What are the Parks people worried about?

[Guest BigDoggie]

Does anybody have any real feel as to just what it is the parks managers and other bureaucrats are worried about?

 

As I understand, their main worry is tat "somebody could DO SOMETHING" and injury/damage could result.

 

But, isn't this true of EVERY activity that is authorized in the parks? Hiking is allowed... but someone could booby-trap the trails. Camping is allowed, but someone could plant explosives in a firepit. Wading is allowed, but someone could dump broken glass in the wading area. Cabin rentals are allowed, but people could bring/use drugs/liquor/alcohol/weapons. Toilets are allowed, but people could put superglue on the toilet seats.

 

This last one pushes it a bit... but isn't the basic premise true? With a bit of thought, vandals or other criminals could sabotage ANY allowed park activity.

 

So what is it that makes the bureaucrats want to outlaw the activity rather than the misues of it?

[Guest navdog]

If it is not from fear or ignorance, then maybe it has something to do with an individual physically leaving an item in a park and the ramifications from that.

[Guest xanthari]

responsible for finding you when your lost or picking up a mess left by some unappreciative guest...if you dont ask to place a cache and it is taken and classified as "litter" then you have no one to really blame but yourself (but I dont think I would go to pick it up either) just archive the page and go place another (maybe ask first next time).

 

Theres my 2 pennies.

 

X.

 

[Guest xanthari]

responsible for finding you when your lost or picking up a mess left by some unappreciative guest...if you dont ask to place a cache and it is taken and classified as "litter" then you have no one to really blame but yourself (but I dont think I would go to pick it up either) just archive the page and go place another (maybe ask first next time).

 

Theres my 2 pennies.

 

X.

 

[Guest cache_ninja]

i think they are worried about people

 

1.screwing up the park (ie blazing trails, running around in sensaive areas).

 

2.liability. if they know its there, ie they are aware of it (you ask permission) then someone puts something dumb in it, and someone else susbsequently gets injured, could the park possibly be liable since they knew about the cache and let this all go on? maybe someone will/could sue them. now that they know about the cache, do they have a responsibility to check on it now/what's in it etc? (obviously they dont want to have to do this)... etc etc etc

[Guest packnrat]

I think the bigest part of the problem is that the park service is run be a bunch of people from the sierra club. And they just do not want any one in "there" park.

 

Some people just can not stand anyone having fun, enless it is done there way!

 

I have run across this same bad attitude in others who Have been put in control of the same ares that are for the public at large to enjoy. (ie open space ares, dirt roads, pathways, etc)

 

All we can hope for is for these people to get smart and come to grips with reality and see that there is no way to keep people from getting hurt while having fun. As in playing a game of soft ball, football, etc.

 

Till then just go out and have fun as you will not get out of this life alive any way.

 

**

**** ****

**

 

**

****

****

** **

** **

*** ***

********

******

[Guest jeremy]

We have Sierra club members who play. Will people stop picking out and badmouthing organizations?

 

Geez people. Let's generalize and oversimplify things. We better ban cars from roadways because they kill migrating geese.

 

And blame "The Government." That's fun too. Forget the fact that without Mr. Government sir we wouldn't be playing this game, nor reading this forum.

 

I just looove when people treat organizations, government, and corporations as human beings. It's us and them.

 

It's not. It's people. People make decisions, have both valid *and* irrational concerns, come to quick conclusions, dismiss fact, and make mistakes. It's our job as individuals to help contribute and make sure the "we" don't sound like a bunch of miscreants.

 

Want to change the minds of "them"? Then contribute. Go on a cache hunt with a trash bag. Once you're done picking up trash in their parks walk over to the office, point at the bag, and say you did it for geocaching. Make differences not complaints.

 

Jeremy

[Guest jeremy]

To bring it back to the topic, park service folks have valid concerns about geocaching. There's no possible way we could have a rulebook on where to place a cache and have it be ok. Seemingly safe places may have a community of insects, or protected plantlife, or a habitat for an animal that you weren't aware of.

 

I'm not a park ranger or land manager, but I bet these folks think of these places as their babies. Yeah, it's *ours* - whatever that really means, but these folks put a lot of hours to make these parks safe and clean and naturally beautiful (or ugly), so sure they're going to feel some ownership. And sure there may be a few that prefer the air conditioned office to a hike or two, but there's plenty of "us" geocachers that would rather go the shortest distance than the safe one. But on both sides I'd say they are the minority.

 

Group hug.

 

Jeremy

[Guest Jebediah]

Much as I admire the wide-eyed philosophy of an "army of one", I've found it has little effect on NPS and how it administers public lands today. It is an enormous bureaucracy wrapped in layers of red tape. Those people that share a common activity and have made any headway at all (or protected what uses they do have) build coalitions to influence the bureacracy.

 

I reiterate that geocaching is a brand new activity with no built-in constituency and no environmental allure (wildlife observation, riding pretty horses, etc.) If you wait to build support until the Sierra Club formulates a national policy, you're going to be too late.

[Guest Cape Cod Cache]

JI is correct, Park Service can go overboard. So can we. I have placed my first cache in an area that was a mowed field 20-30 years ago however. My second is in an overgrown cranberry bog's sand pit. 3rd is next to an Army Corps of Engineering re-direction of the biggest tidal river in th northeast. Nature took them over. Again.

Cache 1= Bass Hole 1.x, IT WAS A FIELD 20 years ago, cache2 = IT WAS A BOG 100 years ago, cache3 IT WAS A SALT FACTORY 150 years ago...... so many posts, but we have to fight by being good.

[Guest BigFig]

just going to dig in. Guess who loses ...

[Guest Chris Juricich]

Not to be a kissass (kisscache?), but Jeremy is right about folks badmouthing organizations. I wonder (seriously) if there could be some negative impact on the park's environs if over the course of a year or so a couple of dozen people headed towards one cache location. They might blaze a trail there, step on some growing things... or whatever. Let's face it-- a number of folks heading toward one spot will have an impact.

 

Whether this would be worse than the thousands of people who follow established trails, I don't know. Most geocache locations might be in public parks or lands, but usually only slightly off an established path. I don't see the harm, but maybe the park service can discern a problem? I don't know.

 

I know what I plan to do until this controversy is settled...