National Parks, Forests, & Monuments?

[+Bob&TheGang]

Someone please tell me what is the fundamental difference between a National Park, a National Forest and a National Monument?

 

I know you can not hide real caches in National Parks, but can you hind them in National Forest? What about hiding a cache at a National Monument?

[+southdeltan]

I'm not sure about National Monuments - but Parks are managed by the NPS and Forests are managed by USFS. They're two different agencies. National Forests have no rules against caches as far as I know. I have 2 out with permisson from the local Ranger.

 

National Parks tend to have more restrictions on their usage.

 

National Forests tend to have less, for some allow hunting while as far as I know NP's don't.

 

I'm not familair with National Monuments, I don't know of any local ones. I'd assume they'd be similar to Parks.

 

sd

 

"Man can counterfeit everything except silence". - William Faulkner

[+SamLowrey]

Yeah, what southdeltan said about Forests and Parks. That jives with my informal experience. I live near a National Forest. I thought it was a park until I saw some literature and noticed it said "Forest." They actually seemed proud that it was a "working" forest or something to that extent. There is logging in parts and hunting, too. Other parts are just hiking. What I like was how the rules state you are not restricted to the campsites or the suggested primitive camp areas. It is very well kept and it looks like people haven't abused it. Further, I saw on a plaque somewhere stated, in passing, that it had been planted during the Depression. I don't know what that means exactly because I'm sure there was something there before....

 

All I know it that it looks like one of the few things I've seen government do right. Probably because it was done by the previous government (the current one is so far from what it is supposed to be I don't recognize it as the same one).

[+Webfoot]

You can view national monuments as one step below a national park. Both are administered by the National Park Service.

 

Fundamental difference is a national monument can be decreed by a President under the Antiquities Act of the early 1900s, while a national park has to be established by an act of Congress.

 

President Theodore Roosevelt used his authority to expand the National Park Service territory by proclaiming many national monuments during his tenure as president. The first national monumet was Devils Tower in Wyoming. Many of the other national monuments that he created, most notably, the Grand Canyon, later became National Parks.

 

It's a way for a President to say, "hey, let's protect this now and we'll then await for Congressional approval later on down the road." President Clinton used the Antiquities Act quite frequently during his 8 years in office too.

 

Webfoot

Veni...Vidi...Vicachi.

I came...I saw...I geocached.

[M15a4spr]

quote:

---

Originally posted by SamLowrey:

. . .All I know it that it looks like one of the few things I've seen government do right. Probably because it was done by the previous government (the current one is so far from what it is supposed to be I don't recognize it as the same one).

---

[+mtn-man]

National Forest are typically OK except for Wilderness Areas. Wilderness Areas are banned in most areas. Just ask for permission. That's what you really need to do anyway.

[Bobthearch]

Additionally, National Parks and National Monuments are under the direction of the Department of Interior. National Forests are under the Department of Agriculture.

 

Out here in the West most public lands are B.L.M (Bureau of Land Management). They got 'stuck' with land no one wanted to homestead. B.L.M. is also Department of Interior, I believe.

 

Some public lands, rivers and lakes particularly, are Corps of Engineers, which is the Department of Defense.

 

Then there's National Wildlife Areas, Bureau of Reclamation lands, etc.

 

And don't forget about State Forests, State Wildlife Areas, and all sorts of county and local parks, all managed by different agencies.

 

-Bob

[+Cooter13]

Yeah, forgot about the local muncipalities. Don't forget that out in the West (OR, WA, ID etc.) many "public" lands also abutt private forest lands. Most private holders do not care, but it is better safe than sorry before placing. If in doubt, check with the local county surveyor, assessor, clerk or a title/abstract company. They will usually help you out as to who the owner is and to where the tax statements are being mailed to for FREE. I know this is starting to sound like a scratched record, but many agencies in a county can help for the cost of a phone call or visit.

 

See the happy moron

He doesn't give a da**

I wish I were a moron

My God, perhaps I am

Author Unkown

[+Sandrich]

Yup, the National Park Service, (or Nazi Park Snobs) will not tolerate any caching on "thier" land. Given the current administration's lack of environmental policy (other than to destroy it for money) I doubt that will change.

 

[+Criminal]

Somebody filled me in on a neat fact about National Forests, Dogs can go caching with you there. So if there is a cache, you can take your dog. I’m sure somebody will give some exceptions.

 

http://fp1.centurytel.net/Criminal_Page/

[+the Tribe of Two]

We just returned from vacation, visiting a number of national parks and monuments. They are wonderful places, being preserved, maintained, and interpreted for an incredible number of visitors, all on a shoestring budget that keeps getting shaved thinner every year. Add in the problems caused by growing criminal activity and the potential threat of terrorism (how many kinds of havoc would be created by a bomb at Old Faithful?!), and it's no wonder that they have no policy to allow geocaching. Face it- a basic geocache is remarkably similar to a drug drop, and one of our park visitors reported an ammo-box geocache to us (in the visitor center) as a possible bomb on the trail.

Let's applaud the National Park Service and limit our caching in National Parks and Monuments to virtuals.

[+StormShadow]

I am in the middle of a book by Bill Bryson about the Appalachian Trail and he discusses this quite extensively. It's called "A Walk in the Woods". I highly recommend it. Written very well and is entertaining while providing a lot of useful info.

[+SamLowrey]

quote:

---

Originally posted by the Tribe of Two:

....(how many kinds of havoc would be created by a bomb at Old Faithful?!) ....

---

 

Not a lot by my estimation. I don't see how National Parks would be very high on a list of targets.

[+woodsters]

They are high, because they symbolize something. And normally they generate a lot of traffic. If a terrorist wanted to make a big impact, then a NP would be a good symbol along with a lot of people there.

 

Brian

 

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

[+SamLowrey]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

They are high, because they symbolize something. And normally they generate a lot of traffic. If a terrorist wanted to make a big impact, then a NP would be a good symbol along with a lot of people there.

 

Brian

 

_As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump_

---

 

More than, say, a building? Seems like that would be a higher concentration of people. And that would have more direct and indirect economic effects.

[+Renegade Knight]

We had a national monument. The Great Rift National Monument. Nothing was out there but a lava flow and the rift from which all the lava came. Lots of lava tubes. The only facility was removed and it was godforsaken and cool.

 

Further north we had Craters of the Moon a national park.

 

Under Clinton the entire thing becamse something more. Now all the lava in the merged area is under NPS control and everything but the lava is BLM. Except the original boundaries of Craters of the Moon is stil NPS lava or not.

 

There is a good story somehwere on the net about a trek across that. They CACHED water (oh my!) at locations along the way and then hiked. I work with one of the guys who made the trek. If you have ever hiked a lava field then you know this is some of the most difficult hiking there is.

 

Back on topic. Since monuments tend to be under NPS control the odds of getting a cache approved is low. The BLM sections are different. I've got tentative permission but have not made it back out to place the cache near a rift that was suggested to me by the BLM.

[+woodsters]

quote:

---

Originally posted by SamLowrey:

 

More than, say, a building? Seems like that would be a higher concentration of people. And that would have more direct and indirect economic effects.

---

Not necessarily. I don't think it really has to do with the amount of people, but the impact it plays. If they wanted to impact economics, they would hit the exchange on wall street or the trasury building, the mints, and etc. I believe it's more of statement than anything else. WTC was a big symbol. The only thing was that it affected more than the US. There were many nations represented in those buildings. It was basically a landmark.

 

Brian

 

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

[+StormShadow]

Stopped at Craters of the Moon on my way from Pokey to Ketchum. It would have been super cool if it hadn't snowed the night before...tough to see lava through a couple inches of snow.

[+briansnat]

quote:

---

Add in the problems caused by growing criminal activity and the potential threat of terrorism (how many kinds of havoc would be created by a bomb at Old Faithful?!), and it's no wonder that they have no policy to allow geocaching. Face it- a basic geocache is remarkably similar to a drug drop, and one of our park visitors reported an ammo-box geocache to us (in the visitor center) as a possible bomb on the trail.

Let's applaud the National Park Service and limit our caching in National Parks and Monuments to virtuals.

---

 

Using that reasoning, we should ban physical caches everyplace. Why is a national park all that different from a national forest?

 

Why is it OK to place a cache in a national grassland, but not a national recreation area, or national seashore?

 

The only real difference is the attitude of the agencies who administer these areas.

 

"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on his hind legs. But by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" - Max Beerbohm

[+Sandrich]

The Natl Park Service banned Geocaching onall it's lands because of a bad experience it had in the NorthEast a couple of years ago. So it's not just the "attitude of the agencies who administer these areas", but more importantly the interaction with our sport that will define that relationship. Make no mistake about it, each and evry land use agency does, or will, have a relationship with regards to Geocaching. It is our responsiblity to help define that relationship in favorable terms.

Each and every Geocacher should be concerned with the Regional, State, County, and Muncipal agencies that exert control over our land. The real question is; what are you going to do in order to help?

 

[+Breaktrack]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sandrich:

Yup, the National Park Service, (or Nazi Park Snobs) will not tolerate _any_ caching on "thier" land. Given the current administration's lack of environmental policy (other than to destroy it for money) I doubt that will change.

 

http://www.mi-geocaching.org/

 

Nazi Park Slobs???? You're kidding, right?

 

While I don't always agree with their policies, and I too bristle at the "their land" attitude, I have yet to meet or interact with a Park Ranger who was anything less than a consumate professional who went out of their way to help in any way they could, and was damned courteous about it while they did.....

 

I find NO similarity to Nazism in there anywhere... seems a bit of an extreme comparison to me, maybe you were just trying to make a point?

 

You missed, by the way...lol.

 

"Trade up, trade even, or don't trade!!!" My philosophy of life.

[+Snoogans]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Breaktrack:

Originally posted by Sandrich:

Yup, the National Park Service, (or Nazi Park Snobs) will not tolerate _any_ caching on "thier" land. Given the current administration's lack of environmental policy (other than to destroy it for money) I doubt that will change.

 

http://www.mi-geocaching.org/<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Nazi Park Slobs???? You're kidding, right?

 

While I don't always agree with their policies, and I too bristle at the "their land" attitude, I have yet to meet or interact with a Park Ranger who was anything less than a consumate professional who went out of their way to help in any way they could, and was damned courteous about it while they did.....

 

I find NO similarity to Nazism in there anywhere... seems a bit of an extreme comparison to me, maybe you were just trying to make a point?

 

You missed, by the way...lol.

 

 

I hafta agree with ya where Texas, NM, Az, are concerned, but I have met a couple further West who fit that other description. <shiver>

 

The way to handle the latter is to act like you speak some obscure Eastern European dialect. They will either act out their directions (while you try not to laugh) or walk away.

 

Try:

 

"Melpyoo ketdtch de klidt dukai?"

 

Sngans

Sacred cows make the best hamburger....Mark Twain.

[+Searching_ut]

Renegade Knight said:

 

quote:

---

They CACHED water (oh my!) at locations along the way and then hiked

---

 

Believe it or not, theres quite a bit of water out there, it just takes a little time and effort to find it. The bannock county school system used to offer wilderness education programs during the summer vacation time periods. The courses were generally 15 days long, conducted in remote areas within the state. I took 3 courses in the sawtooth wilderness area, to include moutaineering and advanced rock climbing. I also took the desert survival course where they took us out in the Arco desert for a couple weeks. You can find water out there, you just have to look. I was amazed at just how often you would find the water in ice form, even in the middle of the summer.

 

In many ways, I think those summer courses offered some of the best education available for later life. It's a real shame they don't offer anything like it anymore.