying to justify my own cache placement. I understand that existing caches do not serve as precedent for new placements. Just the same, it seems like if a standard is going to be applied, that it should be applied universally, no?

 

So, my questions:

 

Why is this geocache: http://coord.info/GCGDCG permitted to exist when my placement (and others) are not? Clearly, this cache was placed a very long time ago and things may not have been so strict then. But, if geocaching is an activity that is not permitted within National Seashore areas, why is this one allowed to endure? Doesn't that cast us in a bad light?

 

Keep in mind, I have no interest in depriving a geocache-barren area of the one that has stood the test of time. I am just trying to understand the reasoning here.

 

Finally, though I am sure this has been discussed at great length here, how can carving deep 4x4 trails through sand dunes on a quickly eroding island be permitted and practiced regularly, when the placing of geocaches, which is a minimally invasive activity in comparison, is not? (Hint: people have to pay $75 for a pass to drive on the beach; they pay nothing to geocache).

 

Is this ethical behavior?

 

On top of that, as I have mentioned the only way to reach this existing geocache is by 4x4 vehicle, a difficult boat trip, or a very very long walk. Surely someone taking a jeep out to the far end of the island is more invasive than someone walking across a parking lot out onto a fishing pier that is designed for humans to use.

 

I am just trying to get a clear picture of what standards are used here, and why they are in place. It certainly makes sense that an area that we are trying to leave in it's natural state be free of geocaches and other human made intrusions. However, this area certainly is not that, and I would think that a geocache in a parking lot or on a dock would be much more permissible than one out in the wilderness within the same boundary, if the two were to be compared.

 

Ultimately I am just interested in engaging the community in the discussion and seeing what people think. Should the existing cache be archived? Is it right that the reviewer ignored my questions about placement guidelines?

 

I am of the opinion that while geocaching can certainly be forbidden within wilderness and nationally protected areas, preventing them from being placed in areas which humans have already developed, because of an arbitrary imaginary line seems silly.

 

Clearly if a geocache has existed in the wilderness within that boundary since 2003 without causing any issues, than one can exist within that boundary on a fishing dock attached to a parking lot without causing issues. That's my view, and I am interested in hearing yours.

 

I am attaching a map of the FINS for your consideration. Thank you all for what will hopefully be a respectful and insightful debate!

 

-mockkkk

 

[+mockkkk]

Actually, I am looking at the map now, and it seems that at least according to that map (and the one officially placed on the FINS website, here: http://www.nps.gov/fiis/planyourvisit/maps.htm) the area I was trying to place a cache might actually not be within the FINS. According to the map, areas that are part of the FINS are shaded dark green, while areas that are "wilderness areas" are shaded with stripes. Finally, regular park lands are shaded in light green.

 

If you're going to go to the trouble of shading certain areas with a color designating that they are part of the FINS, it would seem to imply that areas not shaded with that color are not part of the FINS, and, (in the case of where my placement was going to be, just east of the eastern bridge) are part of a county park only.

 

Accordingly, both my proposed placement as well as the cache that has been in existence at the eastern end of the island are both within this green area, and are NOT shaded to indicate that they are part of the FINS.

 

When you enter the area in a vehicle, heading south across the Smith Point Bridge, there are signs once you reach Fire Island that state that the Fire Island National Seashore is to the right, while Smith Point County Park is to the left. Even on land it seems that the FINS is regarded to be a separate area and not one and the same with County Park.

 

Am I right here?

 

Just curious!

Edited March 20, 2016 by mockkkk

[+Crow-T-Robot]

Did you get permission from whoever owns the dock to place a cache on it? Instead of trying to argue what is or isn't NPS land, I'd first make sure that whoever the dock belongs to is ok with me placing a cache on it.

[+Touchstone]

Lots of questions...

 

Well for starters, as you pointed out, 2003 was quite some time ago. That map is quite a patchwork of boundaries, and would probably have been pretty tough to catch back then, not to mention, the "local" Reviewer was from New Jersey. Putting that all aside, the boundaries may have changed in the intervening years. A local NP near me has changed boundaries twice in that time frame, as the Park acquired new land and expanded.

 

I don't think such caches "cast geocaching" in a bad light. If anything, it demonstrates how harmless the activity is, to have a cache endure so long. The Reviewer probably didn't even see your follow up Note. Most of the time Guideline "breakers" like NPS caches and the like, are immediately Archived. As far as the Reviewer is concerned, the conversation doesn't really need to continue, as the outcome will be the same either way.

 

I won't bother getting into the whole "ethical" debate here. I see a lot of things going on in National Parks and Wilderness Areas that I disagree with. You're preaching to the choir on that subject. Suffice it to say, these areas are set aside by an act of Congress. If you don't like it, then cast your vote accordingly in November.

[+mockkkk]

I actually did a bit more research and was able to find out that "Smith Point County Park" was designated as lying within the boundaries of the national seashore but that it is not managed or attended to by the National Park Service.

 

This is clear by the fact that many activities that would not be permitted in a National Park are permitted in the County Park.

 

I wonder if approval from the County, as the entity that manages the park, would be appropriate in order to open it up to geocaching? Or perhaps even then the reviewer would give the same response..

 

Whether or not this is a lost cause, people must agree in this case it is a silly restriction. There is no harm in placing a cache in a 1/2 mile long parking lot...other than the slippery slope of having to actually closely review future caches rather than just blindly approving them unless they fall within a pre-designated "no-cache" zone.

Edited March 20, 2016 by mockkkk

[+mockkkk]

Did you get permission from whoever owns the dock to place a cache on it? Instead of trying to argue what is or isn't NPS land, I'd first make sure that whoever the dock belongs to is ok with me placing a cache on it.

 

The dock is a memorial fishing pier that was built by the county. There is a plaque on it stating as such. Again, maybe it wouldn't hurt to ask the at the office in the park. If the National Park Service is the entity that has a problem with geocaching, and they don't manage this area, then it seems that the entity that does manage the area should get to make the decision, right?

[+Touchstone]

This is clear by the fact that many activities that would not be permitted in a National Park are permitted in the County Park.

 

Actually, that's not clear to me at all. We have a few situations like you describe in my area, in which areas are jointly managed by State/NPS and County/NPS. In those cases, NPS rules trump the local standard. This is consistent with most Federal Regulations, in which States must adhere to a certain minimum standard (i.e. worker safety, wages etc.).

 

If you went with NPS permission, as mentioned by CTR, it seems unlikely that the Reviewer would contest it.

[Keystone]

If the National Park Service is the entity that has a problem with geocaching, and they don't manage this area, then it seems that the entity that does manage the area should get to make the decision, right?

Tell that to the hundreds of cache owners who saw their hides along the Appalachian Trail Corridor forcibly archived by request of the National Park Service, even though many of the placements were well distant from the trail and/or met the applicable state or local land manager's geocaching policy at the time of publication.

 

Maps and other available tools are way, way better now than in 2003. There are caches I published in 2003 that I would not publish today, thanks to the better tools available. I would not fret about an old grandfathered cache. Treat it as an odd anamoly.

[+mockkkk]

This is clear by the fact that many activities that would not be permitted in a National Park are permitted in the County Park.

 

Actually, that's not clear to me at all. We have a few situations like you describe in my area, in which areas are jointly managed by State/NPS and County/NPS. In those cases, NPS rules trump the local standard. This is consistent with most Federal Regulations, in which States must adhere to a certain minimum standard (i.e. worker safety, wages etc.).

 

If you went with NPS permission, as mentioned by CTR, it seems unlikely that the Reviewer would contest it.

 

He didn't mention NPS permission, by my understanding he suggested ignoring what lies within or without the FINS boundary and instead focus on who built the dock in question, which would be the county.

 

I was able to find this: http://www.nps.gov/fiis/planyourvisit/smith-point-county-park.htm

 

Which states that while it lies within the boundary, the area is not managed by the NPS. If the NPS does not have a managing stake in the land and what goes on there, you would think that approaching the entity that does would be the first people to go to, correct?

 

I am assuming that in all cases the NPS denies placement of geocaches within it's boundaries. However, in this case if I were to go to them and inquire, I would guess that in this unique case they would refer me to the body that manages the park, namely the county.

Edited March 20, 2016 by mockkkk

[+Touchstone]

Which states that while it lies within the boundary, the area is not managed by the NPS. If the NPS does not have a managing stake in the land and what goes on there, you would think that approaching the entity that does would be the first people to go to, correct?

 

I would not assume that. Just because the Counties interest and the NPS interest aligns in protecting the area, it doesn't necessarily follow that the NPS has no say in how it is managed.

 

That's not to say that NPS denies all placements, it's just very rare that they approve them. Your Reviewer probably didn't dwell on that aspect because they might have thought it was a waste of your time to pursue that option. Here are several examples of caches on NPS lands:

 

Star Spangled Banner Geotrail

Edited March 20, 2016 by Touchstone

[+mockkkk]

Interesting, thanks for the information. I did not realize that this had been done before.

 

Maybe because of the atypical situation here I will give reaching out to the NPS a shot. Can't hurt, right? I'm not too optimistic but it's worth a try. The park is a beautiful place frequented by many lovers of the outdoors every day. It's a shame that geocaches are not permitted, at least in the more developed areas.

 

Again, I keep coming back to a super invasive activity like carving 4x4 roads through the dunes being permitted, while geocaching is supposedly too invasive for the area. I know they get the final say (whether its the county or NPS), but that's a hard sell.

[Keystone]

I am assuming that in all cases the NPS denies placement of geocaches within it's boundaries.

That's not a safe assumption. The NPS leaves geocaching policy decisions to the unit management. Some allow geocaching and some do not, depending on considerations like the mission of the unit, environmental sensitivity and traffic.

 

Perhaps your reviewer knows that this NPS unit never allows geocaches.

[knowschad]

I am assuming that in all cases the NPS denies placement of geocaches within it's boundaries.

That's not a safe assumption. The NPS leaves geocaching policy decisions to the unit management. Some allow geocaching and some do not, depending on considerations like the mission of the unit, environmental sensitivity and traffic.

 

Perhaps your reviewer knows that this NPS unit never allows geocaches.

Any statistics or estimates on how many do vs. how many do not allow them? I know that it does depend on the local management, but it has been my understanding that only very, very few have been allowed. Is my information out of date?

[+mockkkk]

I am assuming that in all cases the NPS denies placement of geocaches within it's boundaries.

That's not a safe assumption. The NPS leaves geocaching policy decisions to the unit management. Some allow geocaching and some do not, depending on considerations like the mission of the unit, environmental sensitivity and traffic.

 

Perhaps your reviewer knows that this NPS unit never allows geocaches.

Any statistics or estimates on how many do vs. how many do not allow them? I know that it does depend on the local management, but it has been my understanding that only very, very few have been allowed. Is my information out of date?

 

I wouldn't know the statistics but I will be happy to report back after reaching out to them. If there were ever an area that an exception could be made, this is certainly one. When you look over all of the reasons geocaching is prohibited in national parks and wilderness areas, they make a lot of sense. A cache being in place for a decade will definitely cause new erosion and trails to form. Even if cachers practice leave no trace, and CITO and other positive actions, there are negative aspects that are unavoidable.

 

However, in this situation there is nothing but pavement and man made structures.

 

Again I will report back!

[+JL_HSTRE]

Sounds like you need to talk to FINS.

 

It's easier to deny something (geocaching, dogs, etc) to an entire management area then to allow it in certain specific parts of the property. A blanket ban is easy to enforce while a selective ban requires someone to consider each case and whether it is in an allowed area. NPS has had their staffing has been massively decreased in the last decade.

 

As to the 4x4 trails I agree this seems inappropriate for any National Seashore and would be curious to know why it's allowed.

 

Some land managers don't really understand geocaching so they aren't very receptive of it. For some the issue seems less the traffic and more the leaving behind of a container.

 

FWIW it appears the Natchez Trace is one NPS unit that allows a limited number of caches.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Tell that to the hundreds of cache owners who saw their hides along the Appalachian Trail Corridor forcibly archived by request of the National Park Service, even though many of the placements were well distant from the trail and/or met the applicable state or local land manager's geocaching policy at the time of publication.

 

Ah. I thought it was the Appalachian Trail Conservancy that requested that some cache along the trail needed to be archived (but not others)? But, yes, many of the caches archived were not on lands administered by either the NPS or the ATC.

 

To the OP: The NPS (which administers National Seashores) can make whatever rules, regulations or guidelines that it chooses. To ask for logic (or what you thin is logic) does not apply. The cache cited was hidden before regulations prohibiting geocaches in NPS areas. FINS (Hey! Dolphins have fins.) has not requested that the cache be archived, so it is grandfathered.

NPS has its rules. To argue that it permits somethings you think inappropriate has no relevance. NPS decides what it permits. My local National Seashore has a very popular nudist beach! You may not like the idea, but it is permitted. (The local municipality wherein the land lies, had decided not to enforces its ban on public nudity.)

So, arguing that YOU think some things should be permitted, and others not, has no relevance to NPS rules and guidelines.

If you can work with FINS, and get a cache approved, more's the power to you. But your argument that you think NPS should permit what you want, and disapprove what you do not want, is irrelevant, and a poor argument.

[+NeverSummer]

Speaking from experience, it would be best to check with the Superintendent of the Fire Island National Seashore. They will know if geocaching is a permitted activity, and should be able to weigh in on if that other cache should still be within the boundary.

 

It's not simple work, and often will take many calls, visits, or emails. But, I have to say, many caches exist within federal land boundaries without permission from or knowledge of the manager of that land. At least when speaking of US Fish and Wildlife lands, every National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) and Wetland Management District (WMD) is CLOSED to any unauthorized public use until the activity is fully reviewed by the individual NWR/WMD. I've encountered more than a majority of geocaches listed at geocaching.com that are within NWR or WMD boundaries without any knowledge or permission of the Management.

 

I believe that is also the case for National Parks, but I could be wrong. This is why it would be best to ask, and to spend the time to get a real answer.

[+palmetto]

Is it right that the reviewer ignored my questions about placement guidelines?

 

The reviewer only see logs to unpublished caches when they open the cache page. Your listing was archived, so they're not opening that page, not seeing your questions. Just an FYI on process.

 

In Florida, there are physical caches in both National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges, placed by rangers or long time volunteers.

 

I've yet to see one that was simply placed by a local, though the Everglades National Park has said to a local cacher that they are considering allowing some caches along a hiking trail that he proposed (this consideration is into its second year, but hey - they haven't said no yet).

 

Caches in NP or NWR are rare enough that I actually use the contact info in the required permission to reach out and make sure that the permission is real.

[+macatac1961]

 

As to the 4x4 trails I agree this seems inappropriate for any National Seashore and would be curious to know why it's allowed.

 

The 4x4 trails are there because it's not National Parklands,it's county park under the FINS umbrella. You need to go to the county for the 4x4 'fishing' permits to drive out there. I met one of the national parks guys and asked them about Smiths Point. He said their responsibility ends where the county park begins. Smith's Point is only under that NPS umbrella for when they need funds to replenish the beach sand after a tough winter. Unfortunately the same rules for banning geocaching applies.

[+zoothornrollo]

I am assuming that in all cases the NPS denies placement of geocaches within it's boundaries.

That's not a safe assumption. The NPS leaves geocaching policy decisions to the unit management. Some allow geocaching and some do not, depending on considerations like the mission of the unit, environmental sensitivity and traffic.

 

Perhaps your reviewer knows that this NPS unit never allows geocaches.

 

We recently found 5 traditional caches in Everglades National Park - CO is "EvergladesNPS"

[+hukilaulau]

Welcome to the wonderful and confusing world of Long Island geocaching!

The debate about whether this was national seashore or county parks land was already raging when I started caching in 2004.

After awhile everyone just gave up trying to place caches there. The JMB cache you mentioned was there before the current determination was made.

However, things can change! In Rocky Point Conservation Area up the road, caches were first allowed, then disallowed for a couple of years, and then allowed again! I had a lengthy discussion with reviewers about another area that they thought were on Grumman property but which had been given to Suffolk County. There are other local examples of successes in getting specific areas approved after being off limits.

So my message is... Don't give up! You just might get someone to change the ruling! (Oh yeah, and thanks for finding my caches )

[Keystone]

I am assuming that in all cases the NPS denies placement of geocaches within it's boundaries.

That's not a safe assumption. The NPS leaves geocaching policy decisions to the unit management. Some allow geocaching and some do not, depending on considerations like the mission of the unit, environmental sensitivity and traffic.

 

Perhaps your reviewer knows that this NPS unit never allows geocaches.

Any statistics or estimates on how many do vs. how many do not allow them? I know that it does depend on the local management, but it has been my understanding that only very, very few have been allowed. Is my information out of date?

Check out the brand new Geo Tour that represents a great partnership between Geocaching.com and the National Park Service.