Archived Caches

May 5, 2004

I have a cache less than 1 mile from my house in southeastern Colorado. It's in the Rio Grande National Forest. CO_app@yahoo.com keeps telling me and 37 others that they are in the San Juan National Forest and there is a boundary dispute and our caches can't be listed. I called both the San Juan National Forest & The Rio Grande National Forest and they said there is no border dispute and my cache is in the Rio Grande. I also informed Mapquest (the maps you see when you pull up a cache page) that they are incorrect when they show the San Juan National Forest East of the Continental Divide. I don't know what to do. I want to be able to take care of the cache but the Geocache people(whom ever they are) won't admit that they are in error OR they won't tell us the real reason they won't list the caches. I would really like some help on this matter.

2.7k · May 5, 2004

Until Mapquest gets it's act together (geocaching.com has no control over this) I would suppose that CO_Admin doesn't have much of a choice.

I bet he has hundreds of caches in his queue and is trying to get as many approved as he can - as VOLUNTEER he only has so much time to work on them. It may be that geocaching.com has a rule that goes by mapquest's data, in which case he may be stuck.

I understand you are frustrated, but slow down and think it through from his side as well. You're conclusion may not change, but at least you'll be more understanding.

May 5, 2004

I don't know why they are using mapquest anyway. If they get the correct info (which I gave them with phone numbers and principals) they should be able to list it. There are caches all around this one that are listed, one of which is mine. I don't like to be lied to which they did. If they have a problem with the cache tell me. By the way, Mapquest won't change their maps for a year or more because they don't do them. I also have been a moderator on the web and I understand his problems, but I gave the correct answer and the tools to verify it.

Edited May 5, 2004 by Conejossam

1.3k · May 5, 2004

Have you asked him what you can do to resolve the issue. I don't expect the approvers to spend their time calling federal agencies and verifying geocaches. Perhaps he would agree to you getting written permission (from one or both of the agencies), scanning the paper and uploading that to the cache page. Perhaps not.

But the truth is that they are approvers on a listing service. They aren't obligated to list anything. If you don't like the fact that they choose not to list a cache, you can have it listed elsewhere.

7.2k · May 5, 2004

...you can have it listed elsewhere.

BINGO!

24.7k · May 5, 2004

If it's as simple as a map error and there is no real dispute then the approver can either trust your ground work which I think they should unless proven otherwise, or tell you what an accepatble solution to the problem is.

Given the situation is as you outline. A map error and the caches are actually ok where they are at then have you emailed CO_admin for what the acceptable proof would be? As has been pointed out the tools they have at hand are the online maps and personal experience.

38.2k · May 5, 2004

Mapquest is often very wrong. I have a cache in a state park that MQ shows to be well outside the park boundries (over a half mile). It even has the wrong name for some parks, so I don't understand why the admins would consider it the ultimate authority (if they do).

Can you get the USGS survey map for the area? Perhaps this will be correct and you can fax it to the admin to prove your point. I'm not sure why CO Admin would be so intransigent regarding this. You've been there and know where your cache is and he's sitting behind a PC hundreds of miles away using flawed software...unless there is another side to the story (which we often do find out once the admim chimes in).

Edited May 5, 2004 by briansnat

May 5, 2004

I have contacted the administrator and asked him if I could have the info that they have so that I could assist them in any way I could. I also included US Forest Service Maps. I didn't get a reply.

9.4k · May 5, 2004

I think CO Admin is being cautious. You don't live in Colorado, you live in California. Here's a comment he put on your other Colorado cache:

You live 877 miles away. Caches need to be maintained, and that may be hard to do if you live far away. If the cache gets wet or damaged, you need to be able to repair, replace or remove the remains in a timely manner. Anything less and your cache becomes litter. This litter has the potential to give all geocachers a bad reputation, which is why the guidelines mentioned above state:
Placing Caches on Vacation

Placing caches on vacation is unacceptable and these caches will not be approved on the web site. As the cache owner you are obligated to be in a position to manage your caches, and caches placed on vacation require someone else to maintain them for you. Please be responsible.

I assume you had a good dialogue with him, as he approved the cache 2 days later. With your new submission, he will also need some information from you, such as who will be maintaining it while you're out of town?

On top of this, he is a volunteer with lots of caches to review and can't just sit in front of the computer looking up information on your cache.

2.3k · May 5, 2004

This is the information that I have given to the cache owner several times already:

San Juan National Forest recently banned caches on their land. We are in the middle of getting them to allow caches through a permit system. There is a border dispute between SJNF and the Rio grand people. it has NOTHING to do with mapquest or any other mapping software. There is one cache affected by this problem. The other 38 are well within the SJNF area. Therefore there is no question about them. It boils down to this, I am not willing to risk the current fragile negotiations by fighting them for one cache. The border dispute will be resolved and at that time the cache will either be approvable as is or approvable with a SJNF permit.

As I have asked before it is simply a matter of waiting till it gets resolved. The one thing this does not need is additional people trying to help and running the risk of destroying the hard work done so far.

Please be patient and hang in there. This will get fixed but needs time. Please allow us that time so that the entire SJNF can again be opened to all caches.

Thank you

CO Admin

Edited May 5, 2004 by CO Admin

May 5, 2004

Are there other mapping sites that show your cache location correctly? If it is just a problem with Mapquest, you could point out the different map site to the admin - that might help.

3k · May 5, 2004

CO Admin has answered the question succinctly. Be patient and don't screw it up for the rest of the people who have worked so hard thus far. Patience is a virtue.

6.4k · May 5, 2004

I'm not sure why CO Admin would be so intransigent regarding this. You've been there and know where your cache is and he's sitting behind a PC hundreds of miles away using flawed software...unless there is another side to the story (which we often do find out once the admim chimes in).

Looks like that other side has been heard from. The cache reviewer may not be local, but he is a heck of a lot more local then the hider. Since the hider lives almost 1000 miles away, he problably has no real clue about the local issues. And why should he care? It's not going to impact his local caching if caches 1000 miles away get banned. Heck, he only bothered to find 1 cache in the whole state while hiding at least 2.

Edited May 5, 2004 by Mopar

1.4k · May 5, 2004

Hey Conejossam-

You want me to go rough him up a bit??

CoAdmin will treat you fair. He is on your side but when there is a "grey" area about the placing of a cache, he will use the side of caution and say so. Which he has done. Be prepared to face the reality that your cache may not be approved. (may be temporary or permanent.)

He is a good guy and a top notch approver! ( oh my gosh, Did I say that?? )

On your behalf, when you have a concern about things of this nature, bringing it up in the forums is the right place after you feel you have exhausted the line of communications between you and the Admin. Any Admin!

Hang in there and as Planet said,"Patience is a virgin,uh virtue."

3.9k · May 5, 2004

I don't like to be lied to which they did.

Yeah, OK. What would CO have to gain by lying to you about this?

4k · May 5, 2004

I don't like to be lied to which they did.

Yeah, OK. What would CO have to gain by lying to you about this?

That's kinda what I was wondering, too.

1.1k · May 5, 2004

I am kinda confused about someone's comment that the cache placer lives 1000 miles away (so most of their finds are in California), but yet the cache placer says that the cache is only 1 mile away from his home. Perhaps he moved...perhaps he has 2 homes.

Perhaps the placer can move his cache to a closeby location where the boarder dispute (if there is one...that isn't clear based on the different stories from the approver, placer, and the authorites involved) isn't a factor. Conejossam, work with your admin to find a new suitable location.

2.1k · May 5, 2004

Hi,

I recently listed a cache, and had some initial trouble getting it approved.

The map the Mtn-Man was using shows the cache location to be on state preserve land, which in my neck of the woods is off limits to placing physical caches. We had some back and forth, including my losing my cool a bit.

Mtn-Man ended up approving the cache while placing a log that stated:

The cache owner has assured me that this cache is on private property and that no state land must be crossed to access the cache. If there are any problems the cache will be archived.

Although I was not happy about the log at first, I now can see how this was really a great compromise on the part of the approver. The cache has been visited a number of times without mishap, it's about 200 yards behind my house through the woods (and really is on my land), but gc.com was/is protected in the case that I had been deceiving them.

This is a great example of the lengths to which gc.com approvers will go to work with geocachers to protect and enhance the sport.

NFA

Edited May 5, 2004 by NFA

4.8k · May 5, 2004

Perhaps the placer can move his cache to a closeby location where the boarder dispute (if there is one...that isn't clear based on the different stories from the approver, placer, and the authorites involved) isn't a factor. Conejossam, work with your admin to find a new suitable location.

That was my thought. Just move the cache to a place where there will not be an issue.

May 5, 2004

I agree with res2100 and carleenp. However, he is 877 miles away.

2.7k · May 5, 2004

Maps and Cache placement have been a problem here in CO before. And either C.A.C.H.E and or CO Admin has been trying to alleviate these placement problems for awhile.

Before we had a local approver Longs Peak was placed by a cacher from a different part of the state who swears that this cache wasn't on NPS Rocky Mtn. Park lands. Well the borders had changed and what is even really stupid on the planters part is that you can even see a visitors information lodge that RMNP has from the cache. It takes a little research before you plant them.

And after CO admin took over, he corrected his mistake of approving a cache that was in a Designated Wilderness Area. His maps were not current as to where the boundaries were. And after I informed him that the location of the Cache was definately in the Commanche Peak Wilderness Area, the Irish Automobile was promptly archived. And it has the apperance that the placer of this cache was a sock puppet just trying to play with our minds. I went back into the area to see if I could find the Cache and its location was quite dubious and definately unsafe for cachers. The spring runoff will flush it someplace. Here is some information of where this cache was placed. West Creek

And there was this Cache that was planted by a novice, and when informed that the cache was in a Designated Wilderness Area he archived it.

So CO Admin does what he does with what information he has, and it takes all of us to place a good cache. One that makes both Cachers and land mangers happy. So if in doub't of where to place the cache do some map work and you will probably find a better place to place it where both sides will be happy.

May 5, 2004

I have a home less than 1 mile from this cache & I'm there every month. I have another cache approx 1 mile from this one and it's listed. There are several more, (GCG9Y4, GCGDR5, GC654A, GCHG97, GC5D49) nearby in the same Rio Grande National Forest. Everyone That I've talked to at the San Juan & Rio Grande Forestry Service have told me there is no dispute. I asked the moderator for where they get their info but all they say it's in dispute. If it is why doesn't the San Juan or Rio Grande know about it. I've talked to both headquarters and their survey teams and both say there is no dispute. As far as the San Juan not allowing caches I won't put one there.

7.2k · May 5, 2004

Although I was not happy about the log at first, I now can see how this was really a great compromise on the part of the approver. The cache has been visited a number of times without mishap, it's about 200 yards behind my house through the woods (and really is on my land), but gc.com was/is protected in the case that I had been deceiving them.

Thanks for you post NFA. My log was meant only in an informative way so the local parks people would know that we are trying to make sure we don't approve a cache in error.

Conejossam, there is a VERY simple solution to this problem. Very simple. Have the supervisor for the area visit and/or look at the site for the cache and give you written approval for it. They can then email that permission directly to COAdmin at the email address you posted above (which should not have been posted in total since web spiders will scrape that address and spam his account). If you have written permission from the controlling authority to place the cache and they email that to COAdmin, then there is no issue.

Are you afraid to ask them for written permission?

4.8k · May 5, 2004

What Mtn-man said. In the alternative, just move the cache to another area. I think either option is likely alot less work than calling park people about boundaries, writing mapquest, and complaining. Both involve less angst as well. Less angst is always a good thing!

24.7k · May 5, 2004

I have to take everything listed here at face value on both sides of the fence. It looks like CO_Admin has a valid concern in a larger issue of working to open land as indicated below.

I am not willing to risk the current fragile negotiations by fighting them for one cache. The border dispute will be resolved and at that time the cache will either be approvable as is or approvable with a SJNF permit.
As I have asked before it is simply a matter of waiting till it gets resolved. The one thing this does not need is additional people trying to help and running the risk of destroying the hard work done so far.

The concern is fine, the goal is laudable. The question at hand though isn't the larger issue and wheather one cache is the last straw. It's is this cache approvable or not. If it's in the lands that allow caches it should be approved barring other issues (such as the vacation issue which seems to be a non issue now).

There is no guidelines that says If a cache is suspected to be a deal breaker on a larger issue but can be shown by the local to be ok it still shouldn't be approved because the risk isn't worth it. That's ground I don't want to see GC.com heading down and especially geocaching in general. I can think of a lot of scenarios that would have OC-Admin with his knowledge and yet give Conejossam his knowledge based on the politics of the situation.

GC.com is in the business of listing caches. If they won't, and this thread doesn't get you anywhere list the dang thing on Navicache. You will have less finders but if the cache is viable and you have done the legwork then why waste time driving down a dead end? Besides you as the owner are ultimatly responsible. Read the fine print of your membership...

Edit: Spelling and fine print comment.

Edited May 5, 2004 by Renegade Knight

9.4k · May 5, 2004

I am kinda confused about someone's comment that the cache placer lives 1000 miles away (so most of their finds are in California), but yet the cache placer says that the cache is only 1 mile away from his home. Perhaps he moved...perhaps he has 2 homes.

If that's the case, why wouldn't he have more finds around his second (or new) home in Colorado?

38.2k · May 5, 2004

I asked the moderator for where they get their info but all they say it's in dispute. If it is why doesn't the San Juan or Rio Grande know about it. I've talked to both headquarters and their survey teams and both say there is no dispute

Could be an issue of one hand not knowing what the other is doing, so its possible that you are getting your info from a different source than CO Admin. A lot of people in these agencies don't communicate. There is a similar miscommunication within NY's DEC where people contact their regional supervisors and rangers who say go ahead, place your cache, but the person the local admin is in contact with says caches aren't allowed, so the caches are denied. They're still working to straighten that mess out.

Conejossam, there is a VERY simple solution to this problem. Very simple. Have the supervisor for the area visit and/or look at the site for the cache and give you written approval for it

That may, or may not be a simple solution. Depending on their resources, which are often limited, it may not be so easy to have a ranger or supervisor come out to a cache site. I'm fairly certain it won't be in the top 10 on their list of priorities.

If we start becoming a bug in the ear of these people, they might just say forget the whole thing.

Edited May 5, 2004 by briansnat

2.1k · May 5, 2004

Having a cache placement denied is just part of the game. Easiest way to solve the problem is to go out and place another cache in a different location. The physical effort is healthier than getting hot over the denial.

This cache most likely is in an approvable location but the perception that it could be in the "wrong" forest (on the part of the approver or forest managers involved with negotiation) will have a negative effect on geocaching.

May 5, 2004

I am kinda confused about someone's comment that the cache placer lives 1000 miles away (so most of their finds are in California), but yet the cache placer says that the cache is only 1 mile away from his home. Perhaps he moved...perhaps he has 2 homes.

If that's the case, why wouldn't he have more finds around his second (or new) home in Colorado?

The reason is.......on second thought,.......none of your dahm bizness, maybe

7.2k · May 5, 2004

Conejossam, there is a VERY simple solution to this problem. Very simple. Have the supervisor for the area visit and/or look at the site for the cache and give you written approval for it

That may, or may not be a simple solution. Depending on their resources, which are often limited, it may not be so easy to have a ranger or supervisor come out to a cache site. I'm fairly certain it won't be in the top 10 on their list of priorities.

If we start becoming a bug in the ear of these people, they might just say forget the whole thing.

I totally understand that. It was meant with as either visit the site personally and/or look at the site's location on a map to determine if permission could be given. The local ranger would probably know by looking at the map who's land it is on. He might even want to visit the site as a way to break up the daily grind. To be safe, talk to both parties that are involved.

I actually like carleen's solution the best. Just move the cache a bit and move on.

2.3k · May 5, 2004

2 points

1: there is not a problem with maintainable distance. I have approved other caches for this owner.

2: I have stated that the cache will be approved when everything is worked out. It should not be a problem to simply wait untill everything is taken care of.

.

38.2k · May 5, 2004

or look at the site's location on a map to determine if permission could be given. The local ranger would probably know by looking at the map who's land it is on

Well he did say:

" I called both the San Juan National Forest & The Rio Grande National Forest and they said there is no border dispute and my cache is in the Rio Grande. "

Edited May 5, 2004 by briansnat

May 6, 2004

put fake cords now adn change them to the ones u want later.

May 6, 2004

put fake cords now adn change them to the ones u want later.

Nice.....

Jeopardize some fragile nagotiations just to have your way is not the solution.

Edited May 6, 2004 by woof n lulu

6.4k · May 6, 2004

put fake cords now adn change them to the ones u want later.

I'm sure they are rechecking your hides now!

1.4k · May 6, 2004

put fake cords now adn change them to the ones u want later.

That's a pretty lame thing to do. Besides, it wouldn't work since you are limited in the distance you can move your cache by the changing of coordinates.

9.4k · May 6, 2004

I am kinda confused about someone's comment that the cache placer lives 1000 miles away (so most of their finds are in California), but yet the cache placer says that the cache is only 1 mile away from his home. Perhaps he moved...perhaps he has 2 homes.

If that's the case, why wouldn't he have more finds around his second (or new) home in Colorado?

The reason is.......on second thought,.......none of your dahm bizness, maybe

If you have nothing to contribute, maybe you should stay out of the discussion

Edited May 6, 2004 by Team GPSaxophone

7.2k · May 6, 2004

or look at the site's location on a map to determine if permission could be given. The local ranger would probably know by looking at the map who's land it is on

Well he did say:

" I called both the San Juan National Forest & The Rio Grande National Forest and they said there is no border dispute and my cache is in the Rio Grande. "

And that is why I said written permission. It forces someone to make a commitment and gives the cache owner some backup. Everyone should ask for permission anyway, which it appears this cache owner ended up doing. It looks like all will work out eventually, so all's well that ends well.

May 6, 2004

How could I know if the cache placement would be a issue since I placed one nearby and it was listed. I put this cache in a "good view" area that was easy to get to. In the winter there are not that many places around here unless you put it on the hwy. Sure I could move it 1000' but it wouldn't be in a "good view area" and yes I could place it nearby in a very hard location like my other one but I wanted it to be a "come-on" to try the more difficult one. I will be there next week and make up my mind to move or not but to me it's a matter of principle. Either list them all in this area or none. I can live with that. As for getting the local ranger to come to the site and approve it do you really want me to do that? I think that's an area we don't want to go to. Most of the rangers don't get out of their pickups around here. The nearest Rio Grande headquarters is 60 miles away. I just found a cache today that was way out of bounds for the area that it was in but no-one complained about it. How many caches you have found that were "off the trail" or in a National Monument or other area that caches aren't allowed.

9.4k · May 6, 2004

How could I know if the cache placement would be a issue since I placed one nearby and it was listed. I put this cache in a "good view" area that was easy to get to. In the winter there are not that many places around here unless you put it on the hwy. Sure I could move it 1000' but it wouldn't be in a "good view area" and yes I could place it nearby in a very hard location like my other one but I wanted it to be a "come-on" to try the more difficult one. I will be there next week and make up my mind to move or not but to me it's a matter of principle. Either list them all in this area or none. I can live with that. As for getting the local ranger to come to the site and approve it do you really want me to do that? I think that's an area we don't want to go to. Most of the rangers don't get out of their pickups around here. The nearest Rio Grande headquarters is 60 miles away. I just found a cache today that was way out of bounds for the area that it was in but no-one complained about it. How many caches you have found that were "off the trail" or in a National Monument or other area that caches aren't allowed.

How many people speed down the freeway? Yet, the police still go out there and enforce the current speed limit.

3.9k · May 6, 2004

How could I know if the cache placement would be a issue since I placed one nearby and it was listed. I put this cache in a "good view" area that was easy to get to. In the winter there are not that many places around here unless you put it on the hwy. Sure I could move it 1000' but it wouldn't be in a "good view area" and yes I could place it nearby in a very hard location like my other one but I wanted it to be a "come-on" to try the more difficult one. I will be there next week and make up my mind to move or not but to me it's a matter of principle. Either list them all in this area or none. I can live with that. As for getting the local ranger to come to the site and approve it do you really want me to do that? I think that's an area we don't want to go to. Most of the rangers don't get out of their pickups around here. The nearest Rio Grande headquarters is 60 miles away. I just found a cache today that was way out of bounds for the area that it was in but no-one complained about it. How many caches you have found that were "off the trail" or in a National Monument or other area that caches aren't allowed.

How many people speed down the freeway? Yet, the police still go out there and enforce the current speed limit.

Well stated saxy. Besides I thought the admins explained the reasons quite well. I ask again, What do the admins have to gain by lying to you? What do they have to gain by NOT approving your cache? Be patient, it sounds like it will work itself out.

May 6, 2004

One more thing, CO says that they are trying to get a permit agreement with the San Juan NF what good is that going to do me? I'm 150 miles from Durango and the cache isn't even in the San Juan NF. They wouldn't give me a permit for a cache in a area that they don't control. As for why haven't I got more caches, I just started Geocaching late last year and most of the caches in my area were under snow. Since I go to Colorado for business and pleasure each month I sometimes don't have the time to go out or I forgot to bring my GPS. I don't need a GPS to check my own caches. I simply go out the door and climb the mountain. I really don't want to hammer the CO I just want to be fairly treated and if this is happening to me it must be happening to others in my area and I want to help out if I can. My next door neighbor is the local Fish & Game warden and he even doesn't know of any dispute between the two Forests. You would think that he would know if he is patroling the San Juan or not because his area is the Rio Grande.

38.2k · May 6, 2004

And that is why I said written permission. It forces someone to make a commitment and gives the cache owner some backup.

So is written permission now a requirement for caches in national forests, or only for Rio Grande NF?

1.3k · May 6, 2004

Sounds to me like it's only a "requirement" for that section of RGNF that lies near the border of SGNF because of something happening between the two forests and the local caching organizations. It seems to me that the right people to talk to about this would be the local caching organization since it appears to be a local issue.

2.3k · May 6, 2004

And that is why I said written permission. It forces someone to make a commitment and gives the cache owner some backup.

So is written permission now a requirement for caches in national forests, or only for Rio Grande NF?

Currently it is the SJNF that is prohibiting caches. The Rio Grand People dont care.

As the President of the local Caching org the SJNF and the RGNF are talking and working with the right people. We are very close to having this solved. when it is then the cache in question can be approved. Its just a matter of waiting.

9.4k · May 6, 2004

One more thing, CO says that they are trying to get a permit agreement with the San Juan NF what good is that going to do me? I'm 150 miles from Durango and the cache isn't even in the San Juan NF. They wouldn't give me a permit for a cache in a area that they don't control. As for why haven't I got more caches, I just started Geocaching late last year and most of the caches in my area were under snow. Since I go to Colorado for business and pleasure each month I sometimes don't have the time to go out or I forgot to bring my GPS. I don't need a GPS to check my own caches. I simply go out the door and climb the mountain. I really don't want to hammer the CO I just want to be fairly treated and if this is happening to me it must be happening to others in my area and I want to help out if I can. My next door neighbor is the local Fish & Game warden and he even doesn't know of any dispute between the two Forests. You would think that he would know if he is patroling the San Juan or not because his area is the Rio Grande.

Snow, and a sparse area of caches, sounds like a good reason you don't have more finds in your new(?) area. Thanks for explaining.

4.5k · May 6, 2004

QUOTE (Conejossam @ May 5 2004, 11:42 PM)
One more thing, CO says that they are trying to get a permit agreement with the San Juan NF what good is that going to do me? I'm 150 miles from Durango and the cache isn't even in the San Juan NF. They wouldn't give me a permit for a cache in a area that they don't control. As for why haven't I got more caches, I just started Geocaching late last year and most of the caches in my area were under snow. Since I go to Colorado for business and pleasure each month I sometimes don't have the time to go out or I forgot to bring my GPS. I don't need a GPS to check my own caches. I simply go out the door and climb the mountain. I really don't want to hammer the CO I just want to be fairly treated and if this is happening to me it must be happening to others in my area and I want to help out if I can. My next door neighbor is the local Fish & Game warden and he even doesn't know of any dispute between the two Forests. You would think that he would know if he is patroling the San Juan or not because his area is the Rio Grande.

Snow, and a sparse area of caches, sounds like a good reason you don't have more finds in your new(?) area. Thanks for explaining.

I still dont know what this has to do with the question at hand. Someone enlighten me please!

Also, where might we find more (official) information about whats going between the SJNF and the RGNF?

9.4k · May 6, 2004

QUOTE (Conejossam @ May 5 2004, 11:42 PM)
One more thing, CO says that they are trying to get a permit agreement with the San Juan NF what good is that going to do me? I'm 150 miles from Durango and the cache isn't even in the San Juan NF. They wouldn't give me a permit for a cache in a area that they don't control. As for why haven't I got more caches, I just started Geocaching late last year and most of the caches in my area were under snow. Since I go to Colorado for business and pleasure each month I sometimes don't have the time to go out or I forgot to bring my GPS. I don't need a GPS to check my own caches. I simply go out the door and climb the mountain. I really don't want to hammer the CO I just want to be fairly treated and if this is happening to me it must be happening to others in my area and I want to help out if I can. My next door neighbor is the local Fish & Game warden and he even doesn't know of any dispute between the two Forests. You would think that he would know if he is patroling the San Juan or not because his area is the Rio Grande.

Snow, and a sparse area of caches, sounds like a good reason you don't have more finds in your new(?) area. Thanks for explaining.

I still dont know what this has to do with the question at hand. Someone enlighten me please!

Also, where might we find more (official) information about whats going between the SJNF and the RGNF?

The issue has been resolved. The hider merely has to wait for negotiations between the 2 land managers to be completed. The cache will be approved at that time.

The other part of the thread is also a non-issue. The hider apparantly used to live in California and has found many caches there. Now he lives in Colorado, but only has 1 find there. It appeared to be a vacation cache before this information came to light in the above replies to the thread.

6.4k · May 6, 2004

Is this related?

May 6, 2004

This morning I called Brian Davis, His title will be apparent when you read the rest of this. I asked about any boundary disputes between the San Juan & Rio Grande. It just so happens that he has a place just down the road from my home. He indicated that he would check into any disputes with his counterpart at Rio Grande. I received this email this afternoon.

Dear Mr Doda,

After our conversation, I did speak with Mike Hettle, Forest Surveyor for

the Rio Grande, and the only issues he is working concerning boundary

issues are dealing with small tracts act parcels. Additionally, there have

been some complaints in the area of the Elk Creek Campground but that was

dealing with people trespassing private land to get the river. There were

some cabin site trespass issues just west of the Haberliein's old property

(Conejos Ranch) that were just south of 17. Mike said he is working on the

last one of those sites. He said that there are some probable cabin site

trespass issues around Mink Haven which is closer to Horcha but there is

nothing concerning the boundaries of our two forests. Mike can be reached

via email (mhettle@fs.fed.us) or by phone at 719-852-6215. If you have any

further questions, my contact information is listed below. Regards, BWD

Brian W. Davis

Assistant Center Manager Physical Resources

San Juan Public Lands Center

15 Burnett Court

Durango Colorado 81301

Post edited by moderator to remove Mr. Davis' e-mail address and home, work and cellphone numbers.

Edited May 6, 2004 by Keystone Approver

Archived Caches

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment