NYS DEC Policy on Setting Caches in Public Lands

[+jonboy]

I think Ranger Hess may have made a mistake in getting out ahead of the policy makers in Albany on the Geocaching issue. Even if it is true that geocaches are allowed on State Forests, they compromise only a small portion of the vast land tracts owned by the state. It is interesting that the Artful Dodger received official permission to place a cache (The Rocky Lounge GC6240) in a wilderness area on Plattekill. It seems as though the DEC vetted the location before it was placed. The other two caches near Wittenberg Mt. seem to have been placed without permission.

 

State Parks are not administered by the DEC, but rather by the NY State Office of Parks and Recreation. They seem to have generally tolerated the presence of caches without officially sanctioning them. I did hear of geocaches being removed from Minnewaska State Park,but they were not removed by Parks and Rec employees, but by a DEC ranger who is a zealous opponent of allowing geocaches on State Land. He told me this when I was working with him fighting a wild fire.

[+briansnat]

It is interesting that the Artful Dodger received official permission to place a cache (The Rocky Lounge GC6240) in a wilderness area on Plattekill. It seems as though the DEC vetted the location before it was placed. The other two caches near Wittenberg Mt. seem to have been placed without permission.

 

As I understand it, Artful Dodger received verbal permission from a ranger he met on the trail and that was the extent of it. As far as the caches near Wittenberg, the DEC has made no move to remove them, which is odd because they've shown in the past that they won't hesitate to remove Catskill geocaches if they believe they present a problem. I'm sure a ranger passes by the one near the top of Wittenberg (or is it Cornell) regularly, as its not far from the trail and I'm sure they know its there. I have a feeling that they don't see these caches as a problem and choose to leave them.

[+jonboy]

Most DEC Rangers do not regularly conduct interior trail patrols. They are more and more being treated as ordinary law enforcement officers who patrol in their vehicles and venture into the interior only as needed. Most rangers resent this change and view it as a departure from the role rangers have traditionally played. This is why the caches have not been removed, because they are no longer free to patrol their area on foot, but must be available for radio dispatch at all times when on duty.

 

It seems to me that up until now the issue of allowing or not allowing geocaches been governed by the attitude of the local authorities. There was a ranger in the Catskills who was a zealous opponent of geocaches (her area included the Slide- Wittenberg range), who went to the effort of removing caches. She has resigned from the DEC after a disability.

 

I am afraid that if and when a state wide ruling does come down, it is not likely to be one that satisfies geocachers. At best we can hope for a highly regulated system where each placement must be approved individually by the authorites and where such requests are given a low priority and are acted upon very slowly and are subject to revocation at any time. It is just as likely that when pressed for a state wide policy, the powers that be will take the safest and simplest option and just say no. We are simply not a large enough constituency to overcome the objections that will be brought up by conservationists.

[kc2ixe]

It amazes me that they can have a policy that says you need a permit, yet there seems to be no way of obtaining such a permit.

I can tell your not used to working with State Bureaucracy then. It's an absolute classic way of banning things without banning things, OR of some bureaucrat banning something that's legal, but he/she doesn't like

 

It's classic, and I seen it in other issues - make something require a permit, and you might even have a full process, but let's say it requires you to take an approved course - now you don't approve any courses, or offfer the course VERY VERY rarely, and by apointment only. They get to limit what happens then

[+briansnat]

Most DEC Rangers do not regularly conduct interior trail patrols

 

That must be recent because I've often seen notes in the trail registers from rangers who were doing just that. I even met a ranger on Giant Ledge whose job was to spend each day on Slide Mountain, then walk to Giant Ledge to spend the night and keep an eye on things there (not a bad job I must say). I know he was seasonal ranger, but I remember him busting people on Giant Ledge who were camped too close to the trail. He made them pack up and come down the mountain, where another ranger was waiting to take them before the judge. This was only 3 years ago.

[kc2ixe]

Most DEC Rangers do not regularly conduct interior trail patrols

 

That must be recent because I've often seen notes in the trail registers from rangers who were doing just that. I even met a ranger on Giant Ledge whose job was to spend each day on Slide Mountain, then walk to Giant Ledge to spend the night and keep an eye on things there (not a bad job I must say). I know he was seasonal ranger, but I remember him busting people on Giant Ledge who were camped too close to the trail. He made them pack up and come down the mountain, where another ranger was waiting to take them before the judge. This was only 3 years ago.

Seen the ranger making busts up on the top of slide for people sleeping up there. Did that once back in 1980 - never pitched a tent. Just put out my pad and bag on the rock up top - Gad the porcupines were BAD

[SB69]

I stopped by my DEC Regional office to ask for maps, regulations, and any other literature on DEC managed areas. The secretary sent out someone to speak with me. I didnt think to ask what his position was....(he was in a shirt and tie tho... )...

 

I brought up geocaching, and he hadnt heard of it...then I described it, and he thought it sounded vaguely familiar. I asked what he thought about it being done on DEC land, and he said it would most probably NOT fly on Wildlife Management Areas, and it would most likely be left up to each specific Ranger to decide if it would be allowed in each specific Forest area in their Region.....

He suggested I contact one of the two Rangers for the Region and discuss it directly with them.....

 

SSoooooo.....get out there, and get chummy with your local Regional DEC Ranger....

 

Oh ya...as to camping in State Forests.....It is only allowed on specific campsites within the Forests, and some Forest areas have different requirements as to time limits, and number of people and groups allowed to camp. Some require permits for small to large groups.

Most of the sites I have seen around here are right alongside the usual seasonal roads in the Forests....Usually just deepenough for one or two vehicles to pull out of the road. Of course, they usually only consist of a parking space, and an ash pile....

Edited April 7, 2004 by SB69

[+JMBella]

I think that might be the key SB. I will make trip to talk to someone in person in my region. What part of the state are you in?

[+jonboy]

As far as NY DEC Rangers go, the recent changes are partly as a result of drastic budget cuts and partly as a decision to transform the rangers into cops as part of the effort to mobilize more law enforcement resources in reaction to 9/11. Rangers are going to lose their pick-up trucks and have them replaced with police style cruisers. In the past, most of the interior patrols have been conducted by part time seasonal rangers, forestry students and teachers usually, and there is no money in the budget for them now. The Slide- Wittenberg-Panther range was assigned a seasonal ranger in past years, but there has not been one there in at least five years. Some of the more zealous rangers would go up and patrol known trouble spots on their own time, such as Ranger Rudge did on Giant Ledge or Ranger Fish did in the Adirondacks. Many of these true believers are quitting, they didn't join the rangers to issue parking tickets. It is going to be interesting to see how rangers can drive a Chevy Caprice up an old fire road to put out a brush fire.

[+briansnat]

As far as NY DEC Rangers go, the recent changes are partly as a result of drastic budget cuts and partly as a decision to transform the rangers into cops as part of the effort to mobilize more law enforcement resources in reaction to 9/11. Rangers are going to lose their pick-up trucks and have them replaced with police style cruisers. In the past, most of the interior patrols have been conducted by part time seasonal rangers, forestry students and teachers usually, and there is no money in the budget for them now. The Slide- Wittenberg-Panther range was assigned a seasonal ranger in past years, but there has not been one there in at least five years. Some of the more zealous rangers would go up and patrol known trouble spots on their own time, such as Ranger Rudge did on Giant Ledge or Ranger Fish did in the Adirondacks. Many of these true believers are quitting, they didn't join the rangers to issue parking tickets. It is going to be interesting to see how rangers can drive a Chevy Caprice up an old fire road to put out a brush fire.

 

Well then its official. We can place caches until our hearts are content!

Edited April 8, 2004 by briansnat

[+NJ Admin]

I've merged Briansnat's Geocaching In Ny State Parks, The official OK??? into this one (with his permission), since it was actually about a NY State Forest, which falls under DEC jurisdiction. It is best to keep this discussion in one place, instead of spread out in several threads.

 

I have received a reply from the DEC Supervising Forester in Albany. I'm afraid it appears to contradict what the forest ranger told the people at Brian's cache last week.

I am posting the letter below. Keep in mind Mr. Messenger and other DEC members are following this thread, please try and be constructive in your replies.

Please accept my apologies for not replying sooner.  We have been embroiled in a series of public meetings over the past month and I have not had a chance to get back to you.  My response was also prompted by two other things: the advent of spring (and the attendant increase in caching activity) and an e-mail from a co-worker who noticed my letter in one of the Groundspeak forums.  The forum would not let me post a response, so I would ask that you pass this information on if you can.

 

Apparently, there is some confusion regarding state land classifications.  I'll start by trying to clarify as best I can, but will preface my clarification with the caveat that we spend a 4-hour session with new Forest Ranger recruits on the subject of the history of the Forest Preserve.  It's a complicated subject; hopefully my efforts to clarify will not make things worse.

 

"Forest Preserve" is a term that is established in Article XIV, Section 1 of the New York State Constitution.  It is a general term that is defined as lands owned by New York State within the "blue line" of the Adirondack and Catskill Parks.  Please note the distinction between "preserve" and "park."  The Parks include both state and private lands. The forest preserve is just the state lands.  There are some exceptions, such as the prison lands in Dannemora, but 99% of the NYS lands in the Adirondack and Catskill Parks is forest preserve.

 

In 1972, about 90 years after the forest preserve was established, the Adirondack Park Agency adopted the Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan (APSLMP) which set out guidelines for the management and public use of the forest preserve lands in the Adirondack Park.  The APSLMP Created 9 classifications of land, all of which are forest preserve.  The two largest classifications, constituting over 90% of the state lands, are Wilderness and Wild Forest.  I point this out because it was obvious from the postings I saw that many people thought there was a difference between wilderness and forest preserve.  It's kind of like rectangles and squares: all wilderness is forest preserve, but not all forest preserve is wilderness.  Nevertheless, all forest preserve is required under the NYS Constitution to be managed as wild land.

 

In 1985, the DEC adopted the Catskill Park State Land Master Plan (CPSLMP).  There were some notable differences between it and the APSLMP, the biggest being that only 4 classifications were created for the Catskills.  However, the largest proportion of land again went into wilderness and wild forest.  The situation in the Catskills is also the same as the Adirondacks in the following regard: by and large, all NYS lands are forest preserve, and are required to be managed as wild land.

 

"State Forests" is another somewhat broad term that refers to lands that are under the jurisdiction of the DEC outside of the Adirondack and Catskill Parks.  It includes State Reforestation Areas, Multiple Use Areas, and Unique Areas.  Wildlife Management Areas are not considered State Forests.  They are managed by our Division of Fish, Wildlife & Marine Resources; I do not know if they permit geocaching.

 

There also appeared to be some confusion regarding the prohibition of geocaching on forest preserve lands.  There is no formal policy on geocaching on any DEC managed lands.  There is also nothing in our regulations that specifically says "The placing of geocaches on forest preserve lands is expressly prohibited."  Rather, when we first learned about geocaching some 3 years ago, we reviewed regulations already in place and felt that the placing of physical caches on forest preserve lands was not allowed under those regulations.  We did not however, feel that the regulations could be interpreted as prohibitinig virtual caches.  The difference was primarily based on the fact that physical caches involve leaving something on forest preserve for an indeterminate period of time, which essentially runs afoul of the provision in the regs that prohibits the storage of personal property on forest preserve lands.  Therefore, our interpretation that physical caches are not allowed is not based on any feeling that people walking in the woods using their GPS units to find a place or item is an inappropriate pastime.  Rather, it is intended to avoid the proliferation of Tupperware, coffee cans, and Ziploc bags being left on state lands.

 

The permit to which I referred in my original letter is a Temporary Revocable Permit (TRP).  We do not have a "Geocaching Permit" system.

TRPs are issued by the DEC, and are generic permits that can be Tailored for whatever purpose the permittee applies.  For instance, we issue a significant number of TRPs each year to fishing groups, allowing them to use DEC boat launches for fishing tournaments.  We also issue TRPs to universities and research groups allowing them to maintain data collection devices on DEC lands.

 

Hopefully this clears up at least some of the questions you have.  I probably have not covered everything.  I'd be happy to continue to provide information you seek, hopefully in a more timely fashion than the tardiness of this response would lead you to expect.

 

Regards,

 

Rob Messenger

Supervising Forester

NYSDEC - Bureau of Forest Preserve Management

625 Broadway

Albany, NY  12233-4254

Edited April 8, 2004 by NJ Admin

[+JMBella]

Therefore, our interpretation that physical caches are not allowed is not based on any feeling that people walking in the woods using their GPS units to find a place or item is an inappropriate pastime.  Rather, it is intended to avoid the proliferation of Tupperware, coffee cans, and Ziploc bags being left on state lands.

 

I think we can pull something positive from that statement. Perhaps some guidelines specific to DEC property would alleviate their concern for the proliferation of caches. Instead of the 528 foot rule the DEC would require a .25 rule or a .50 rule. Also I would be open to a time limit on caches on DEC property. Caches would need to be archived or moved after say 18 months or 2 years. I feel now is not the time to be greedy. The feeling I got from Mr. Messenger is that they are open minded regarding geocaching but are also cautious. I think Mr. Messenger should join these forums so he can respond to suggestions and add his own.

 

Mr. Messenger, Thank you for taking the time to respond. We look forward to an amicable relationship with the NYS DEC.

[Ferreter5]

Wow, that's really nice that he sent you such a detailed letter. My thanks go out to him.

 

I wonder what their definition of "storage of personal property" is? Nobody places a geocache for the purpose of, "Gee, I don't want to keep this thing at my house so I'll just store it on this here DEC land."

 

We seem to keep running into laws, rules, regulations. codes, etc that get interpreted such that geocaches are considered litter, abandoned property, stored property, etc. (FYI, I've had a good response in my ongoing dealings with the Town of Victor NY in that so far they don't think a geocache meets their definition of litter -- I'm continuing to work on it, next meeting is in May.)

 

Also, if a TRP lets people maintain data collection equipment on DEC lands, why couldn't a TRP allow a geocache to exist on DEC lands for a specified period of time -- say, two years? The TRP expiring would help reduce the proliferation of cache containers that the DEC seems to fear.

 

The more an existing system can be used, the easier it is for both parties involved because it avoids having to create a new system for just geocaching.

Edited April 8, 2004 by Ferreter5

[+NJ Admin]

Therefore, our interpretation that physical caches are not allowed is not based on any feeling that people walking in the woods using their GPS units to find a place or item is an inappropriate pastime.  Rather, it is intended to avoid the proliferation of Tupperware, coffee cans, and Ziploc bags being left on state lands.

 

I think we can pull something positive from that statement. Perhaps some guidelines specific to DEC property would alleviate their concern for the proliferation of caches. Instead of the 528 foot rule the DEC would require a .25 rule or a .50 rule. Also I would be open to a time limit on caches on DEC property. Caches would need to be archived or moved after say 18 months or 2 years. I feel now is not the time to be greedy. The feeling I got from Mr. Messenger is that they are open minded regarding geocaching but are also cautious. I think Mr. Messenger should join these forums so he can respond to suggestions and add his own.

 

Mr. Messenger, Thank you for taking the time to respond. We look forward to an amicable relationship with the NYS DEC.

I'll point out that what jmbella suggested has worked in many other states.

Off the top of my head, the PA DCNR-Bureau of State Parks and Bureau of Forestry., The Missouri Department of Natural Resources, and Maryland Dept. Of Natural Resources are just a few that could be used as a basis for a NY policy.

[+JMBella]

Also, if a TRP lets people maintain data collection equipment on DEC lands, why couldn't a TRP allow a geocache to exist on DEC lands for a specified period of time -- say, two years? The TRP expiring would help reduce the proliferation of cache containers that the DEC seems to fear.

 

I think that is exactly what he is suggesting.

 

The permit to which I referred in my original letter is a Temporary Revocable Permit (TRP).  We do not have a "Geocaching Permit" system.

TRPs are issued by the DEC, and are generic permits that can be Tailored for whatever purpose the permittee applies.  For instance, we issue a significant number of TRPs each year to fishing groups, allowing them to use DEC boat launches for fishing tournaments.  We also issue TRPs to universities and research groups allowing them to maintain data collection devices on DEC lands.

 

I'll be a Guinea pig. I'll go to my regional office and see if I can "tailor" a TRP to work for geocaching.

 

Rob said (we're on a first name basis now ):

The forum would not let me post a response,

 

Why not? I guess he just didn't sign up?

[+JMBella]

One more question. What happens to the caches that were placed before we knew the current policy was recently interpreted to include caches. (does that make sense?) I would assume we could apply for an "existing use permit" same as the TRP just saying the cache was placed before we were told we couldn't. They can tell us: remove the cache, change it to meet the following requirements, or it's fine you can leave it.

[+JMBella]

OK. I just called my regions permit department. They never heard of geocaching (no surprise there) and they never heard of a Temporary Revocable Permit.

 

I also looked on the DEC site and did not see a DL link for the TRP. Now what?

[Ferreter5]

I think that is exactly what he is suggesting.

 

If he is, then that'd be just great!

 

OK. I just called my regions permit department. They never heard of geocaching (no surprise there) and they never heard of a Temporary Revocable Permit. 

 

I also looked on the DEC site and did not see a DL link for the TRP. Now what?

 

I know this isn't very constructive or helpful, but I just had a hell of a giggle over reading this. Now I feel the need to check out the regional office here.

[+NJ Admin]

Googling DEC and Temporary Revocable Permit turns up over 50 hits. I'm not sure how to get it, but it exists, and seems to be very generic. I saw references to it being used for everything from allowing ATVs for disabled hunters, to mountain bikes, to trail maintenence by a ski club, to a pipeline.

 

Google search of DEC website

Edited April 8, 2004 by NJ Admin

[Keystone]

As the Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer for the states neighboring New York to the south, if requested I would be glad to provide Mr. Messenger with contact names at Pennsylvania DCNR, West Virginia State Parks, Maryland State Parks and Ohio Division of Natural Resources, all of whom have successfully implemented permit policies. I can guarantee that each state's official will say that the relationship has been mutually beneficial under the permit system. Geocachers get more caches in better places and can hunt for them with confidence, knowing that permission has been obtained. Land managers know where every cache is, and who the owners are, and they can keep caches away from sensitive areas that need protection.

 

The volunteer cache reviewers screen every cache to make sure it complies with the applicable permit requirements, thus guarding against unauthorized caches. Just this week, I've told a dozen geocachers in my region that their cache will not be listed until they get a permit. Some never do, and it's their loss. Those that take the time to contact the park, forest ranger, etc., have invariably obtained permission.... without exception.... other than for caches in areas clearly off-limits under the policy. From personal experience, my own caches in State Parks are BETTER caches because of consulting with the ranger about the best places to hide them.

 

I would like to thank the NY DEC for having this dialogue with the geocaching community and I hope that it produces a mutually satisfactory result.

[+JMBella]

I'm sure that will be a huge help Keystone. Thank you.

 

Googling DEC and Temporary Revocable Permit turns up over 50 hits.

 

I search Temporary Revocable Permit on the DEC site itself and it didn't pull up a clear link. I think we need a little intervention from Albany. I wonder if Rob could send out an inter-office memo to the different regions so they know what we're talking about when we call. In fact I've called several times and the few times I've talked to someone (quite possibly the same person) she says she never heard of geocaching. That in and of itself is not a problem, most people still have not heard about it. When I try to explain she transfered me to the sporting dept. I told her I need the permit dept she insisted I needed the sport sept. There was no answer there. It's OK though. I'm patient. I'm confident we'll make this all work out.

[+Harrald]

I just received my package from the DEC region 3 office. I’ve thumbed through it. There seem to be fewer areas run by the DEC than by the other organizations. I’m in the beginning stages of understanding the areas they cover. My next step will be to understand (better than the people who run the offices) their policies.

 

I personally don’t like to negociate unless I know the rules before I go in. I’ve learned a few things from being involved with union politics. The most important being. Never ask a question you don’t already know the answer to. This is a negotiating tactic. Not a way to look at life.

 

I suggest that we need to learn more about the existing policies before asking for permits, permissions or policies. I feel we can achieve this by talking to already existing groups. Such as the gunks.com people and even the Western New York Mountain Bike Association. I feel that the groups that cause the most damage (but still have received acceptance from the states) are the ones to study. Since Geocaching is so low impact, studying how the higher impact groups gained a foothold would at least show us a road map to acceptance.

 

I make these points because until 2 months ago the person in charge of a large portion of Harriman state park liked Geocachers. Two months ago he retired. His successor is not so Geocacher friendly. This was made abundantly clear to me when I called about a CITO permit. By dealing with people that are in charge of a portion of the parks we are just tipping our hands. If we learn as much as we can, find out who is in charge and (most importantly) learn how other groups made their way into the mainstream we will also gain acceptance.

[+briansnat]

I suggest that we need to learn more about the existing policies before asking for permits, permissions or policies. I feel we can achieve this by talking to already existing groups. Such as the gunks.com people and even the Western New York Mountain Bike Association. I feel that the groups that cause the most damage (but still have received acceptance from the states) are the ones to study. Since Geocaching is so low impact, studying how the higher impact groups gained a foothold would at least show us a road map to acceptance.

 

Groups like these (MTBers, ATVers, etc...) really haven't gained the acceptance you may think they have. Although they seem to be everywhere, they are often there illegally. There are able to get away with it because they don't post where they are going to be on the Internet like we do. Also, there is the enforcement issue. It's tough for a handful of rangers to enforce the rules regarding these rogue users, but a goecache is sitting there waiting for a ranger to stop by and confisicate it at his leisure, which makes geocaching an easy target.

 

It's ironic though. The authorities are often hesitant to go after illegal ATV'ers who are tearing up the trails and sensitive areas, because they claim they have no manpower and that in a post 9/11 world, ATVs ripping up the woods aren't at the top of their agenda. Yet they get in a lather about the idea of a small Tupperware box hidden in a stump somewhere in the forest that draws a handful of visitors over the course of a year. Those of us who found the cache on Kaaterskill High Peak saw the destruction left behind by ATVers, but upon close examination of the area I doubt anybody can tell there is a geocache nearby. Yet the ATVers continue to operate with relative impunity, while some bureacrats and rangers dead set on putting the hammer down on geocaching. Go figure.

Edited April 9, 2004 by briansnat

[+Alan2]

Let me see if I get this right.  There are:

• 
   
  
• State Forest Preserves -- Do not allow geocaching.
   
  
• State Forests -- Do allow geocaching with a permit, but the permit process is unknown at this time.
   
  
• State Wildlife Management Areas -- Do allow geocaching with a permit, but the process is unknown at this time.
   
  
• State Parks -- I have no idea what the policy is.  If someone knows, please fill me in!
   
  

I really want to understand these snarly land management issues here in NY.

There's even more than those Ferreter. Per my previous post, quote: The NYNJTC maps show 2 areas within the Park Boundary Blue Line. Area 1 is Forest Preserve but there are also areas call Forest Wilderness, Area 2. Are Area 2 Wilderness excluded as well?

 

What about the third area? Although it's within the Blue Line boundary, it is neither a Preserve nor a Wilderness. What statutes apply there, if any?

 

So we additionally have have Forest Wilderness

and

areas within the Blue line that are unmarked.

 

So what is the policy for these two areas?

 

I doubt if anyone knows including the DEC!!!!

 

Alan

Edited April 10, 2004 by Alan2

[+NJ Admin]

There's even more than those Ferreter. Per my previous post, quote: The NYNJTC maps show 2 areas within the Park Boundary Blue Line. Area 1 is Forest Preserve but there are also areas call Forest Wilderness, Area 2. Are Area 2 Wilderness excluded as well?

 

What about the third area? Although it's within the Blue Line boundary, it is neither a Preserve nor a Wilderness. What statutes apply there, if any?

 

So we additionally have have Forest Wilderness

and

areas within the Blue line that are unmarked.

 

So what is the policy for these two areas?

 

I doubt if anyone knows including the DEC!!!!

 

Alan

Alan, I think Mr. Messenger covered that pretty well in the recent letter, posted a few days ago.

In 1972, about 90 years after the forest preserve was established, the Adirondack Park Agency adopted the Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan (APSLMP) which set out guidelines for the management and public use of the forest preserve lands in the Adirondack Park.  The APSLMP Created 9 classifications of land, all of which are forest preserve.  The two largest classifications, constituting over 90% of the state lands, are Wilderness and Wild Forest.  I point this out because it was obvious from the postings I saw that many people thought there was a difference between wilderness and forest preserve.  It's kind of like rectangles and squares: all wilderness is forest preserve, but not all forest preserve is wilderness.  Nevertheless, all forest preserve is required under the NYS Constitution to be managed as wild land.

So, as I read that, there are actually 9 different classifications in Adirondack Park. The 2 largest being wilderness and forest, but all 9 are still part of the preserve. For our purposes that would mean all 9 classifications inside Adirondack Park would be off limits to geocaches. If in doubt, I guess you could always apply for a permit and see if it's granted.

[+Squealy]

So, NJ...

 

Do I contact Mr. Messenger about my two caches not approved in Tibbit's Forrest (coords available upon request (jk!)) for the permits, or should I just wait around on here???

 

If possible, and we do work something out with them, I would be willing to make my caches the test dummies - they are small tupperwares, one right on the trail and the other a bit off, but no bushwacking that would upset the area.

 

Just a suggestion.

[+briansnat]

Squealy, why don't you try to get in touch with that Ranger Hess? I think Mr. Messenger is just giving the official line, which sometimes differs from what the rangers in the field say. If you can get permission from the ranger in charge of Tibbet SF, then I would think you are clear with the admins.

[+Squealy]

Cz is going to see what she can find out about a regional office near her - it may be Albany, maybe not. If she can, she will apply for the permits or if not I will next trip up.

 

It just seems ridiculous not being able to hide caches there (not a shot at NJ, I know he/she is following procedures), because there IS a policy and procedure - but WHAT that procedure is for getting the permit is unknown!

[+PizzaPizza]

Has anyone ever heard of the DEC removing (or otherwise prohibiting) summit registers? All the 3500' peaks in the catskills that don't have a trail have them - and most are in wilderness areas - yet woe be to the person who wants to put a register in off-limits wilderness territory and post it on the geocaching.com site.

 

I just don't see much difference, especially when talking about caches with just a log book in them ..

[+JMBella]

Has anyone ever heard of the DEC removing (or otherwise prohibiting) summit registers? All the 3500' peaks in the Catskills that don't have a trail have them - and most are in wilderness areas - yet woe be to the person who wants to put a register in off-limits wilderness territory and post it on the geocaching.com site.

 

I just don't see much difference, especially when talking about caches with just a log book in them ..

Forgive me but what is a summit register? I assume it's some kind of log book that people who climb to the top can sign. Sound like a logbook only cache to me. If that's the case then that is a great angle to argue.

[+briansnat]

Has anyone ever heard of the DEC removing (or otherwise prohibiting) summit registers? All the 3500' peaks in the catskills that don't have a trail have them - and most are in wilderness areas - yet woe be to the person who wants to put a register in off-limits wilderness territory and post it on the geocaching.com site.

 

I just don't see much difference, especially when talking about caches with just a log book in them ..

 

You might be surprised to know that the DEC was indeed planning on removing the summit registers. There was a big outcry and they backed off, but in reality what is a geocache but a register...the concept is nearly identical. I had considered making some summit registers into virtuals (a virtual with a logbook, imagine that!), but was advised not to specifically because of their shaky status with the DEC.

 

Forgive me but what is a summit register? I assume it's some kind of log book that people who climb to the top can sign. Sound like a logbook only cache to me. If that's the case then that is a great angle to argue.

 

That's exactly what it is. A logbook in a waterproof canister. They are usually placed by hiking clubs like the Catskill 3500 club, to prove you made the climb.

Edited April 12, 2004 by briansnat

[+JMBella]

So they already allow geocaching. My initial reaction would be to argue that point but I'd hate for geocaching to be the reason the summit registers get pulled.

[+Alan2]

There's even more than those Ferreter.  Per my previous post, quote: The NYNJTC maps show 2 areas within the Park Boundary Blue Line. Area 1 is Forest Preserve but there are also areas call Forest Wilderness, Area 2. Are Area 2 Wilderness excluded as well?

 

What about the third area? Although it's within the Blue Line boundary, it is neither a Preserve nor a Wilderness. What statutes apply there, if any?

 

So we additionally have have Forest Wilderness

and

areas within the Blue line that are unmarked.

 

So what is the policy for these two areas?

 

I doubt if anyone knows including the DEC!!!!

 

Alan

Alan, I think Mr. Messenger covered that pretty well in the recent letter, posted a few days ago.

In 1972, about 90 years after the forest preserve was established, the Adirondack Park Agency adopted the Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan (APSLMP) which set out guidelines for the management and public use of the forest preserve lands in the Adirondack Park.  The APSLMP Created 9 classifications of land, all of which are forest preserve.  The two largest classifications, constituting over 90% of the state lands, are Wilderness and Wild Forest.  I point this out because it was obvious from the postings I saw that many people thought there was a difference between wilderness and forest preserve.  It's kind of like rectangles and squares: all wilderness is forest preserve, but not all forest preserve is wilderness.  Nevertheless, all forest preserve is required under the NYS Constitution to be managed as wild land.

So, as I read that, there are actually 9 different classifications in Adirondack Park. The 2 largest being wilderness and forest, but all 9 are still part of the preserve. For our purposes that would mean all 9 classifications inside Adirondack Park would be off limits to geocaches. If in doubt, I guess you could always apply for a permit and see if it's granted.

Yes. I missed that one. But I'm still not clear about the area within the blue line that are marked neither preserve or forest, the "squares" and "triangles". Are all those other areas private, no trespass? Or something else? And if something else, what rules apply, if any?

 

Alan

[+briansnat]

Anybody hear anything about THIS?

[Field-N-Water]

Thank You briansnat. I was just about to post that here in this thread.

 

Yesterday I got an email from NJ Admin about a cache listing I made. It turned out to be on DEC lands. No news to me, but this law was. So I removed the cache and called Region 4 sub station in Stamford NY about this issue. They transfered me to some else who is mailing me the permit application. Before I hung up I was told about the $25.00 fee and the certificate of liability insurance I must have in order to stash a cache on DEC lands

 

Well I will tell you, that took the wind right out of my sails. I wanna know if this is a law or a policy of DEC. I think it's time to contact my senator. I am so po'd about this .

 

So I guess now geocachers have to worry about being sue by another geocacher who is out looking for their cache if they get hurt. Thats the excuse I got from DEC

[+JMBella]

self modded.....

Edited April 20, 2004 by JMBella

[+JMBella]

So I guess now geocachers have to worry about being sued by another geocacher who is out looking for their cache if they get hurt. Thats the excuse I got from DEC

So I guess we all need insurance if we want to hike on DEC property as well. I don't see the difference.

 

We need some consistency. My region has never heard of geocaching, region 4 is requiring insurance for it. We need Albany to get involved here and let all the regions know what's going on.

[Field-N-Water]

"State Forests" is another somewhat broad term that refers to lands that are under the jurisdiction of the DEC outside of the Adirondack and Catskill Parks.  It includes State Reforestation Areas, Multiple Use Areas, and Unique Areas.  Wildlife Management Areas are not considered State Forests.  They are managed by our Division of Fish, Wildlife & Marine Resources; I do not know if they permit geocaching.

 

Boy I thought there was some hope with that statement.

 

This is where I had planned a cache but the listing was denied . Big signs at the entrance that say State Forest and in the parking area another sign stating multiple use area. On the map it states Reforested area. So I call down to DEC to get the scoop and they told me, no, it is a DEC managed area but could fall under Division of Fish, Wildlife & Marine Resources too ????? But as far as the individual on the other end of the phone was concerned it fell under their juristiction and it is managed by DEC not Division of Fish, Wildlife & Marine Resources.

 

This is getting crazy.

[Field-N-Water]

My region has never heard of geocaching, region 4 is requiring insurance for it. We need Albany to get involved here and let all the regions know what's going on.

Let me clarify that. The only one who needs to show a 3rd party certificate for liability is the cache owner.

[+JMBella]

My region has never heard of geocaching, region 4 is requiring insurance for it. We need Albany to get involved here and let all the regions know what's going on.

Let me clarify that. The only one who needs to show a 3rd party certificate for liability is the cache owner.

I realize that. My point is that they are worried about people getting hurt while hunting for a cache. What's the difference if someone gets hurt if they're hiking? In other words if someone gets hurt while JUST hiking it's the DEC's responsibility. If someone gets hurt while hiking to a cache it's the cache owners responsibility? That doesn't make sense. It's all still hiking. I guess someone could get a paper cut on the log book. In that case I'll take responsibility and buy the person a band-aid.

[+nfa]

Hello,

 

I live inside the Blue Line, and am upset about the unfairness of the DEC position on geocaching. Snowmobilers run rampant all over the park, excreting noise and air pollution, not to mention beer cans and Mcdonald's wrappers, with minimal interference from the DEC. Why should geocachers be picked on while snowmobilers have the run of my/our public lands without the unfair restrictions? Geocaching is lower-impact than them, and can bring lots of economic activity into economically challenged areas of the park year around.

 

I think that we should organize a letter/email campaign to reach out to our senators and congresspeople, telling them that we would like a fair shake on the use of our public lands. I would not propose that geocaching be totally free from oversight, but the DEC's current stand is outrageous. We should be able to get a Temporary Revocable Permit (TRP, a bureaucratic tool of the DEC that already exists) that allows us to place geocaches on a 1-2 year basis, at which time, the state of geocaching on public lands can be reviewed by the DEC, and we could go on from there.

 

Are there any other New Yorkers interested in starting a campaign like I mention above? Please respond on this forum, and we can get started on the road to changing the DEC's minds about geocaching.

 

NFA - Jamie

[+OurWoods]

NYGO (http://ny-geocaching.org) is, and has been, working with and developing plans for contacting these agencies, and hopefully getting some good groundwork laid, and reversing these 'unfair' policies. It is a slow process, bugt we are making progress. If you are interested in working with us drop a us a note. Just because there isn't a lot of talk visible over there, don't assume nothing is being done. We will need people from all regions of NY on hand at one point or another.

[+JMBella]

NYGO (http://ny-geocaching.org) is, and has been, working with and developing plans for contacting these agencies, and hopefully getting some good groundwork laid, and reversing these 'unfair' policies. It is a slow process, but we are making progress. If you are interested in working with us drop a us a note. Just because there isn't a lot of talk visible over there, don't assume nothing is being done. We will need people from all regions of NY on hand at one point or another.

You know what? you right. I've been trying to deal with my region exclusively as LIGO but we need to be more unified. For the the purpose of negotiating with the DEC we should all be on the same page, which means working with NYGO. If it's OK, I will introduce myself a rep from NYGO so all DEC regions, senators, congresspeople etc... are hearing from the same organization.

[+nfa]

NYGO (http://ny-geocaching.org) is, and has been, working with and developing plans for contacting these agencies, and hopefully getting some good groundwork laid, and reversing these 'unfair' policies. It is a slow process, bugt we are making progress. If you are interested in working with us drop a us a note. Just because there isn't a lot of talk visible over there, don't assume nothing is being done. We will need people from all regions of NY on hand at one point or another.

Hi,

 

I visited the NYGO forums, and looked around...it looks like the same conversation over there...I would like to help NYGO and/or Geocaching.com with any effort they are making to help educate the NYS DEC about Geocaching, and to help persuade them to change their minds about the ridiculous new policies...please get in touch with me ASAP so that we can get started.

 

NFA - Jamie

[Field-N-Water]

You all can ad me to the list too. I am in region 4 which has the least geocaches then the rest of NY for the most part. Anything I can do just email me at geocaching@fieldnwater.com

[+ROCKY]

Hey now that your done kicking the once sleeping dog at the DEC how about poking the Parks people. I bet they will come up with a permit that costs $50.

PLEASE GET OFF YOUR DARN COMPUTER, go out and find a cache!

[+JMBella]

Hey now that your done kicking the once sleeping dog at the DEC how about poking the Parks people. I bet they will come up with a permit that costs $50.

PLEASE GET OFF YOUR DARN COMPUTER, go out and find a cache!

Try reading the forums a bit before responding. If you did you would realize the dog apparently woke up on his own and now we are trying to deal with it. In fact, I responded in a similar fashion but if you read Keystone's response early in the thread you'll see this situation most likely was not brought on by a particular cacher.

[Field-N-Water]

Has anyone ever heard of the DEC removing (or otherwise prohibiting) summit registers? All the 3500' peaks in the catskills that don't have a trail have them - and most are in wilderness areas - yet woe be to the person who wants to put a register in off-limits wilderness territory and post it on the geocaching.com site.

 

I just don't see much difference, especially when talking about caches with just a log book in them ..

This part really burns me up. I see no difference either except for the fact we post the location via internet. A great point to argue, but like someone said it might cause the registers to get pulled and we dont want that.

[+nfa]

Hey now that your done kicking the once sleeping dog at the DEC how about poking the Parks people.  I bet they will come up with a permit that costs $50.

PLEASE GET OFF YOUR DARN COMPUTER, go out and find a cache!

 

Gee...have a nice day too...

 

When I last spoke to the Region 5 (Raybrook) DEC office, they said that they were not allowing or approving permits for any physical caches inside the park, and that this was their interpretation of the broader DEC policy.

 

I responded by altering my proposed new caches to virtual caches, whick earned me a spanking from the folks here at geocaching.com for overusing the virtual cache concept...

 

I would be willing (not happy, but willing) to pay a permit fee to place my caches inside the Adirondack Park, but the DEC does not seem willing to let me...

 

I would be happy-ish if they do indeed go forward with the $25 fee + insurance idea that somebody has suggested is the new policy, as this gives us a place from which to start a campaign to win their hearts and minds over to geocaching.

 

I'm not a big fan of the ostrich approach of burying my head in the sand, and hoping that things work out, or that nobody notices me, but I wish Rocky good luck in his efforts.

 

Interested to find out if there is a DEC-wide policy,

 

NFA - Jamie

[Field-N-Water]

I responded by altering my proposed new caches to virtual caches, whick earned me a spanking from the folks here at geocaching.com for overusing the virtual cache concept...

 

I am a little confused on that statement. Are you saying that your cache was still denied for using a virtual on State Lands ? Please tell me I misunderstood.