Please don't place caches without permission

[DisQuoi]

I recently had a great experience with a park manager who cooperated in placing my Out of the Frying Pancache. The park manager is very happy with the results and offered to introduce me to other county park managers. Unfortunately, this was my first response from our first try at another park.

 

Dan,

 

We have had experience with geocaching and it IS NOT allowed at Ellanor C. Lawrence Park. We discovered unauthorized caches in several locations and geocachers were establishing trails to the cache locations. The caches were destroyed.

 

I appreciate you checking before establishing locations. I would remind you that you must received permission for any parkland, stream valley park or other, in Fairfax County. Stream valley parks generally fall under the purview of Park Authority Area Managers who manage most of the community parks and ballfields as well.

 

Charles

 

Charles Smith

Historian II

Ellanor C. Lawrence Park - FCPA

 

I can't help but think of the threads where people think that trampled undergrowth and a few broken twigs don't do any real harm. That may or may not be true but it has surely created some road blocks for public relations and the future of geocaching in the Washington DC area. If NPS and the county park managers are destroying our caches, I guess it's virtual cache city ... let's pick another museum or statue and call that a cache.

[+infosponge]

I can't help but have the feeling that this whole permission thing is the beginning of the end of geocaching... "as we know it now".

I've only done a handful out of my 150+ finds where the hider got permission to place the cache.

I understand that on an intellectual level, it's better management of the public spaces if we get permission for each placement. On the other hand, that formal step sucks a lot of the fun, semi-subversive nature out of the activity. It was inevitable, I suppose...as the number of players and the amount of media attention has grown, we couldn't stay under the radar for long. The ultimate outcome of formal approval for all geocaches will be the "Disneyfication" of caches, to the point where they're only put in places where the adventure is tightly controlled so as to minimize official liability in case someone gets hurt.

[DisQuoi]

I think you're right. At least in Fairfax County, Virginia (a large percentage of the area around Washington DC), the days will soon be over where you can expect to place a cache in a County Park and not risk creating an ardent opponent to this activity (see email above).

 

So if it's wrong to place a cache on park property without permission now that land managers are becoming aware of geocaching, was it ever right?

 

As far as the "Disnification" of caches, and as a tax payer, I don't want a cache to be placed where someone is likely to be hurt anyway. Also, if the person given stewardship of a particular refuge or preserve feels that a cache placed will negatively impact what is being preserved, I don't think a cache should be placed there with or without his knowledge.

[+Nogami]

I've seen a few messages along these lines recently, and there seems to be three types of park management:

 

1. Those who genuinely care about the environment, and want to help people to enjoy the parks while at the same time making sure that caches are placed in areas that are not environmentally sensitive.

 

2. Those that don't understand and can't be bothered to understand. They just say "no" to reduce hassle and because they can.

 

3. Those that are convinced that parks should be seen but not visited. Parks grudgingly admit "the public", but only allow them certain "freedoms". But they would be happier if nobody was in the park at all. They use "caring for the environment" as an excuse to lay down whatever laws they wish.

 

I suppose there are lots of ways of dealing with different sorts of people - hopefully the #1s outnumber the #2 and #3s by a fair margin.

 

But don't despair, there are lots of places to hide caches outside of the reaches of Park Nazis.

[+jonboy]

I think it is rather naive to think that very many park and land managers are going to give permission to place caches. They would be setting themselves up for a down fall or lawsuit if they did so. If a cacher is the subject of a controversial rescue, what do you suppose would be the impact on that land managers career?

 

From what I have seen in my two months of caching, most cachers are not hard core hikers and really don't know how the game works. In Harriman State Park, in New York/New Jersey, off trail travel is officially against regulations. Yet the park rangers are well aware that very many hikers are venturing off trail, and have chosen to turn a blind eye to it. However, when one of our hike leaders in the AMC repeatedly posted hikes about crazy bushwacks, the park managers felt compelled to react, and as a consequence of complaints from Park officials, our chapter of the AMC took a stance that off trail hikes are not allowed. Plenty of off trail hiking is still going on, but AMC hike leaders to not write it up as such in our publications, and our club leadership also turns a blind eye to it.

 

The National Park Service has similar rules, with off trail travel only being permitted with special permission from the Park Supervisor, but this is another rule that is almost never enforced. However, if you go to the Park Rangers and ask permission, you will almost certainly be denied.

 

The NPS has outlawed caching on all NPS lands, and this includes most of the land along the Appalachian Trail and Pacific Crest Trail, apart from the land that is State or County property. But take a look at the cache maps where the AT & PCT are, and you will find hundreds of caches on NPS lands.

 

What we have to realize is that many of our caches will almost never be officially allowed, but they will be ignored, if we keep the caches well hidden and don't force the authorities to take notice. We will have to back off when confronted by officials, and be prepared to to take proactive action to remove caches that prove to be having an adverse impact, either due to environmental concerns or security concerns.

 

In my area, there is one cache that is planted at the base of Kensico Dam. I am surprised that no one has had the commmon sense to remove this cache. This is the kind of irresponsible placing of caches that really threatens our sport. We need to be self policing, we can never expect to gain wide scale acceptance from the many bureaucrats whose guiding principle is that of risk avoidance.

[thecachunter]

this is no big surpise i hope but if look at us as just people not geocachers we have a tendency to ruin things for ourselves all the time

[BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jonboy:

... In my area, there is one cache that is planted at the base of Kensico Dam. I am surprised that no one has had the commmon sense to remove this cache. This is the kind of irresponsible placing of caches that really threatens our sport. We need to be self policing, we can never expect to gain wide scale acceptance from the many bureaucrats whose guiding principle is that of risk avoidance.

---

 

There are several caches in the NYC metro area that were placed prior to last September 11 that are located in what are now "sensitive" locations. I agree that it probably would have been best for the cache owners to remove and archive those caches, but it is heartening to see that geocachers have been policing themselves ... by avoiding those caches.

[+Perfect Tommy]

quote:

---

In my area, there is one cache that is planted at the base of Kensico Dam. I am surprised that no one has had the commmon sense to remove this cache. This is the kind of irresponsible placing of caches that really threatens our sport.

---

 

In defense of the cache placer, that particular cache was placed before 9/11. That said, I agree that some caches, such as the one at Kensico Dam and others placed near sensitive areas (particularly the ones on or near bridges) should be moved or archived by the cache owner.

 

Third parties stumbling upon these caches may not know, or care to know, how innocuous this RASH actually is and instead imagine something sinister resulting in bad publicity and a general crackdown by the authorities.

 

If you think the cache at Kensico Dam should be removed then email the cache owner and ask him to retrieve it and archive it, or you can ask him if it were alright for you to remove it. This cache may need to be "adopted" first and then archived.

[Dinoprophet]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jonboy:

I think it is rather naive to think that very many park and land managers are going to give permission to place caches. They would be setting themselves up for a down fall or lawsuit if they did so. If a cacher is the subject of a controversial rescue, what do you suppose would be the impact on that land managers career?

---

 

That may be an issue in some areas, but most of the parks around me allow snowmobiling and/or ATVs and/or mountain biking and/or hunting and/or skiing, all of which are various degrees more dangerous than hiking, which is what geocaching in parks amounts to. Those are far bigger liabilities, and any park manager that uses that agrument is on weak ground.

 

quote:

---

The National Park Service has similar rules, with off trail travel only being permitted with special permission from the Park Supervisor, but this is another rule that is almost never enforced. However, if you go to the Park Rangers and ask permission, you will almost certainly be denied.

---

 

But not always. In Michigan's Manistee National Forest, some cachers recently established diplomatic relations with the park managers, and it is now allowed in the park (specified areas, but still more than none).

 

That interaction did begin after some unauthorized caches were found in the forest, so some might argue that asking forgiveness is better than asking permission. But there are advantages to good relations to park services, though. Cleveland Metroparks is becoming well-known for their strong support of geocaching (6 of their own caches, plus a travel bug). Stoney Creek Metropark in Michigan also has a locally famous, puzzle-oriented multi-cache (I haven't yet had the pleasure). The Michigan DNR also accepts geocaching on state land. I don't know, maybe Michigan is the exception, but our various park systems, even some national ones, have by-and-large been great about it.

 

As for geocaching "as we know it" changing, I think if the popularity picks up much more, you're going to start seeing imitator sites in the near-future, and some of those are likely to be less on the up-and-up. I understand the appeal; I enjoy the underground nature of it, too. But when a park catches wind of a "rogue" cache, you can be sure they won't care that it didn't come from geocaching.com; all caches will be equally ejected from the park.

[BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Perfect Tommy:

 

In defense of the cache placer, that particular cache was placed before 9/11. That said, I agree that some caches, such as the one at Kensico Dam and others placed near sensitive areas (particularly the ones on or near bridges) should be moved or archived by the cache owner.

---

 

As I stated in an earlier post, most geocachers have shown good sense by avoiding caches like that one. It is disappointing that the cache owner has had 11 months to take action on the cache, and hasn't.

[+treemoss2]

I have a hard time with this permission thing. The reason usually given by Parks depts is that new trails are being made as people search. I have not seen any liabitlity reasons given.

The point about trails is, so what?

A couple new trails? I mean , get real.

Parks Depts never ask anyone about it when they build new trails, pave dirt trails, expand parking lots, cut down trees so RVs can get i easier, build bathrooms up on skylines, etc, etc.

 

A solution for ALL this might be geocaches with timeframes. Say, cache can be placed for limit of two months.

[Pluckers]

I am a relative newbie to this, and have wondered a lot about this topic. I have a good friend that manages parks in a nearby state, but haven't talked to him yet since I might be making it harder on that office to actively ignore this stuff. I know they have much bigger fish to fry than caches.

Would it be useful to craft some template letters in a thread here for inevitable circumstances that explain the sport in a positive light? They would explain the positive culture of the sport (e.g. trash out), the self-policing policies of the sport and why it is a good thing to have it continued.

[+Team Tecmage]

We've had no problem seeking and getting permission from parks here. DisQuoi, I understand your dissapointment, but it sounds as if that park manager had a bad experience due to a cache placed without permission.

 

Admittedly, we went back on getting permission for one of our caches, but that process involved three or four emails to the parks superintendent asking for permission and answering questions. Our most difficult cache was placed with the help of the park ranger pointing out a few great spots in the park.

 

I don't feel like we're loosing anything here, and are probably gaining in the end.

 

Richard

[Dinoprophet]

quote:

---

Originally posted by treemoss2:

A solution for ALL this might be geocaches with timeframes. Say, cache can be placed for limit of two months.

---

I agree, that is a good solution to the social trail issue. Cleveland Metroparks, which I mentioned above, have a form they want filled out when a cache is placed. It is fee-free, and they do set a limit of a year. IMHO, that's a great policy, probably a good thing to bring up if you're ever in the situation of convincing a park to allow caching.

[+Team Screamapillar]

Nagomi, I liked your assessment. My 2 cents:

 

I've seen a few messages along these lines recently, and there seems to be three types of park management:

 

1. Those who genuinely care about the environment, and want to help people to enjoy the parks while at the same time making sure that caches are placed in areas that are not environmentally sensitive.

SUGGESTED RESPONSE: Work with them. Hopefully most of us are in the same category.

 

2. Those that don't understand and can't be bothered to understand. They just say "no" to reduce hassle and because they can.

SUGGESTED RESPONSE: Don't ask, don't tell. They really don't care if we geocache- if we are responsible, within the current land use rules and not creating problems, everybody's happy.

We have public areas with gay cruising, overt drug use, homeless encampments, etc. Our use of public lands is, at the very least, just not much of an issue.

 

3. Those that are convinced that parks should be seen but not visited. Parks grudgingly admit "the public", but only allow them certain "freedoms". But they would be happier if nobody was in the park at all. They use "caring for the environment" as an excuse to lay down whatever laws they wish.

SUGGESTED RESPONSE: These people are ultimately accountable to the public. Lets not take their arrogation of power lying down. Responsible, civil, civic engagement is the best practice here, and "you'll catch more flies with honey..."

I don't know how many of these folks there actually are, but they seem to run the show in Minnesota from what I read, (even if "Jay Cooke Staff" is only a troublemaker).

BTW, "Park Nazi" seems unecessarily inflamatory, and, well- dated. "Eco-Taliban" (with all that that implies) seems more appropriate.

 

 

[This message was edited by Team Screamapillar on August 06, 2002 at 08:37 AM.]

[+Team Screamapillar]

Nagomi, I liked your assessment. My 2 cents:

 

I've seen a few messages along these lines recently, and there seems to be three types of park management:

 

1. Those who genuinely care about the environment, and want to help people to enjoy the parks while at the same time making sure that caches are placed in areas that are not environmentally sensitive.

SUGGESTED RESPONSE: Work with them. Hopefully most of us are in the same category.

 

2. Those that don't understand and can't be bothered to understand. They just say "no" to reduce hassle and because they can.

SUGGESTED RESPONSE: Don't ask, don't tell. They really don't care if we geocache- if we are responsible, within the current land use rules and not creating problems, everybody's happy.

We have public areas with gay cruising, overt drug use, homeless encampments, etc. Our use of public lands is, at the very least, just not much of an issue.

 

3. Those that are convinced that parks should be seen but not visited. Parks grudgingly admit "the public", but only allow them certain "freedoms". But they would be happier if nobody was in the park at all. They use "caring for the environment" as an excuse to lay down whatever laws they wish.

SUGGESTED RESPONSE: These people are ultimately accountable to the public. Lets not take their arrogation of power lying down. Responsible, civil, civic engagement is the best practice here, and "you'll catch more flies with honey..."

I don't know how many of these folks there actually are, but they seem to run the show in Minnesota from what I read, (even if "Jay Cooke Staff" is only a troublemaker).

BTW, "Park Nazi" seems unecessarily inflamatory, and, well- dated. "Eco-Taliban" (with all that that implies) seems more appropriate.

 

 

[This message was edited by Team Screamapillar on August 06, 2002 at 08:37 AM.]

[+infosponge]

I realize the official rule is "get permission" and there are good reasons for that, but in most aspects of life I tend to favor using common sense and the theory that "it's better to beg for forgiveness than ask for permission."

 

I use a lot of care in placing the cache, and I check up on them frequently. If I see a sign of a trail developing, etc., I will move or archive a cache. I also do not leave them out there "forever" (whatever that means in an activity as new as this) so they don't become a permanent part of the landscape. I try to make use of existing trails (man-made or animal) whenever possible, and tell people not to bushwack.

 

Most reasonable park managers will say yes in those circumstances, true, but there's a lot of unreasonable ones out there. Having dealt with lobbying and other public lands issues in the past, I know that there's a certain element out there that are in that line of work that will say "no" just because they can. They don't like their job, they don't like what they're being paid, and the only redeeming feature is they have the authority to rain on someone else's parade. After a while, they just want to get promoted until they can rain on as many parades as possible.

[+Team Gootz]

Like Pluckers, I'd like to see some template letters that we can use to contact land managers. Maybe some of you already have done up something nice you wouldn't mind sharing...

[+Team Gootz]

Like Pluckers, I'd like to see some template letters that we can use to contact land managers. Maybe some of you already have done up something nice you wouldn't mind sharing...

[GeoStars]

I had called him previously about geocaching and we had set up this rather informal meeting. He had heard of geocaching but wasn't terribly familiar with it. He had indicated in our phone conversation that he was willing to work with me and had asked that I write up an article on geocaching for the county's park newsletter. He (like the naturalist that I've worked with in the county I live in) sees geocaching as a way to entice people to visit the parks that might not ordinarily do so. He not only approved my cache, he wants to advertise it!

 

In addition to publishing the article I wrote, the park manager asked if I would be willing to host a public information session on geocaching. I have to admit that I'm not much of a public speaker, but I have indicated that I'd be willing to work with them if they get several interested people.

 

I guess what I don't understand is the people saying that working with park managers will change things. All caches that I have proposed have been approved without changes. I have not idiot-proofed these and at least one will involve somewhat rough terrain and a few hazards for the unwary. I will list the hazards but my feeling is that forewarned is forearmed.

 

Perhaps my good luck with getting permission is that I've only dealt with county parks. Some parks, especially National Parks, are already overused and have no need to try to draw more people. That's not to say that I think geocaching shouldn't be allowed, it's much more environmentally friendly than things like snowmobiling, IMO, but I can see where the park managers may want to squash yet another activity that they have to keep tabs on. My experience with county parks is that the managers want more people to visit. The guy I talked to today even suggested a park that he thought would be a good place for a cache! I'd love to see geocaching in National Parks. I think we need to work with the powers-that-be and make it happen, even if it's under their strict oversight. In the meantime, I'd urge people to seek out county park managers and see what you can work out. They may not be as spectacular as Old Faithful or the Grand Canyon but there are some pretty neat places right in your own backyards. It seems to me that this is part of what makes geocaching unique. It draws people to places that they might otherwise never visit! JMHO, of course.

 

GeoMedic - team leader of GeoStars

[+VentureForth]

Lifted from a comment I made about some of the Urban caches in the Dallas area, some of it is relevant here, so I'll post:

 

"As I have mentioned previously, I look at city parks to be fair game for hiding caches. I generally don't seek permission for those types of places.

 

Let's face it. Every morsel of land is managed by SOMEONE. I have a cache just off of a county road, but I am not going to bug the county commissioner's court to see if they care if I hide a little metal box on an old, practically abandoned road.

 

The job of land managers at the State and Federal levels is to preserve the land for various purposes - whether to maintain legal activities, maintain it's beauty, retain it's resources, perhaps even to limit human intervention. That's not the role of city parks, even urban 'preserves'. Those lands are there to maintain a certain level of "green" land for small squirrels, birds, and possums. They're there so that the tax paying residents of the city have a place to 'get away' to. They're there to leave SOME land from being developed into $5 million dollar homes or even city projects.

Communication is key - not just between geocachers and the authorities, but amongst geocachers, too.

 

Now let's all join hands and sing Kum-ba-yah."

 

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

Go! And don't be afraid to get a little wet!

[+bigcall]

What exactly was the park's bad experience? The only previous cache I could find was this one http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=5276 , not several.

 

The cache's description and the logs don't seem to indicate any problems or intervention by the park at all. Sounds like the park authorities certainly weren't cracking down on kids with guns in the park. Only reason the cache was removed was due to the container failing.

 

If in fact this was the only geocache in the park (I wish there was an easier way to find archived caches), it sounds like the unauthorized trails were probably not from geocachers, we just are the convenient scapegoats (again).

 

 

Way back in the days when the grass was still green

and the pond was still wet

and the clouds were still clean,

and the song of the Swomee-Swans rang out in space...

one morning, I came to this glorious place.

 

[This message was edited by bigcall on August 09, 2002 at 05:40 AM.]

[+bigcall]

What exactly was the park's bad experience? The only previous cache I could find was this one http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=5276 , not several.

 

The cache's description and the logs don't seem to indicate any problems or intervention by the park at all. Sounds like the park authorities certainly weren't cracking down on kids with guns in the park. Only reason the cache was removed was due to the container failing.

 

If in fact this was the only geocache in the park (I wish there was an easier way to find archived caches), it sounds like the unauthorized trails were probably not from geocachers, we just are the convenient scapegoats (again).

 

 

Way back in the days when the grass was still green

and the pond was still wet

and the clouds were still clean,

and the song of the Swomee-Swans rang out in space...

one morning, I came to this glorious place.

 

[This message was edited by bigcall on August 09, 2002 at 05:40 AM.]

[DisQuoi]

I hadn't even tried to identify what caches had been placed in the Ellanor C. Lawrence Park. My concern is more for county parks, in general. As you well know, we have lost the ability to place any caches along the Potomac River since these are Federal parks. I have since figured that as long as we have good ole' Fairfax County parks, we're fine.

 

I have little reason to doubt this park manager. Even if he is exagerating, his personal opinion on the matter is what counts as long as he is the steward for that park. Also, the park manager at Frying Pan park was copied on that email (see original post) and now I'm afraid she's going to be concerned about the cache that she helped me place in her park.

 

I am the first to admit that most of the five caches I've placed, I did so without seeking permission. I will not do this anymore. Let me take that back ... I agree that urban caches or "side-of-the-road" caches can be considered case by case as there may not be a clear steward for the chosen locations. But a managed park? ... I won't risk creating another opponebt to the game.

 

By the way, Bigcall. As you know ... my cache YOU ARE THE GPS is located in a county park without the knowledge of the park managers. I'm watching this one very carefully. It is in my backyard and I check on it after just about every "find" logged. I'm trying to decide whether to remove it or not ... or ask for permission.

[+Sandrich]

Team Sandrich's point of view comes from my involvement with the Manistee National Forest. After LOTS of very diplomatic emails and calls, I finally got to the right people to talk with, yea! Here in Northwest Lower Michigan, the NFS was already, in general, not opposed to Geocaching. But, no one in the NFS wanted to give me an actual OFFICIAL blessing. So, eventually I did get the official blessing, with an admonition that if Geocaching gets out of hand, the NFS can UNapprove if they wish. So far, I have continued with a "pleseant working relationship" with the NFS in the Manistee Natl Forest.

Since I was/am dealing with bureaucrats, definetly abide that I'll get more flies with honey than vinegar!!If we all can maintain a good positive image for our sport locally, then when you come up against park that doesn't go for it, you can cite examples of other similar parks that do go for it! And yes, give them erferences also.

 

To Magic!

[+Sandrich]

Team Sandrich's point of view comes from my involvement with the Manistee National Forest. After LOTS of very diplomatic emails and calls, I finally got to the right people to talk with, yea! Here in Northwest Lower Michigan, the NFS was already, in general, not opposed to Geocaching. But, no one in the NFS wanted to give me an actual OFFICIAL blessing. So, eventually I did get the official blessing, with an admonition that if Geocaching gets out of hand, the NFS can UNapprove if they wish. So far, I have continued with a "pleseant working relationship" with the NFS in the Manistee Natl Forest.

Since I was/am dealing with bureaucrats, definetly abide that I'll get more flies with honey than vinegar!!If we all can maintain a good positive image for our sport locally, then when you come up against park that doesn't go for it, you can cite examples of other similar parks that do go for it! And yes, give them erferences also.

 

To Magic!

[+gpsfun]

This thread contains mention of a few cases of parks where geocaching is either tolerated or encouraged, and maybe those cases are being overlooked while lamenting the places which cannot currently be used.

 

Around the middle of 2001 the Georgia State Parks said "no" to geocaching, and guess what? Geocaching continued to grow by leaps and bounds outside the state parks anyway. We also found a number of county parks that welcomed us with open arms. The prohibition against geocaching in state parks probably had a small impact on the sport in Georgia, but has not slowed it down by much.

 

And in the mean time, the Georgia Geocachers Association has met with the parks administration and we now have our foot back in the door, with some limitations we can live with as we work to continue to improve the situation. I believe the key has been to look at the issues through the eyes of the administrators, and to find creative ways to mitigate their concerns.

 

The finger-in-the-eye approach, tempting though it might be, won't work.

[+travisl]

I've got to agree with Infosponge:

quote:

---

it's better to beg for forgiveness than ask for permission.

---

 

My employer has a rather large private park, open to the public, but privately owned. I asked permission to hide a cache. I was politely told no. OK; I can live with that.

 

Less than two weeks later, someone else hides a cache in the park. To cover my rear, I mentioned it to my employer, and pointed out that I had nothing to do with hiding it.

 

Their response was that they're not going to track it down and remove it; it wasn't worth their time.

 

It's had 58 finds, and is still there.

 

I know better than to ask, now.

 

I take my family everywhere, but they always find their way back home.

[+bspeng]

the expression is: it's EASIER to beg(ask) for forgiveness than ask for permission.

[Zuckerruebensirup]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pluckers:

 

Would it be useful to craft some template letters in a thread here for inevitable circumstances that explain the sport in a positive light? They would explain the positive culture of the sport (e.g. trash out), the self-policing policies of the sport and why it is a good thing to have it continued.

---

 

Here's a template letter that we've posted on the MiGO website. It is adapted from a letter originally drafted by Scott Thomason (Brokenwing), and posted here in the forums.

 

-------

"I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"

[+TheGertridgeExplorers]

I have also used the permission letter that fellow cachers were kind enough to post in a past thread. It took some prodding, a few e-mails and a phone meeting, but I finally got permission to place this cache:

Testing, Testing, 1..2..3..

 

The biggest problem is explaining the activity. Once I explained that geocaching is about the same impact as hiking or birdwatching, the land manager was much more responsive. My cache is only on a trial basis for now, but I think once they see what a good activity it can be they will allow the cache to stay and let me place more caches in other areas. They will always want to know exactly where the caches are going - there are some environmentally sensitive habitats around here - but I can live with that!

 

Happy Caching,

 

Donna G.

[+Alan2]

If a park has no prohibition against geocaching, why is there a requirement to ask permission? For example, if a particular park rules say no camping over night, but does not specifically exclude a picnic during the day including a charcoal grill, who would ask permission to have a picnic?

 

I mention a charcoal grill because chances are you're going to leave the remnants of the burned out charcoal. SOme might argue a cache is "trash" and that's why you cannot leave a cache but how does that differ from the burned up charcoal.

 

Another example might be parks that allow dogs but are silent on their "poop". I wouldn't call the park manager to ask if I had to carry out the poop. I would leave it (off trail of course - I'm not a slob.)> I'm sure if I called they would instantly make a new "pooper scooper" regulation.

 

I guess my point is let sleeping dogs lie in parks where there's no prohibition.

 

What's the arguments against that?

 

Alan

[+briansnat]

I don't mean to be a pedant, but the template letter, though well intentioned is way too wordy for a park official to read and it's full of grammatical errors.

 

A request for permission should be no more than two or three paragraphs. Give me (or someone else here) a couple of weeks to work on it and we'll come up with a better one.

 

Someone (I think it was Voltaire) wrote "I apologize for the length of this letter, but I did not have time to make it shorter".

 

Unlike Voltaire, we have time and knowledge base to produce usable template letters.

 

How 'bouts starting a forum on this subject and we'll see what we can come up with

 

"Life is a daring adventure, or it is nothing" - Helen Keller

[+briansnat]

I agree with Alan. If there is no regulation that specifically bans Geocaching, then why ask? I look over the park regulations and if I don't see a rule that addresses either Geocaching, or the abandonment of property (though it is debatable whether a Geocache is abandoned property), then I place the cache.

 

Once you start asking a government agency for permission to do something, then you're on their radar screen. Heck, the other day I found a cache in a Wildlife Management Area (considered to be among the most environmentally sensitive public lands in my state). The area was full of evidence of illegal ATV usage. The destruction to the trails was evident. The amount of trail erosion was incredible (trails were 3-4 feet below grade in places), there were jumps built and huge areas cleared for (and by) doing "360's".

 

There was also a Geocache in the area. I'm pretty certain if we contacted the manager of this area re the placement of the Geocache, there would have been problems. They may have said yes, but more likely they would have said no, or put off the decision until they completed a "study".

 

The ATV users do no such thing. There are no "Dear Mr Park Manager" letters from them. Their impact is far geater than that of any Geocache, yet we're the ones that need to ask permission for our sport??

 

"Life is a daring adventure, or it is nothing" - Helen Keller

[DisQuoi]

Some of what I'm hearing saddens me.

 

A geocache is neither spent charcoal nor spent dog food. It will never biodegrade and is likely to attract visitors to the vicinity where it is placed. There is also neither a www.poop.com nor www.ashes.com where we provide the EXACT location of our "abandoned property". Further, picnicking is an accepted function of many county parks to the point where the parks provide seating, shade, trash removal, and meat cooking apparati for this purpose.

 

In Northern Virginia, we have been banned from placing caches in the numerous federal parks. I agree ... we still have county parks that haven't gone that far. But in this case, asking for forgiveness is not easier than asking for permission. Where permission is asked, it has been granted. Where it was thought easier to place without asking, we get responses like the e-mail in the first post of this thread.

 

The administrators of this web site have established few but clear guidelines:

Do not put food, alcohol, tobacco, firearms, prescription or illicit drugs in the caches.

Do not place caches on archaeological or historical sites.

If you place the cache on public lands you need to contact the managing agency to find out about their rules.

 

What part of that is unclear?

[+Bluespreacher]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jonboy:

I think it is rather naive to think that very many park and land managers are going to give permission to place caches.

 

.... snip ....

We need to be self policing, we can never expect to gain wide scale acceptance from the many bureaucrats whose guiding principle is that of risk avoidance.

---

 

There is so much to agree with in your post. We cachers are the ones who must police ourselves. If a cache is causing problems or unwanted attention, we, as a group have to care for that. Most of the caches I see are not any problem to anyone. There is no need for any 'official' to be involved. There is no trail damage, no trash, no crowds trooping through. No problem. These are in city, county, and State parks. Many are in State or National forests. If we were to ask permision, we would enter the bureaucracy and would have to take what it has to give.

 

So what to do? When you find a cache that is a problem (trashy, heavy social trails, likely to get the unwelcome attention of the local authorities) make use of the provisions we have for removing or changing such a cache. Email the owner, he should respond by letting you know how he will fix the problem. If not, let Jeremy know of your concerns. It is the responsibility of the hider to maintain his caches. If a cache is not maintained, it should be archived.

 

We are a community and should act like it. As a group we have to keep our act clean so as not to attract official attention.

 

Bluespreacher

 

"We've got the hardware and the software, the plans and the maps ..." -- Citizen Wayne Kramer

[DisQuoi]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bluespreacher:

As a group we have to keep our act clean so as not to attract official attention.

---

This strategy of game-play was okay when there were only 5,000 or 10,000 caches hidden. But we are approaching 30,000 world-wide and the density of caches in the Washington DC area will no longer permit stealthy means of play. Official attention is already had. If I were placing a cache in Switz City Indiana, being sneaky would be a valid strategy. But if you want to think long-term, consider introducing this to land managers while it's "innocent" and you may have a proponent when you need one.

[+briansnat]

While I don't specifically ask permission, I do check the park regulations. As I see it, this conforms to the guidelines on this website.

 

"Life is a daring adventure, or it is nothing" - Helen Keller

[GeoStars]

Originally posted by DisQuoi:

quote:

---

If I were placing a cache in Switz City Indiana, being sneaky would be a valid strategy.

---

 

But I can tell that sneaky would not be a valid strategy in LaGrange county, Indiana. Not only is the park department aware of geocaching, they are monitoring the website. This was happening before I approached them and asked permission for placing a couple of caches. They also let one of the neighboring county's park department know about the activity. Just for the record, both counties have approved my cache proposals.

 

As geocaching continues to gain popularity, there will be fewer and fewer places that escape detection of local officials. Geocaching is a legitimate use of public lands. What is there to hide?!

 

GeoMedic - team leader of GeoStars