AT/LT Cache needs permission to be placed ~ INSANITY

[AA1PR]

• AT/LT Cache needs permission to be placed ~ INSANITY
• i recently tried to place a geocache 100ft from teh at/lt crossing
• I am told I need permission while teh cache is on the side of the road away from this trail buffer zone and most likely on killington town or state land
• Ive called the agent I was told to reach out to , to never receive any answer
• & now I am told to come here to see what can be done
• Im not sure who makes these rules but its insane
• I do notice on the trail in this area are 3 premium caches, so odd they are allowed and mine isnt
• seems theres some favoritism going on here in this hobby

please HELP

•  
• Type: Traditional Cache

Log:

Greetings, AA1PR.

Please realize I do not personally have any voice in determining the Appalachian Trail buffer zone. The buffer zone is established and maintained by Groundspeak in cooperation with the Appalachian Trail and the U.S. National Park Service.

GC1HQYQ AA1PR's Ultimate Survival Cache is about 1/2 mile south of the buffer zone.

If you wish to get an exception to the policy, please contact geocaching support staff at: https://www.geocaching.com/help/

Thank you for your understanding!

MainePublisher
geocaching.com volunteer reviewer

[+niraD]

Yep. This has been an issue since 2008:

 

 

[+Isonzo Karst]

AT/LT = Appalachia Trail / Long Trail

 

Quote, "I am told I need permission while teh cache is on the side of the road away from this trail buffer zone and most likely on killington town or state land  ?"

Curious, you've seen a map of buffer zone? ie, if the cache location is  outside of the buffer, then you probably wouldn't be told it's inside.

 

I wonder if the reviewer might just tell you how much to move it   to be clear of the buffer? or alternately you find out whose land it is, "killington town or state land," and get permission from them? 

 

Quote, "Ive called the agent I was told to reach out to , to never receive any answer"

This is sad. Used to happen a lot when I tried to get permits from one of Florida's state agencies. (Their process, while still slow, has improved in the last few years) (a lot of people give up over them wanting your Social Security number, I darn near did.)

 

Quote, "Im not sure who makes these rules..."  In the reviewer note you quote, "The buffer zone is established and maintained by Groundspeak in cooperation with the Appalachian Trail and the U.S. National Park Service."

 

 

1 hour ago, AA1PR said:

• do notice on the trail in this area are 3 premium caches, so odd they are allowed and mine isnt
• seems theres some favoritism going on here in this hobby

 

 See my reference to difficult permit/permission processes in Florida.  I own caches in places where some have found it too hard or taking to too long. That doesn't mean that, "there's favoritism". It means that I got the needed permits.  Not fast, not easy, but yeah.  

 

I'm see niraD responded while I was typing.  Lot of info in those old threads.

 

Odd that staff would send you here, maybe in the New England forum someone *might* have more current contact info on buffer permission?

 

Edited September 26, 2022 by Isonzo Karst

[+cerberus1]

1 hour ago, AA1PR said:

• AT/LT Cache needs permission to be placed ~ INSANITY

 

All caches need permission to be placed.  You agree that permission was given when you have a cache published.

We were ones that lost caches well-away from the AT.  They lost two members and a trail maintainer because of it...

[Keystone]

1 hour ago, AA1PR said:

• Im not sure who makes these rules but its insane
• I do notice on the trail in this area are 3 premium caches, so odd they are allowed and mine isnt
• seems theres some favoritism going on here in this hobby

please HELP

 

The land manager makes these rules, but I don't recommend sharing your opinion with them.  The Appalachian Trail Conference is one of the most challenging land managers I've ever dealt with as a Community Volunteer Reviewer.  I'll never forget the threatening, personalized email I received, warning me not to publish caches in contravention of their "buffer corridor" policy.  Therefore, I am quite strict on enforcing the rules handed down to me from this land manager.  There is no favoritism - all hiders are treated equal, meaning strictly.

 

Knowing this, what sort of help were you hoping to receive here?

[AA1PR]

26 minutes ago, Keystone said:

 

The land manager makes these rules, but I don't recommend sharing your opinion with them.  The Appalachian Trail Conference is one of the most challenging land managers I've ever dealt with as a Community Volunteer Reviewer.  I'll never forget the threatening, personalized email I received, warning me not to publish caches in contravention of their "buffer corridor" policy.  Therefore, I am quite strict on enforcing the rules handed down to me from this land manager.  There is no favoritism - all hiders are treated equal, meaning strictly.

 

Knowing this, what sort of help were you hoping to receive here?

thanks

I find it odd however closer to the actual trail are 3 premium caches

not sure how the AT/LT group has authority since most of the trail traverses state & private land

Ill research further and maybe start a crap storm if need be

[AA1PR]

1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

 

All caches need permission to be placed.  You agree that permission was given when you have a cache published.

We were ones that lost caches well-away from the AT.  They lost two members and a trail maintainer because of it...

I see why this is non sense

the AT trail traverses private & public lands

not sure how they can claim rights to a corridor all because its in the vicinity

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

There are lots of examples of public land being maintained by some kind of third party conservancy group. The Nature Conservancy used to manage some BLM land on Lake Coeur d'Alene in my area. And, they worked out access rights to adjacent private lands for a trail between the parcels. The Nature Conservancy does this with a lot of public (and private) land, and they are the ones to contact. Looks like the Appalachian Trail Conservancy is similar in nature. So, while they might not own the land, they have contracts and agreements in place to manage all of the land, not just the trails.

[+TriciaG]

1 hour ago, AA1PR said:

Ill research further and maybe start a crap storm if need be

Please don't start a crap storm. That is likely to do much more harm than good.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

Wow, so much anger!

 

Especially for someone who signed up so long ago, why don't you just accept that there are guidelines in the hobby that exist for reasons outside of your circle instead of threatening to raise holy hell because YOU don't understand or agree?

 

I was pretty put off by the rant against geocachers on your profile page and some of your OM logs, and this doesn't make me any more sympathetic.

[+cerberus1]

3 hours ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

 Looks like the Appalachian Trail Conservancy is similar in nature. So, while they might not own the land, they have contracts and agreements in place to manage all of the land, not just the trails.

 

The AT conservancy works with the National Park Service...   

They "say" they abide by state/landowner's policies with land usage (hiking, hunting, fishing, etc). 

Most of the AT in PA near me are surrounded by State Game Lands on both sides. Our caches were well-into State Game Lands.

I can hunt while walking on the AT, but I couldn't cache over a hundred feet from their boundary lines on state game land property....

[+lee737]

1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

I can hunt while walking on the AT, but I couldn't cache over a hundred feet from their boundary lines on state game land property....

The hunters clearly have better lobbyists.....

[+barefootjeff]

7 hours ago, Isonzo Karst said:

Quote, "Ive called the agent I was told to reach out to , to never receive any answer"

This is sad. Used to happen a lot when I tried to get permits from one of Florida's state agencies. (Their process, while still slow, has improved in the last few years) (a lot of people give up over them wanting your Social Security number, I darn near did.)

 

During last year's COVID lockdown, I did a lot of exploring in Brisbane Water National Park which was within my permitted exercise area. In the course of that, I came across what I thought would be a great spot for a cache, a low rock overhang just to the side of the Great North Walk with nice views down along the Hawkesbury River and the beach at Patonga.

 

 

In May I emailed the park ranger to see if such a placement would be okay, and in reply she said she'd like to meet me there so she could see the location for herself as she had concerns about the 50 metre high cliffs in the vicinity. So we met up and hiked out to GZ, where she took lots of photos and a video of me walking from the trail across to my proposed hiding place. I showed her the container I was planning to use, a black aluminium mega bison tube which fitted neatly into the honeycombed rock, and she was happy with that. She said that, if it was up to her, it'd be okay but she wasn't sure she'd be able to convince her managers so she'd get back to me in a few weeks.

 

When I hadn't heard anything by the end of July, I sent a follow-up email to see what was happening, and she apologised for the delay but said her managers had been on leave during the school holidays and she'd get back to me in a couple of weeks. When I'd still heard nothing by the end of August, I sent another follow-up but, a month on, I haven't had a reply to that. If the answer is "no" then so be it, I won't lose any sleep if I can't put a cache there, but what I'd really like is an answer so I can move on.

 

Over the years I've had about a fifty percent success rate at placing caches in national parks. Sometimes the process runs smoothly with formal approval coming in just a few weeks, but at other times it's been rejected for what I consider frivilous reasons and on one other occasion I just never got a definitive answer. But getting angry or arguing won't help, in fact it'll have the opposite effect. When dealing with bureaucracies, it's best to just go with the flow and make sure the caches that have been approved set a good example by being kept in good condition and not doing any damage to their surroundings.

[+lee737]

6 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Over the years I've had about a fifty percent success rate at placing caches in national parks. Sometimes the process runs smoothly with formal approval coming in just a few weeks, but at other times it's been rejected for what I consider frivilous reasons and on one other occasion I just never got a definitive answer.

Yep, you need patience with our National Parks, I've dealt with three rangers, and found widely different times for replies, one reliably in a day or so, one in weeks, and another took a year to get back to us with a no, despite already giving us a 'probable yes' (and yes, we had hidden a container.... its still there, we'll retrieve on an upcoming camping trip).....

[AA1PR]

18 hours ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

Wow, so much anger!

 

Especially for someone who signed up so long ago, why don't you just accept that there are guidelines in the hobby that exist for reasons outside of your circle instead of threatening to raise holy hell because YOU don't understand or agree?

 

I was pretty put off by the rant against geocachers on your profile page and some of your OM logs, and this doesn't make me any more sympathetic.

I dont care if you can not accept the facts or like my comments

I never asked for your approval nor do I need any from you

 you are so supercilious that you have to tell me what I am supposed to do, feel or act

odd how you are ok with cachers destroying nature to find a cache though

good bye

Edited September 27, 2022 by AA1PR

[AA1PR]

18 hours ago, TriciaG said:

Please don't start a crap storm. That is likely to do much more harm than good.

I will just archive all my caches &be done with this non sense

[Keystone]

As the cache in question has been archived by its owner, and seeing that the discussion here has devolved into personal attacks against other participants, I am closing this thread.