Jump to content

Problem Park


shunra

Recommended Posts

A large state park in our area is rather cache-unfriendly. It allows caches, but only for a $10 fee (or bribe?), to be paid by the owner before permission is granted. Only one person has agreed to pay that fee so far, and has had to put up with additional requirements such as 'no ammo boxes, only see-through containers'. The ranger even suggested which trail that cache be put on.

 

The ranger monitors geocaching.com, or at least, he has done so in the past. He actually signed up as a user, and in at least two cases that I'm aware of he actually logged a note, saying he confiscated the cache. The caches were subsequently archived. At least one other cache has suddenly disappeared from the park, without such a notice.

 

This would be OK, sort of, if the sole reason would be that owners hadn't asked for permission, and/or would be in violation of some local park policy.

 

However, there are three other caches in that park: one is a very frequently logged cache in - yes - an ammo box, one is a micro, part of a series, the other caches of which are not in that particular park, and one is a multi with several containers of all sorts. No action is taken against those. The park ranger's policy is rather arbitrary, it seems.

 

It appears to me that the ranger is actually allowing these caches as a safeguard: It is rather intimidating: Anything that upsets the ranger's requirement or mood might result in retalliation against one of the existing caches.

 

I had been thinking of creating a series of virtual memorial caches for caches so cruelly plundered. One of them was one of the very first geocaches ever (FTF: Jeremy), from when they were still referred to as 'stashes'. Is this a good idea, or would this too draw undue attention?

Edited by Shunra
Link to comment

Find out who his boss is, ask them if they know what the $10 fee is used for (i.e. do they even know that it is being charged?)

 

Find other parks that are run by the same administration and see if they have a cache friendly policy - ask his boss about any discrepency.

 

I can understand the point about the container, but there is the issue of inconsistency.

 

my 2c

Link to comment

If he joined as a member just to monitor us, it would be nice to know when a "big brother" is watching us. Don't other people work at the park too, so would you have to pay $10 to each shift and the weekend people too? That could get expensive bribbing everyone that worked there.

Link to comment
A large state park in our area is rather cache-unfriendly. It allows caches, but only for a $10 fee (or bribe?), to be paid by the owner before permission is granted. Only one person has agreed to pay that fee so far, and has had to put up with additional requirements such as 'no ammo boxes, only see-through containers'. The ranger even suggested which trail that cache be put on.

 

The ranger monitors geocaching.com, or at least, he has done so in the past. He actually signed up as a user, and in at least two cases that I'm aware of he actually logged a note, saying he confiscated the cache. The caches were subsequently archived. At least one other cache has suddenly disappeared from the park, without such a notice.

 

This would be OK, sort of, if the sole reason would be that owners hadn't asked for permission, and/or would be in violation of some local park policy.

 

However, there are three other caches in that park: one is a very frequently logged cache in - yes - an ammo box, one is a micro, part of a series, the other caches of which are not in that particular park, and one is a multi with several containers of all sorts. No action is taken against those. The park ranger's policy is rather arbitrary, it seems.

 

It appears to me that the ranger is actually allowing these caches as a safeguard: It is rather intimidating: Anything that upsets the ranger's requirement or mood might result in retalliation against one of the existing caches.

 

I had been thinking of creating a series of virtual memorial caches for caches so cruelly plundered. One of them was one of the very first geocaches ever (FTF: Jeremy), from when they were still referred to as 'stashes'. Is this a good idea, or would this too draw undue attention?

I think a virtual would be just the ticket.
Link to comment

Is $10 normal? Like does the park normally charge that much for user fee/trail fee? Or is normally a fee for 'special activities' in the park?

 

I mean I can see the fee if theres an actual reason, what does this person say the money is for? But just tacking on a fee so there is one isn't cool...

Link to comment
A large state park in our area is rather cache-unfriendly. It allows caches, but only for a $10 fee (or bribe?), to be paid by the owner before permission is granted. Only one person has agreed to pay that fee so far, and has had to put up with additional requirements such as 'no ammo boxes, only see-through containers'. The ranger even suggested which trail that cache be put on.

 

The ranger monitors geocaching.com, or at least, he has done so in the past. He actually signed up as a user, and in at least two cases that I'm aware of he actually logged a note, saying he confiscated the cache. The caches were subsequently archived. At least one other cache has suddenly disappeared from the park, without such a notice.

 

This would be OK, sort of, if the sole reason would be that owners hadn't asked for permission, and/or would be in violation of some local park policy.

 

However, there are three other caches in that park: one is a very frequently logged cache in - yes - an ammo box, one is a micro, part of a series, the other caches of which are not in that particular park, and one is a multi with several containers of all sorts. No action is taken against those. The park ranger's policy is rather arbitrary, it seems.

 

It appears to me that the ranger is actually allowing these caches as a safeguard: It is rather intimidating: Anything that upsets the ranger's requirement or mood might result in retalliation against one of the existing caches.

 

I had been thinking of creating a series of virtual memorial caches for caches so cruelly plundered. One of them was one of the very first geocaches ever (FTF: Jeremy), from when they were still referred to as 'stashes'. Is this a good idea, or would this too draw undue attention?

If this is the person I think it is, the WSGA is aware of the situation. You might try contacting Seth! or CachinCin. Talks have been going on with the state parks department, or at least were.

 

WSGA was initially formed to deal with problems we were having with the State Park system. A lot of progress was made and a draft policy drawn up. Unfortunatly there was then a change in the State Park Department administration and things had to start all over.

 

FWIW, I seem to recall that the draft policy actually prefered Ammo Cans over Tupperware because they are animal safe.

Link to comment

There's a park called "Ruffner Mountain" near us that has a volunteer who "approves" each location. I don't know if he was told to give me the runaround, but I moved the blasted thing FIVE times before archiving it yesterday. He/they had no problem with another of my caches in the park, but this one made him nuts for some reason.

 

Talk about abusing the little power you have... some cachers have taken to calling him a "nature nazi."

Link to comment

Probably not I'm talking about Ft. Worden State Park.

Nearby Ft. Flagler State Park is very cache-friendly.

 

As to the containers - I was very surprised, too.

 

I would love to have results of a general agreement with the state parks, binding to both sides, which would on the one hand require that cache owners comply with some specific clearly stated SP requirements, and on the other absolve us from the need to ask permission for every single cache.

 

GC has a clear understanding with the National Parks that only virtuals are allowed - so that's clear. We need something similars with other authorities.

 

In the meantime, I wonder how to deal with my local park's attitude. I appreciate feedback on my virtual memory cache idea.

Link to comment

Your virtual cache is can only fan the flames. The irony is that a VC will generate as much traffic in the park as a normal cache. That a Fee isn't really something you can charge for a virtual just shows that the Fee for a traditional cache is only to pay them for the cost of letting them know there is a box on their grounds. They could do the same thing for a buck or free if they track NV and GC sites.

Link to comment

It sounds like you need to find out if they have their Geocaching policy in writing. Then determine who is responsible for creating/adjuticating it and try and get it resolved through them. The local park ranger may be acting as the enforcer because this is disrupting his daily work load.

 

You may also want to give him some examples of aganecies that allow Geocaching, try this one St. Johns River Water Management District

or

Geocaching Policies in the US

Link to comment
Is $10 normal? Like does the park normally charge that much for user fee/trail fee? Or is normally a fee for 'special activities' in the park?

 

I mean I can see the fee if theres an actual reason, what does this person say the money is for? But just tacking on a fee so there is one isn't cool...

The $10 fee is not normal, but extortion seems to be. Unlike most State Parks, Ft. Worden State Park is not currently charging a $5 access fee, because our City Council has agreed to make an annual lump sum payment instead.

Link to comment
Your virtual cache is can only fan the flames.

I'm afraid you're right - unless that page would be very friendly, and make the irony even plain to them. After all, they encourage hikes in the part. I thought it might be the litering that they're concerned about.

 

The irony is that a VC will generate as much traffic in the park as a normal cache. That a Fee isn't really something you can charge for a virtual just shows that the Fee for a traditional cache is only to pay them for the cost of letting them know there is a box on their grounds. They could do the same thing for a buck or free if they track NV and GC sites.

 

Which they already do.

Link to comment

My understanding is that if the park charges a fee, even for a permit, that gives them some legal liability. If, for example, the cache owner paid the $10.00 fee and placed a cache and another cacher was injured while searching for it the park would be responsible.

Any lawyers out there that can tell me if this is correct?

Link to comment

I am the owner of the cache in question, Sweet 16 “Peace Mile”, and I did pay $10 to place the cache.

 

The cache is one of a series of 16, where the seeker has to find 15 preliminary caches before looking for the final Grand Prize cache. One of the sites I was using needed to be replaced, and it needed to be done with some haste as there was a seeker working his way through the series.

 

I generally try to maintain some integrity in my choice of cache locations, and didn’t want to throw a cache under any bush just to have an active cache. My small town has filled up rapidly with caches, and I only had one idea of where to put a new one. It proved unworkable, so I decided to tackle the bureaucracy at Fort Worden. It’s a beautiful park, and I knew I could find a spot there.

 

I knew in advance that a $10 fee might be required. The last person to have their cache removed had written about it.

 

When I went to the park office, I was pleasantly surprised that the word ‘geocaching’ got me an immediate appointment with the assistant park director, Steve Shively. Steve explained that the park’s history with geocaching had not been entirely positive. There had been a cache placed there in a paper bag, and another in an ammo can that had a skull and crossbones and the word DANGER painted on the outside. The last cache to be removed had become a wandering cache in the last month of its life—it kept showing up in the middle of the trail. The cache owner lived 2 or 3 hours away, and was either unable or unwilling to provide cache maintenance. He raged when his cache was removed, but apparently never bothered to come collect it. Nonetheless, Steve was receptive to my placing the cache, and was grateful that I had come to see him in advance of doing so. He suggested two possible locations where I might place it, but I did not feel restricted to these spots. The only concerns he voiced were cache density within the park and environmental impact. And he did express a preference for see-through containers.

 

I had worried in advance that I might endanger the caches already within the park if it was truly a geo-unfriendly place, and came prepared to plead stupidity if asked, but Steve brought up the subject by saying that he was aware of the other caches in the park and had no problem with them. He said that he monitors GC.com. He asked me to go choose a spot, and then return and get the location approved by the head ranger.

 

The ranger approved my location, and we sat in his office filling out a Special Use permit. The permit details the location of the cache, my responsibilites in regards to cache maintenance, and the fact that the park management reserves the right to remove the cache if it is deemed a hazard to the public or environment. It was only at the end of this process that a fee was mentioned. The ranger asked me if I was supposed to pay a fee or not. I said that Steve had not mentioned one. The ranger decided that I had better be charged the going rate for a special use permit.

I paid at the front office with a credit card. I was issued a printed Invoice/Statement, and I have a copy of my permit.

 

I certainly have mixed feelings about this. I hated to set a precedent of showing a willingness to pay for placing a cache. But I understand their non-geocacher perspective. All told, I spent about an hour of office time with two of Fort Worden's top management. They claim that they periodically check on the caches as well. They have had less than wonderful interactions with geocaching in the past, and want to have some knowledge and control of caches in their park. I think that I was a good ambassador for geocaching, and probably left them feeling more geo-friendly than before, but the fee is a sticky point. I wouldn't have 19 active caches if I'd had to pay $10 to place each one.

 

I must confess, I actually have another cache in this park, but it is a puzzle cache, and they're going to have to figure out the puzzle if they're going to know it's there. :o

 

So, please, offer your opinions. Was I really wrong to have paid, and how should this park be approached in the future?

Link to comment
So, please, offer your opinions. Was I really wrong to have paid, and how should this park be approached in the future?

Thanks for providing the details.

 

No, you were right to comply with park regs....

I agree, offering cash for cache isn't a good idea, some park director might just decide to see how much they can collect :o . However, if caching is viewed as one of the things needing a permit, get them. Convincing that park, or the whole system, to see that geocaching is not very different from hiking (something thats free, right?) might be good. You could even point out that it could draw more park visitors, and CITO would help keep the area clean... But if they've problems in the past, they may not be excited about attracting more cachers :D .

Link to comment

You may want to check out the "Free" policy we have for Pennsylvania State Parks and State Forests when dealing with your State Parks people. You can find it Here.

 

So far things have gone well here. But even with the policy and permitting process there are a few park/forest managers who, for whatever reason, are anti-caching. I don't think you can avoid that. But, for the most part, things have been great. Many pre-policy caches have even been permitted and very few are being pulled.

 

Some parks have even been extremely pro-geocaching. I recently found a new cache in a State Park and was impressed to see that the Park actually designed their own geocache container sticker. The sticker was very "welcoming" and designed to be specific to their park. I think those Parks people understand that geocachers can be their best friend!

 

Good luck!

Salvelinus

Link to comment

I know of a park in San Diego county that is an open space preserve, and they watched the status of various caches for awhile in their park (2 years), and saw a lot of new trails forming through habitat and stuff. Lots of extra impact, directly related to some caches. They really couldn't deal with having someone monitor (not even for a fee, that just seems unethical) the caches to make sure they didn't become a problem. Early on some cachers were really really cool about it and removed some caches after seeing the damage themselves and agreeing.

 

Why do I describe this, because now they have a very consistent policy, the head ranger decided that the activity of geocaching (other then virtual of course) was not welcome in the park. They began removing caches and placing stakes with "No geocaching" on them where the caches had been.

 

Guess what, cachers removed the signs, bragged about it, replaced the caches, ranted and raved. etc. Only one geocacher went to their office and spoke to them about it. Unfortunately, the decision was not reversible by that point, especially in light of so many logs that indicated extensive off-trail activity.

 

At least one of the rangers feels the same way I do, that it is a shame, but that they had no other choice. Now, cachers are ranting again, calling names, etc. One even replaced a cache on a piece of land that is going through mitigation, in the process he mixed a bag of concrete, on boulders, then poured it and stuck a 40ft flagpole in it. The names, who cares? the concrete? that is just wrong.

 

I just don't understand it myself. It sounds like there are just people who can't cooperate or get along no matter what. Unethical bribe and swag collecting rangers. Cachers who bushwhack, even when they know they shouldn't (least bell's vireos nest in the area, poor little birds...)

 

Ok, I am not sure this really fit the topic, but I just wanted to point out that not all rangers are evil. Some are truly trying to protect a resource, not chase out the public. And some rangers do understand that most cachers are good and considerate, nature loving people...but not all. And I know you know this too. :rolleyes:

 

I would personally suggest just ceasing activity in the park mentioned as a problem. except for virtuals. Don't give the problem ranger any fun. After awhile, he will probably forget about the whole thing, unless someone reminds him with obvious off trail activity.

 

Good luck to you.

golanv.

Link to comment
At least one of the rangers feels the same way I do, that it is a shame, but that they had no other choice. Now, cachers are ranting again, calling names, etc. One even replaced a cache on a piece of land that is going through mitigation, in the process he mixed a bag of concrete, on boulders, then poured it and stuck a 40ft flagpole in it. The names, who cares? the concrete? that is just wrong.

 

I think the TPTB would care. Someone who did this should not have access to this website. An action like this gives every geocacher a black eye.

Link to comment

Well, there really isn't enough evidence to prove that the person we know planted the flagpole, did it. It is all circumstantial, based on the following.

 

His username

His outspoken opinions on the topic

His replacement of the cache on the same day the flag appeared...

 

etc.

 

Anyway, It isn't my place to tattle on people. Now, if someone came and asked me about it privately, I would maybe give more info...but I really don't want to join this person in being so negative. :(

 

thanks!

golanv

Link to comment

Actually, there are a couple "trash caches" and they left those alone. :(

 

The park does understand that geocachers aren't bad people per se, and the park staff would probably enjoy a CITO event, unfortunately, none of the cachers in the area that are upset over the Park's rule about geocaching, have gone to talk to the rangers! They just keep making comments in the cache logs, toward the rangers.

 

If there hadn't been so much damage in the beginning, they probably would have let it continue. The only thing they really took issue with was the habitat destruction and off-trail activity. They know that these aren't all caused by cachers, but they saw a lot of direct impact in areas with caches.

 

One really funny part, to me anyhow, is how people complained before that the park arbitrarily removed caches. The case was that they just removed some when they had time. But now that they have a rule, and remove them all, the same people who complained about it being arbitrary, complain about the consistency!

 

hehehhee, anyhow, thanks for listening!

golanv

Link to comment

The "trash caches" are not on the San Dieguito River Park property as far as I am aware. They are south of Duenda Road, if these are the caches I think you are refering to. In this regard, the exact jurisdiction of the SDRP rangers seems rather ephemeral to me and to several people I have talked to. The "park" is under a joint powers authority comprised of six governments. Most of the Lake Hodges area and San Pasqual Valley is San Diego city property I believe. The maps showing the joint powers authority ''Focused Planning Area'' includes an array of different types of land, including private land. Some of it even appears to me to be Forest Service land.

 

One cacher requested a map with boundaries and was mailed the same nebulous map seen on the web site.

 

I'm sure the head ranger thinks I'm an SOB, but I can tell you that I was personally upset with a few of the off-trail cache placements around Lake Hodges. I was thinking "why the heck did they put the cache way up here instead of two feet from the trail tread."

 

BTW, not everyone that goes into the ranger station snaps their suspenders and says "I'm a geocacher and I'm OK." I've been in there several times and have even signed up for volunteer work.

 

I think what upsets cachers in the area is that our recreational activity is forbidden while other activities are not. You know as well as I do that there are bicyclists, dog owners, boaters, runners, hikers, and other park users that create trails and/or do damage to the environment. The actviites are not banned because of the behavior of a few dumb people, but instead the authorities try to educate and remind people to be considerate of the habitat and to stay on trails and not create new ones. I've seen scattered trash, places where humans and pets defecated, mountain bike ruts off-trail, and many other things in the SDRP. If you really want to protect the environment and be impartial, you should ban all activity completely. However, because cachers are few in number and do not as yet have a powerful enough voice, we are pushed around. The state authorities, due to pressure from off-roading groups, set aside huge areas of natural land to be destroyed wholesale (OHV areas), simply because those people put pressure on politicians. We, however, are by-and-large, a rather well-educated, environmentally-concerned group of people, and I would think the rangers would rather work with us rather than shun us.

 

Parsa

Link to comment

Ya know, it is funny the things you say. The rangers didn't shun anyone. In fact, the first caches that were removed, there was no hub-bub at all. The owners of the caches didn't have any issues at all. Only a very small group has been complaining and making bad remarks about the rangers, and making the job of the rangers harder. Try for just a few minutes to pretend you aren't a teacher. Pretend you are a ranger, and instead of kids, your responsibility is that park. You build the trails, you maintain the trails, you deal with dogs off leash and graffitti and vadalism every day, you pick up trash and create activities for park visitors, while trying to educate as well.

YOU only know one side. We actually know both, as at least I have been listening.

 

Again, only one cacher has gone to them to talk about this issue. If you want to be heard, then go in and DO identify yourself as a geocacher. Why not? talk to them about it. They won't shun you. My husband wouldn't shun anyone for that matter. You really are being very judgemental when you say such things. Other cachers have had very unkind words to share as well. The worst thing the rangers did was put signs on the cache locations that said NO Geocaching.

 

As for the park boundaries, we have had great chuckles over some of the things cachers have said about pieces of land. :D If you want the facts, again, go to their office, email them, call them, something besides just ranting on a forum, that they DON'T READ!!!

 

:D

namaste

golanv

Link to comment

Oh, I fogot, here is the SDRP mission statement for those that don't know.

 

"To preserve and restore land within the Focused Planning Area of the San Dieguito River Park as a regional open space greenway and park system that protects the natural waterways and the natural and cultural resources and sensitive lands and provides compatible recreational opportunities, including water related uses, that do not damage sensitive lands.

 

To provide a continuous and coordinated system of preserved lands with a connecting corridor of walking, equestrian, and bicycle trails, encompassing the San Dieguito River Valley from the ocean to the river's source."

 

The first mission is the first paragraph. That comes first. Please note that one of the most disputed caches that was removed was actually on a cultural site. It might not be marked as such, but there are a lot of cultural sites off-trail in SDRP.

 

the fpa pic you posted a link to Parsa is accurate from what I know. That isn't the best rendition though. I recommend you check out their topo maps at the office.

 

also, about the flagpole issue. I am not accusing anyone, I want to make that clear.

 

namaste

golanv

Link to comment

I fully support removing problem caches, but it would help if someone emailed the owner or posted a note on the cache page. It helps to be informed. That way people won't even bother going to get the cache. I know the rangers (or someone) has to look at the cache pages, because they remove them by finding them with the coordinates. A sign does help, however, because it keeps cachers from wandering around looking for something that's not there, which causes much more damage. Some rangers at other agencies are not considerate (or bright?) enough to post a sign.

 

The rangers out in the Anza Borrego were very cool. They stated to me that caching was one of the lowest impact recreational activities in the park, and that cachers seemed to be better educated on the cultural and natural features of the Park than almost anyone else. One cacher however placed a cache within the area of the Little Blair Valley Indian village. It was discovered by a ranger-anthropologist, and he removed it. They brought it to us (with a friendly smile) when they met us for an event cache last October.

 

I think you may be referring to Stevens Cache (not sure, and that's not me BTW), but I can promise that we'll make sure caches in the future are carefully placed. We just had a bad start. People like Tuna (a Canyoneer guide and Mission Trails guide) are wise enough to remove their own problem caches, but others need more guidance. I can asure you that the you are not the only one who gets firey emails. It was emails from me (and others) to the owner of the Raptor Ridge cache on the Mule Hill Trail in SDRP that made them remove it. They weren't happy about it. The geocaching administrators get it even worse, I'm sure, when they archive a cache.

 

Parsa

Link to comment

Yeah, I know all about the bad start, David and I really are hopeful that this can be overcome, but hate mail from people like tucson really doesn't help. When David hears about people sending me letters like that, he just wants to throw his hands in the air and give up. Basically, it does require the cooperation of people like yourself, and others, or it just won't work.

 

I hope this can be better. I have to finish the code I am working on, so if you want to tell me something, send me an email at my work.

I would be happy to get to know any of you better, but I really am tired of being attacked. I shouldn't have to deal with that crap. I haven't done anything wrong.

 

Oh, and the cache containers are all at the SDRP office, the only thing not there for sure are the TBs, which I promise to take care of very soon. I think they would really appreciate people picking up the containers, as they take up a lot of space. :D

 

thanks

golanv

Link to comment

For further clarification this park is an old military base on the coast. The parks main concern is for the safety of their visitors. The abandoned bunkers and cliffs can be very dangerous. They are supportive of geocaching in the park when cachers work with them. They just want the opportunity to make sure the cache is in a safe area.

 

I have personally been involved in the discussion about caching in this park. I've corresponded with Mr. Shively via email, and met with the Park Ranger in person. This cache is currently in my garage. Repeated emails to the registered owner have gone unanswered.

 

While the issue of caching regulations is of interest to every cacher, this thread was started about a specific park. I think it should be moved to the Northwest forum and the discussion about caching in this and other Washington State parks can continue there.

Link to comment
What you do is hide a whole bunch of caches that are marked as trads, but aren't really out there!!!

That would not be helpful. We need to work with the parks to show them that we are responsible. Posting a bunch of caches that aren't really there will only cause the area to be torn up.

 

Now if you were just kidding, then you got me. But this is a very sensitive issue that I have been working on for quite sometime. I don't have much of a sense of humor when it comes to deceiving the parks department.

Link to comment
Moving this topic from the General Geocaching Discussions forum to the Northwest forum per the suggestion of Team Misguided.

KA, could you please move it back to where I had posted it? Although my original gripe was indeed with a particular part in my NW hometown, the problem is a general one. Indeed, many of the contributions related to other problem parks in the San Diego area, and somewhere in the Midwest (don't remember exactly).

 

I believe that the way we communicate with park officials is of general interest.

 

Thanks!

Edited by Shunra
Link to comment

I think people are a little timid about walking into a ranger station where their cache is located and having to show ID to get it back, possibly with some sort of lecture attached. :lol: A $1 mint tin or a $4 ammo box may not be worth the trouble. That was one reason corysmom sort of went on our behalf to check things out. I even told her she could fetch my caches, but they wouldn't even let her have the travel bugs let alone any caches. One person at the SDRP (don't know who it was) kept saying "geo-gashing" to her... on purpose. The situation just seemed a bit too hot for any of us to head over there. :P

 

Parsa

Link to comment

Yeah, I think I know who you are talking about. Rest assured, from what I understand, there are no problems with picking it up. I recommend emailing my husband and arranging a time on a Sunday when he is there to pick them up. That way, it isn't such a big deal.

Parsa, you should know his geocaching username by now :lol:

That way, the cache owners can contact him through geocaching.com and he will know it is them when they come.

 

They really would prefer that the owners come get them. They can't just toss them, as they belong to people.

 

They wouldn't let CoreysMom take the TBs because they weren't hers, and from the third-hand story I heard, she wasn't too friendly either. No way to know though, as I wasn't there. :P The situation should be better now. I still recommend Sunday though.

 

golanv

Link to comment
For further clarification this park is an old military base on the coast. The parks main concern is for the safety of their visitors. The abandoned bunkers and cliffs can be very dangerous. They are supportive of geocaching in the park when cachers work with them. They just want the opportunity to make sure the cache is in a safe area.

That is a load of bull excrement. When I went and found Ghost Fort (before it was outlawed) there were plenty of people, adults and kids, running around on, in, and through those bunkers. None of them, incidently had GPSrs. There is not so much as a warning sign. I don't buy the public safety line.

 

The most dangerous cache I've ever done (or at least the one I felt the most unsafe doing) was in a Washington State Park. Guess what? There were all kinds of people in various stages of age and sobriety running around there, too.

Link to comment

What you might want to do is:

 

A) Talk to this Ranger's Supervisor. Offer to bring your lawyer.

 

B) Let the world know who this creep is. Name, photo, the works.

 

As long as people allow him to extort money for setting caches, he's gonna do it. It doesn't matter what state the Ranger works in.

 

And, assuming the parks don't have an official, published policy regarding fees for caches, then the Ranger is committing a felony.

 

Having worked for the Government for most of my adult life, I have learned a few of the rules. :mad:

Link to comment

Shop99er:

 

That is the type of attitude that has gotten us where we are now. All this ranger is doing is enforcing the Special activity permit that is already in place for his park. The reason he is doing it, is so that he has a chance to make sure that future caches placed in the park are in appropriate areas.

 

We need to work with the parks. If we keep trying to work around them or behind their backs they will never see geocaching for the fun family activity that we all know it to be.

Link to comment

If they dont want you to put caches in a park then don't. There are plunty of other places. take a walk in the woods there are quite alot of natrual places that arn't parks and make great hiding places. If you absolutly need to place a cache there make it a multi with the last one in the park and the others in spots where they won't get mad (like not in the park) They cant stop us, but we should respect there rules.We're quite lucky when they first found them they knew what they were, can you imagine if you didnt know about geocaching and found a strange ammo can in the woods you call the cops,they send the bomb squad, they determain its a geocache It gets into the news people are appuled then the city is presurred into banning geocaching .Thats one possability but if someone thinks that a geocache is a bomb then the number of people joining would decrease and the number of bans would increase and instead of this park banning it every single park within 100 miles bans it. Thats just my opinion

Edited by geojed
Link to comment

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...