Rico and The Fiddler Posted July 31, 2002 Author Share Posted July 31, 2002 Kevin and Susan, You hit it right on the head. Thank you for your insights Quote Link to comment
+seneca Posted July 31, 2002 Share Posted July 31, 2002 quote: We reviewed their rules-list and added a few things, which they told us they liked and would incorporate into the final draft. The following is the result:..... Why not ask them what real concerns they have that are specific to Geocaching --- and then develop the minimum number of rules to address those concerns. It seems to me that they just sat down and said to themselves "how many rules can we think up to regulate Geocaching" and then they went ahead and made them up. Unfortunately, people in authority far too often have that "make a rule" mindset. If they really wanted to be helpful, they would allow caches to be placed in their parks, monitor them, and bring to the cachers attention any problems that the cache is causing, and if it is causing a legitimate problem, then request that it be removed (failing which it would be removed). I think this would actually be less work for them than what they have proposed. The Geocaching community could also agree to do a little "self-policing" by agreeing to bring to the authorities attention any caches that were causing problems. I think this system would work, if tried, and if not - then they could always let RULES RULE! You may not agree with what I say, but I will defend, to your death, my right to say it!(it's a Joke, OK!) Quote Link to comment
+The Tungsten Jihad! Posted August 1, 2002 Share Posted August 1, 2002 Here is a suggestion: Establish a rating system (A through F, 1-10, whatever). Let cahers rate how well a cache is doing environmentally speaking. Average the last ten finds or so and if a bunch of people are giving it low marks, automatically put it into hibernation for a month or just plain delete it. Just a thought. Quote Link to comment
+Eric K Posted August 1, 2002 Share Posted August 1, 2002 I have no clue on how to go about gathering this type of statistic unless some how it can be added and logged. Something like Found cache removed X bags of trash on way out. Then when the reporters asked the guys here at geocache they could say "Our records indicate to date geocachers have removed X 100s or x 1000s of bags of trash from public parks. Now to play the devils advocate by myself I'm sure you would get the people that will say the only reason the trash is there is because of geocachers in the first place. Which WE know isn't genrally true but you know how that can go. Quote Link to comment
jfitzpat Posted August 1, 2002 Share Posted August 1, 2002 quote:Originally posted by seneca: If they really wanted to be helpful, they would allow caches to be placed in their parks, monitor them, and bring to the cachers attention any problems that the cache is causing, and if it is causing a legitimate problem, then request that it be removed (failing which it would be removed)... Having watched access come up for a number of sports/activities, I've come to the conclussion that the same arguments come up over and over. The lamest, in my opinion, is the flag waving, "our" land, doing what we please with natural resources is an American Tradition rant. Land managers are, ultimately, accountable to our elected representatives. Majority rule makes some people bristle, at least when they are in the minority. The disdain for government seems strongest in Western states, where we often complain about the brain dead government and its meddling - while sucking down amazing amounts of Federal dollars in the form of various pork and subsidies. But, the most appealing argument that always comes up is Senaca's. Why can't those stupid land managers permit, monitor, and advise? The problem with this argument is budget and perspective. Enthusiasts always see an activity as being more important and fundemental than it is to society at large. The amount of money spent on local, state, and federal parks for the support and assistance of recreational users is amazingly small. The NFS budget isn't trivial, but the vast majority of it is spent building logging roads. So, you basically wind up with a shoe string budget ranger/rescue/maintanence system for most public parks in the country. To a geocacher, it seems reasonable that "our" money be spent supporting "our" sport. But a rock climber, mountain biker, cross country skier, and car camper all feel the same way. Hikers often bristle at the idea that search and rescue costs should be paid, at least partially, by the lost party. Climber's often react the same way. So, you end up with competing demands on limited funds. As hard as it is to swallow, the easiest way for land managers to deal with caching is to simply ban it. No matter how much red enthusiasts see, land managers would, generally, have little trouble making such a ban stick. The majority of voters just aren't going to get worked up over searching for Happy Meal toys in a park being an inalienable right. The fact that some land managers are willing to even discuss caching shows, not that they have too much time on their hands to make rules, but that they are legitimately committed to enabling diverse groups enjoy the resources in their care. Form a responsible group and work with them. As far as the article that started this thread being "fair" (this is general, not directed to Seneca's reasonable comments), I wonder how much more idiotic the sport would look to outsiders if threads here were cited? Imagine an article that contrasts the ranger's fairly modest constraints and concerns with adamant denials that caching has any impact whatsoever? An article that goes on to portray cachers, not as leave-no-trace hikers, but as gun toting red necks that care more about scoring a tinker toy than the environment they are trampling... There have been threads here that talk about caching by headlamp. Going out at night in order to be "first". To many casual observers, a natural reaction might be, if it is all about the hunt and the toys, why not just stick the boxes in your own yards and be done with it? Why hassle with it in "our" parks? I realize that many cachers, like my daughters and I, pursue caching as just another way of enjoying the outdoors and being together. But, when it comes to public discourse, it always seems to be the extremists who squawk the loudest. If an individual wants to tote a gun when they hike, think all rangers are eco-Nazi fascists, and view any form of regulation of Geocaching on public land as un-American. So be it, it is (thankfully) a free country. But, if that is the collective 'voice' of the sport. Get used to getting the boot from parks... -jjf Quote Link to comment
wmas1960 Posted August 1, 2002 Share Posted August 1, 2002 quote: Having watched access come up for a number of sports/activities, I've come to the conclussion that the same arguments come up over and over. The lamest, in my opinion, is the flag waving, "our" land, doing what we please with natural resources is an American Tradition rant...SNIPPED Your post has pompted a lot of thoughts about this issue. Maybe too many to actually address them all or coherently remember to mention them all. What I would like to add here is that first off GeoCaching really, if done properly, does not actually involve any other activity than those that are already permitted. When you discuss the issue of limited budgets to address the concerns of all users you seem to not realize that GeoCachers are basically, Bicyclists, Rock Climbers, ATVers, Hikers, X-Country Skiiers... We engage in the same activities that the people who seek to ban us engage in. If they ban us from the forest lands than by all rights they should ban all those people engaging in the same activities. The difference is just that we are using our activities to not just go through the park or wilderness but, like birdwatchers, animal watchers and photographers, we are using that activity as a means to a goal. Whats to say that those trails that we get blamed for are actually caching trails. Could they be other hikers, birdwatchers, photographers, skiiers, bicyclists... or other users of the parks bushwhacking and trying to cut a shortcut or get to a more secluded spot for their questionable activities such as use and manufacture of controlled substances, sexual activity... or to a bird they want to get closer to or a wild animal that they want to photograph more close up... If the Caches are placed near the trails there shouldn't be a need for "Bushwhacking". I do agree here that we should work to not be unreasonable with our placement of our caches. We should be somewhat aware of the eco sensitivities that exist and always seek the path of least impact to get to our prizes. I am really concerned that there is so much emphasis about the impact of geocaching on the environment or the images of the forest lands but there doesn't seem to be mention of the same impact by hiking, biking and the other activities like ATVs and Snowmobiles that seem to be allowed and cause more of an impact on the land. Also the issue as presented in another thread about offensive gay activities around the parks where families and children might encounter these people. How much is being done about that activity in the parks or is it considered permissable and welcome? I will point out in fairness that it is not just gay activities that should be emphasized here. Hetero activities are equally inappropriate in public parks and forests. "GET A ROOM" You mention the disdain for parks officials. I haven't really noticed that much of that. I am new here but I have been reading a lot of these threads. I like to be well informed. I would point out the posts of that tone are really done by a few people, in a given thread, and are repeated by them over and over. Thus giving the impression that it is a widely held opinion. Also some of the mention are quotes to those people. When you actually read all the posts and give attention to who the authors are, I believe it is a majority view that we need to work WITH these people and welcome those dialogs. There was one thread where even I addressed my attitude toward many city, state county and federal employees as being arrogant, power hungry, hacks. I do not intend to infer that all are that way but with my experience as a legal assistant where I had to file documents, applications, forms, motions and pleadings I did find some attitudes. Most of these derogatory posts, primarily, originate from writers who had a specific confrontation or pertain to specific people who like one individual in MN that posted an entry in a log that at the least was antagonistic, arrogant, offensive and UNPROFESSIONAL. With several examples of rangers and other land managers offering clear reasons for their action, notifying the owner that the cache was pulled and is being held and can be claimed and welcoming positive input and dialog, I think most of us realize that there are people out there who are welcoming of some positive constructive debate and input and we are more than willing to work with them to address their issues and concerns. As for the comment about An article that goes on to portray cachers, not as leave-no-trace hikers, but as gun toting red necks that care more about scoring a tinker toy than the environment they are trampling... and your repeated comments about gun carrying cachers, I get the feeling that you might be emphasizing a situation that might actually be fairly minor regarding caching. I participated in that thread. I posted numerous thoughts. Again, I don't think that there were really that many people engaged in that debate. It was a highly opinionated issue where a handful of people had a great deal of input and much of those points were made multiple times. Please, not just you but anyone reading these posts, remember that when reading these boards and groups one person's opinions can seem like a plurality when they post the same thing reworded about 20 times to other people making their points once or twice. Also remember that caching is not only practiced in your local city or county parks but in some very rugged surroundings where there is a strong possibility of encounters with coyote, allagator, wild cats, wolves, bears ... I would seriously consider arming myself if I were hunting in those situations. However in an urban forest preserve or county or state park that might seem to not be necessary. In my area I most likely could encounter a White Tail or an angry opossum, raccoon or coyote. In most cases if I back off I will be fine. Other situations if there is an attack, pepper spray or foam might be adequate. Remember, when you are digging into hallow logs or caverns, crevices or other places where wildlife might nest or bed, you could reach in for a cache and find a coyote pup. OK, that might not be serious. But, what if the mother is arround. You could have some serious problems before you. Same can be true with something as docile as a White Tail Doe. I know I wouldn't want to take an attack by an angry mother when she thinks her young are at risk. In my area, more serious could be wandering the woods in the fall and hiking up into a Bucks terratory when he is defending his mate. Usually such understanding of wildlife will guide us out of or away from such encounters. However I think it is every hiker, biker, skiier or other park users right to, if legal, prepare themselves however they see fit. I really don't believe though that there are really that many "GUN TOTING CACHERS" out there. In closing whether intentionally extreme and sarchastic or whatever, your comment, If an individual wants to tote a gun when they hike, think all rangers are eco-Nazi fascists, and view any form of regulation of Geocaching on public land as un-American. So be it, it is (thankfully) a free country. But, if that is the collective 'voice' of the sport. Get used to getting the boot from parks... [This message was edited by wmas1960 on August 01, 2002 at 03:04 PM.] Quote Link to comment
wmas1960 Posted August 1, 2002 Share Posted August 1, 2002 OOPS, Left that end opened. In closing whether intentionally extreme and sarchastic or whatever, your comment, If an individual wants to tote a gun when they hike, think all rangers are eco-Nazi fascists, and view any form of regulation of Geocaching on public land as un-American. So be it, it is (thankfully) a free country. But, if that is the collective 'voice' of the sport. Get used to getting the boot from parks... I don't think that is anywhere near the majority feelings that I have seen written. Regarding, all rangers are eco-Nazi fascists I never heard any such sentiment. I heard mention of one person as being antagonistic and unprofessional and some as being of an attitude of just ban it rather than deal with it and all the bureaucracy and red tape. But, I have heard much praise about other rangers and land stewards who have dealt with the issues with proper suggestions, warnings, notices... Always be careful of the use of words like All Re: your comment, tote a gun when they hike I already addressed this. I really didn't get the impression that that many cachers do this. Regarding: any form of regulation of Geocaching on public land as un-American. Most of what I have been reading is an enthusiasm of many about sitting down with these people and coming to an understanding of everyones desires and needs and concerns and other issues. A lot of people get empassioned about their views and sometimes get sarchastic and deliberately extreme with their statements. Sometimes it is part of sparking and stimulating the debate. Other times it is somebody venting off some steam in a rant. Mostly though I think your comments show the participants in this hobby, maybe intentially, maybe not, in a worst light. You may be trying to make some point but I think it can be misconstrued to indicate the true feelings of GeoCachers. I just feel that as a whole I have not picked up that sentiment. I have gone way too long now so I will end. That is my $1.50 on this I have ranted, vented.... Later all. Quote Link to comment
+Team Screamapillar Posted August 2, 2002 Share Posted August 2, 2002 Well said, wmas. Quote Link to comment
jfitzpat Posted August 2, 2002 Share Posted August 2, 2002 quote:Originally posted by wmas1960: I don't think that is anywhere near the majority feelings that I have seen written... No, but all the "sarcastic" remarks I used are pieced together from real quotes from this forum. That's the point. Land managers can always point to extremists and a few bad apples (not nec. the same thing), and justify harsh limitations on all. That is not conjecture, that's oft repeated history. The only answer I've seen work is to form an advocacy group that promotes a leave-no-trace ethic, forms relationships to other groups, (ex. Sierra Club, etc.) to get a larger collective voice, and works with land managers to secure and maintain access. -jjf Quote Link to comment
MIBugTroop Posted August 6, 2002 Share Posted August 6, 2002 Sorry, don't know how to just make a slick hyperlink to another board. Since I haven't seen any reference to it in this topic, some of you may not be aware that in Pennsylvania, the DCNR has put a registration requirement for caches on state park and forrest land. Go to the "Northeast" discussion board for all the info. Anyway, with input from Geocachers, the guidelines are looking like the following. Don't be surprised to see this spread accross the courtry in some form or another. (Note, it is still preliminary.) ---From Quest Master posted 8/2/2002 -------- Draft Forms Mr. Meade has provided me with the latest DRAFT of the new geocaching policy for state parks and the latest DRAFT of the Geocache Identification Form. I am very pleased that they have removed the legal stuff . I emailed him to ask about the "Cache ID Number" but he didn't get back to me yet. We'll probably have to wait until Monday to find out what they mean by this. I am concerned that they may be talking about the geocaching.com waypoint number which wouldn't work since it cannot be known until the cache is listed on the website. Another possibility is a number assigned by the park managers. I guess that we would be required to get a number from the park office in advance so that we could write it on the cache container before we hide it in the park. It probably is not wise to speculate. We'll just have to wait and see what he says. In the meantime, he has said that they will be meeting again early next week to discuss this further. Speak now or forever hold your peace! Here are the documents: Did I mention that these are just a DRAFT. This means that NOBODY should be printing them out and sending them in. DRAFT DCNR - Bureau of State Parks Geocaching Guidelines BACKGROUND Geocaching has become a new endeavor on Pennsylvania’s state park and forest lands. The idea is to have individuals set up caches all over the state and share the locations of these caches and the coordinates on the internet. Global Positioning System (GPS) users can then use the location coordinates to find the caches. Once found, a cache may provide a wide variety of cache items. The cache visitor is asked to leave an item in the cache for the one they remove. The Geocache community uses the Internet extensively for posting cache locations. The following guidelines apply to all geocaches on state park land: ? Placement of geocaches on lands administered by the DCNR - Bureau of State Parks requires written authorization of the Park Manager or designee. This authorization will be considered through a review process, which insures its location is compatible with other park activities. ? A geocache contact person responsible for necessary upkeep of the site must be identified prior to approval by the Park Manager or designee. ? There should be no earth disturbance or vegetative impact to any approved site. Nor should the cache be readily discernable by the general public. ? Cache(s) shall not be placed in a military ammo box or PVC pipe. A transparent type container is required (Tupperware, Gladware, Pretzel Barrel, etc.) ? Cache ID number must be clearly visible on the exterior of all geocache containers. The ID number should be placed on container(s) using a permanent type marker or weatherproof tag. ? The cache may not be placed within Natural Areas or Wild Plant Sanctuaries, or on stream banks, riparian zones, wetlands, prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, exemplary natural communities, ecologically sensitive areas, unique geological features, Dam structures, or unsafe areas. ? A cache may remain at the approved site for no more than five years at which time it must be removed, the site restored to its original condition, and the Park Manager informed in writing of the removal. This will control cache abandonment and assist in preventing renegade trail development to the site. ? Unauthorized geocaches on state park lands will be removed and treated as abandoned property, and the responsible person may be cited for littering. ? Responsible party shall delete site location(s) from all publications and/or website(s) within seven days of removal. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION & NATURAL RESOURCES BUREAU OF STATE PARKS GEOCACHE IDENTIFICATION FORM This agreement is made this _____ day of _____________________, by and between the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Bureau of State Parks (”DEPARTMENT”) and _____________________________ (“RESPONSIBLE PARTY”). The RESPONSIBLE PARTY desires to place a geocache at the following location(s) in ________________________________________ State Park: SITE NAME (if any): ___________________________________________ ID # _______________ TOWNSHIP: _________________________________________________ COUNTY: ___________________________________________________ LATITUDE: __________________________________________________ LONGITUDE: ________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS (if needed)_________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ SITE NAME (if any): __________________________________________ ID # _______________ TOWNSHIP: ________________________________________________ COUNTY: __________________________________________________ LATITUDE: _________________________________________________ LONGITUDE: _______________________________________________ ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS (if needed)________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ SITE NAME (if any): _________________________________________ ID # _______________ TOWNSHIP: _______________________________________________ COUNTY: _________________________________________________ LATITUDE: ________________________________________________ LONGITUDE: ______________________________________________ ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS (if needed)_______________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ SITE NAME (if any): _________________________________________ ID # _______________ TOWNSHIP: _______________________________________________ COUNTY: _________________________________________________ LATITUDE: ________________________________________________ LONGITUDE: ______________________________________________ ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS (if needed)_______________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ The DEPARTMENT is willing to permit the RESPONSIBLE PARTY to place the above geocache(s), subject to the following conditions: 1. Geocache container description (size, color, container, material): ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ 2. This permission is in effect for the period beginning _______________ through _____________________ (not to exceed 5 years); however, the permission may be revoked at any time by the DEPARTMENT acting through a Park Manager or designee. 3. REPONSIBLE PARTY is not permitted to do the following: a. Earth disturbance or vegetative impact to the approved geocache site. b. Move or alter approved geocache location. c. Allow the insertion of hazardous or pornographic materials in the geocache container. d. Place cache(s) on a Dam structure d. Other (state “no other conditions” or list other conditions): ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ 4. The cache may not be placed within Natural Areas or Wild Plant Sanctuaries, or on stream banks, riparian zones, wetlands, prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, exemplary natural communities, ecologically sensitive areas, unique geological features, Dam structures, or unsafe areas. 5. Park Manager or designee shall be notified by the RESPONSIBLE PARTY when the cache is moved or removed. __________________________________ ________________________________ Printed Name of Responsible Party Responsible Party signature ___________________________________ Street ___________________________________ City State Zip (____)_____________________________ Phone Email address ___________________________________ Park Manager or designee date Original – Park Office files Copies to – Regional Park Office, Central Office Operations Section It bears repeating one more time for good measure: These documents are draft versions of the policy and permission form. Don't Use Them! Johnny -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posts: 14 | From: Greensburg, Pennsylvania | Registered: April 01, 2001 Quote Link to comment
KP Patrol Posted August 6, 2002 Share Posted August 6, 2002 I came on to discuss this after having to bushwack a bit today. Then I realized it was probably being done, and here you all are! I've been an occasional guide in wilderness areas for more than 25 years, but am new to GC. I just want to say that on many soils a single bootprint CAN cause problems. Especially in dry soils (desert cryptobiotic soil for instance) the resultant erosion can be visible for decades, if not centuries. There are places one can visit with clearly cut wagon wheel tracks from a SINGLE wagon travelling the Oregon Trail 150 years ago. And there are many places on the main route where wagon wheels cut deeply into stone. For us its important to note that in places boots wore stone down right next to the wagon ruts. Next, all those paths in the CA hills were almost certainly not cut by cattle, but by naturally occurring deer and other native species, and then were widened by cattle. Cows don't do a lot of meandering, in my experience. I have come across 3 caches this week, (one each in Washington, Oregon, and New Jersey) where the erosive process from people literally beating the bushes was already killing plants. Today 2 of the Patrol bushwacked across a scrub pine forest iin NJ. When our own bad decision took us into the woods, we followed game trails exclusively and thus did little or no damage. But we found several places where people had torn up the ground near the cache looking for it. This is despite the fact that it was an easy find within 3 feet of the trail. The 2 in WA and OR required hiding as they were on heavily travelled trails, and the damage to the local vegatation was severe in one. The steep trailsides of the other were crumbling. Neither one had been there more than a few months. Folks, this IS a problem, and is not a bunch of overactive rangers. (Though I can't for the life of me figure out why they won't let you put them on stone areas that don't require technical climbing gear.) KP Patrols new rule is that we will not go off a trail, unless it is onto stone, sand, beach, or some ever shifting surface that we really can't hurt much. KP-2 Quote Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted August 7, 2002 Share Posted August 7, 2002 There is a difference beteween accountability and having to have 13 permits and log in and out with fingerprints. About everything they want to ban is already against the law in some form. It is about control. In the end there is a balance between allowing free and open access and do whatever you want and putting a wall around our cities and you have to have a permit to leave the city, and then only if you strap a location device to your *** so they can make sure you stay on the road. quote:Originally posted by Alan2: quote:...It's entirely possible that in the coming years you will need to be registered with the local agency (USFS, BLM, Police), to place and search for caches. You already have to have permits to hike, boat, etc. in the National Parks. Some public areas require you to sign in/out when you visit. It's just a matter of time for geocaching. Next year or 20 years - it's up to us... I suggested such a thing in a http://opentopic.Groundspeak.com/0/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1750973553&f=3000917383&m=5720942144&showpollresults=Y awhile back. I think it's human nature to want to be in control especially if it's your job to take care of the property. And there we go into "your" area doing what we want. No accountability. Put yourself in the manager's position and you'll get a feel for what I'm talking about. Alan Quote Link to comment
+st_richardson Posted August 8, 2002 Share Posted August 8, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Da Rebel:...There's a vote on the newspaper's site that as of this writing is 16 to 3 in favor of banning Geocaching in the county's parks. You can vote at the http://www.ocregister.com/ web page.... I didn't see where to vote when I went to the link. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.