Adopting A Cache In The National Wildlife Refuge?

[+Milbank]

A few weeks ago I posted questions about a cache I placed in a National Wildlife Refuge that was not aproved.

 

I did not know at the time that I could not place a cache there. There were others placed in the National Wildlife Refuges and I later found out they were grandfather in so they were ok, but my cache was not aproved as new caches could no longer be aproved in National Wildlife Refuges.

 

So now I'm wondering if I would be able to adopt one of the caches that have been placed in the National Wildlife Refuge.

 

I know how the adpotion part works as I have adopted two other caches in this area.

 

If I was to email the local geocacher that has a cache already placed in the National Wildlife Refuge and he let me adopted would the aproves let me?

 

Once I adopted the cache could I then change the location of the cache to the spot I wanted to place it within the National Wildlife Refuge and update the cache page?

 

I know the cache page would let me edit the location, but would it be ok with the aprovers?

[+briansnat]

Caches are banned in NWA's and by having one there the owner is risking a fine, or jail time if they track him down. Do you really want to risk that?

 

I doubt GC.COM will allow a cache in a NWA to be adopted. They are more likely to archive it if it is brought to their attention. Caches in NWA's aren't grandfathered in the sense that some moving caches and virts are because its not a GC.COM rule, it came from the USF&WS. Its just that GC.COM is not going around and checking to see which caches are illegally placed in one. If illegal caches are brought to their attention by the land manager, I'm sure they will archive them, as I don't think they want to caches listed on this site that they know are illegal.

Edited August 13, 2004 by briansnat

[+Milbank]

If illegal caches are brought to their attention, I'm sure they will archive them, as I don't think they want to have illegal caches listed on this site.

 

I would not be to sure about that.

 

As I have brought to the attention of a aprover of the other caches in the National Wildlife Refuge and yet they have not been archived.

 

I don't want to see them archived and I told the aprover that, but for you to say you are sure they would archive them seems to be wrong.

Edited August 13, 2004 by Milbank

[+Milbank]

If illegal caches are brought to their attention by the land manager

 

I see, I'm not a land manager so even though it's been brought to there attention they can just look the other way.

 

Don't get me wrong. I don't want them archived.

 

The caches that are in the area don't let you see much of the refuge.

I thought it would be great if I could adopt one and improve it.

[+Renegade Knight]

Can you adopt one. Yes. Provided the current owner agrees or had abandoned the cache.

Should you then move it to an area that was not approved? No.

[+Milbank]

Can you adopt one. Yes. Provided the current owner agrees or had abandoned the cache.

Should you then move it to an area that was not approved? No.

 

So simple and easy even I can understand a reply like that.

 

Guess I will just give up on having a cache in the refuge.

It's just such a great area as I'm sure most of the National Wildlife Refuge area's are.

 

Won't it be a great day when we can once again place caches in National Wildlife area's?

 

Thanks for the replies

Edited August 13, 2004 by Milbank

[+briansnat]

The caches that are in the area don't let you see much of the refuge.

I thought it would be great if I could adopt one and improve it.

 

 

If you mean by that, to move it, it will require an admin to change the coordinates for you and I really doubt that they would if it is in an off limits area. You're better off leaving them be and let the owners deal with the risk.

 

The placement of any object on a National Wildlife Refuge is a violation of several Federal regulations including the following:

16USC668dd, 50CFR 27.93, Abandonment of Property

16USC668dd, 50 CFR26.21a, Trespass

16USC668dd 50CFR 27.63 Search for and removal of other valued objects

16USC668dd 50 CFR 27.97 Private Operations

Other violations of federal law may apply.

 

The maximum penalty for each specific violation per person is up to $5000.00 and or 6 months in jail. The maximum penalty for a corporation involved in the violation is up to $100,000.00 and or 1year in jail per offense.

 

Is it that important to you that you want to take the chance?

[+Mopar]

Just to emphasize what BrianSnat and others said, here is the exact letter sent to geocaching.com quoted from another thread:

From: (name withheld)

Subject: GeoCaching on National Wildlife Refuges

Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 07:41:06 -0500

 

This email will serve as notice to your organization regarding geocaching on federal lands, specifically lands owned or leased by the US Fish and Wildlife Service.  This office has received information that individuals associated with the act of geocaching have been placing and searching for caches on National Wildlife Refuges throughout the United States.

 

The placement of any object on a National Wildlife Refuge is a violation of several Federal regulations including the following:

16USC668dd, 50CFR 27.93, Abandonment of Property

16USC668dd, 50 CFR26.21a, Trespass

16USC668dd 50CFR 27.63 Search for and removal of other valued objects

16USC668dd 50 CFR 27.97 Private Operations

Other violations of federal law may apply.

 

The maximum penalty for each specific violation per person is up to $5000.00 and or 6 months in jail.  The maximum penalty for a corporation involved in the violation is up to $100,000.00 and or 1year in jail per offense.

 

In addressing your website you identify the National Park Service as an area which is not approved for your activity.  The National Park Service adjoins the US Fish and Wildlife Service within the Department of the Interior and has similar restrictions as to geocaching.  This communication will serve as notice to your organization that the activity known as geocaching is not permitted on National Wildlife Refuges and is a violation of Federal law.  Federal Officers have begun prosecuting individuals involved in geocaching on National Wildlife Refuges which results in a permanent Federal criminal record following conviction in a Federal court. In the interest of protecting individuals who are being mislead by erroneous information I strongly suggest you update your website to reflect the US Fish and Wildlife Service owned and leased lands as areas not to be used for geocaching.

 

Law Enforcement Specialist (name withheld)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Office of Refuge Law Enforcement

4401 N.Fairfax Drive

Arlington, Va 22203

Ph- (number withheld)

The bold is mine. They make it pretty clear that even searching for a geocache on their lands could result in prosecution and fines.

Any RESPONSIBLE cache owner should remove a cache they own in a NWR based on that letter. Removing your cache that a land manager doesn't want there is part of maintaining it, and trying to find loopholes to place one in a location the land manager doesn't want one puts you right to the top of IRRESPONSIBLE hiders in my book. Defying known bans shows that geocachers can't follow the rules, and will result in more outright bans in the long run.

What could just one little cache hurt?

This whole ban on caching in NPS and NWR goes back to just one cache found by one ranger. He thought it was hidden inapproriately and mentioned it in an internal NPS newsletter. That lead to the current ban. Just one cache.

[+Renegade Knight]

That letter was a shotgun blast. Had the wildlife refuge been interested in supporting caching they could of done an even better job coming up with reasons in both law and their charter to allow caching.

 

I love that one about "Search for and removal of other valued objects". It means in so many words that "by having a cache on our lands that we don't want there we can prosecute you for seeking it out, especially if you remove it".

 

Other non issues in that letter. Tresspass. This applies to everyone, geocaching is nothing special. Private operations, as private as playing frisbee, or hacky sack with your friends hacky sack. Abandoment of property. This is technically true because the letter of the law covers geocaching, but the spirt of the law utterly misses the intent behind geocaching. It also covers their own trash cans but they don't choose to deal with that.

[+Mopar]

RK, I doubt there is much debate about how geocachers feel about that letter. I also wonder how much of it would even hold up in court, especially since even other federal agencies like the BLM and many state level agencias do not interpret those laws as banning geocachers or caches.

 

Still, the point is the land manager has made it very clear they do not want caching to take place on land they manage.

Trying to place a cache where you know one is not wanted or allowed is selfish and has the potential to damage this game for everyone.

[avroair]

I also wonder how much of it would even hold up in court, especially since even other federal agencies like the BLM and many state level agencias do not interpret those laws as banning geocachers or caches.

 

Interesting aside...

On October 9, 1997, President William Jefferson Clinton signed into law the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Among other things, it requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to write comprehensive conservation plans for all of the refuges in the System by 2012. It also designates six priority, wildlife-dependent uses to receive enhanced consideration in planning public recreation on refuges: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation.

[+Milbank]

Is it that important to you that you want to take the chance?

 

Nope,

[+Milbank]

The maximum penalty for each specific violation per person is up to $5000.00 and or 6 months in jail. The maximum penalty for a corporation involved in the violation is up to $100,000.00 and or 1year in jail per offense.

 

I'm going back out there tonight or this weekend to get it.

I'm almost afraid to go and get it now.

What if they catch me.

[+Renegade Knight]

..Still, the point is the land manager has made it very clear they do not want caching to take place on land they manage.

Trying to place a cache where you know one is not wanted or allowed is selfish and has the potential to damage this game for everyone.

Agreed.

 

In Idaho we have been fairly lucky. We have a refuge that banned caches about a year before that letter came out. That was it. No other agency has even thought geocaching worth regulating. But now we have a park and the head of that parks take is very clear. He's delayed permission, delayed consideration of permision, and even sent angry emails when the cacher trying to get permission asked in a thread on Idahogeoachers about the possiblity of a virtual while the process is winding it's way thorugh. I suspect he's looking for the same kind of laws to quote so he can say no with better authority. The cacher much to his credit, had the discussion that prompted the email from the land manger deleted from Idahogeocachers, hasn't placed a virtual and has complied in a more than reasonable fashion to this persons requests.

 

Whatever happens in that park is going to be a pivotal event in Idaho. Probably more than either the cacher or the park manager know.

 

Ok I drived off topic. That first word covered it fairly well to begin with.

[Teeds]

Not to delve too far off of the subject at hand, but it has been my experience that the FS and BLM generally attempt to ban everything for the lands that they manage. Often this is because of noise from folks that believe these areas should be closed to all human activity.

 

Generally face to face communication regarding the impact of the activity can do wonders.

 

I agree that we should not participate in illegal activity, but that doesn't mean we should be closed out of many enjoyable areas that can be accessed by foot, horse or OHV just because we have a GPS unit with us.

 

If I understand the point of the FS complaint correctly, we could not even post the coordinates of a nice spot on a trail to view a mountain range, because that could be considered a "virtual cache" by some folks. That is NUTS.

[+welch]

If illegal caches are brought to their attention, I'm sure they will archive them, as I don't think they want to have illegal caches listed on this site.

 

I would not be to sure about that.

 

As I have brought to the attention of a aprover of the other caches in the National Wildlife Refuge and yet they have not been archived.

 

I don't want to see them archived and I told the aprover that, but for you to say you are sure they would archive them seems to be wrong.

I agree with what BS said about not likely to let you take one over, and asking makes more likely to be archived.

As for telling an approver and they didn't archive it, that seems to be been a person to person thing. I know ILAdmin went and archived several caches in or near those refudges (GC2AF1) in an cleasning effort. I don't think pointing out he missed one would help a cache go unarchived. But other approvers were less drastic.

[+LostCoastNinja]

I recently began the process of placing my first cache; Much to my dismay, the land I wanted to put it on was labelled in Google Maps as a NWR . However, after a few phone calls and looking through the official maps from the local FWS website, it appears that they never took over ownership of the parcel, and that in fact, the parcel doesn't show up on the "official FWS survey as dedicated NWR land; The local director told me that he couldn't tell me not to place a cache as they don't manage that particular piece of public land.

 

Still waiting for the review process to be completed, but just goes to show that a little effort sometimes works in our favor...I had thought this cache to be dead in the water as soon as I found out the deal with NWR land. Now, I'm hopeful that GC's reviewers will take note of my due diligence and publish...

 

Anyone else think it's hypocritical to allow:

A. hunting, which leaves behind plastic shotgun cartridges, shell casings, and lead pellets and bullets,

 

and B. fishing, which also involves using lead and toxic chemicals such as lubricants, not to mention all of the plastic fishing line and lost lures/ floaters/ etc...

 

...All the while telling geocachers that they face fines and imprisonment for, in so many words, doing a bunch of high-tech orienteering?

 

ALL on a wildlife REFUGE...hmmm...doesn't sound like much of a refuge to me, lol...

Edited November 22, 2011 by j4mmin42

[+StarBrand]

Did you find out who does manage the land??

[+LostCoastNinja]

It's under the supervision of the county. The sad fact of the matter, though, is that after a day of map-reading, phone calls, and pleasant conversations with the NatFWS and HumCoCDSD, it appears this land has been tossed to the wayside due to a combination of a lack of budget for development as a park (which is one of the only possible interpretations of its "Public use" designation, due to a moratorium on new coastal construction and the fact that this parcel lies within a 100-year flood plane) And a lack of staff to look over the vast land resources the county maintains. Reactions from both agencies to my Cache placement ranged from "slightly amused" to "completely uninterested"(to the point where they wondered why I even bothered to call about placing it there...lol).

 

If it weren't for google maps getting the park boundaris so completely incorrect, this cache probably would've never required so much legwork of my own to get off the ground; but I think it was a good thing for me to experience right off the bat, because it could only get easier next time.

 

The reviewers were supplied an ample amount of information; Mostly focused on maps showing (accurately) the boundaries of federally-controlled or owned lands near the cache (which there really isn't any land that close to it). It is conclusive enough that I expressed an interest in moving forward with my cache in its original placement.

 

Unfortunately, the map in question that exonerates my cache also implicates a few others on the other side of the bay; I haven't made a link to the map public along with expressing this concern, but for total accuracy, reviewers local to me should check out cache placements across the bay against the NWR Land Status maps for Humboldt county division. They are available at fws.gov under the humboldt divisions website, and you can double check at the HCCDSD humboldtGIS (the most accurate, up-to-date parcel readings available).

[+LostCoastNinja]

Just a quick note: The cache has been reviewed and published as of 11:30AM today

 

Another quick note: it's my one week anniversary of geocaching AND quitting tobacco, and to celebrate, I did a dawn-to dusk hunt today finding a total of 23 caches The hardest thing to work around were all of the muggles , security and cops out this time of year...no matter where I went, there was always potential for mugglers and fun-police to rain on my parade (not that it wasn't already wet enough...

 

The icing on the cake was getting home and seeing my fist cache published after all the hard work.

Edited November 23, 2011 by j4mmin42

[+palmetto]

Old thread for sure.

There are staff placed geocaches on 3 NWR that I know about, several on the Key Deer NWR, a couple on the Upper Mississippi River NWR and the Sacramento NWR.

Not the kind of numbers that are starting to appear in National Parks, but a foot in the door.

[+LostCoastNinja]

Yeah, just after I posted here I saw the dates. sorry for the bad form, I wouldn't normally resurrect something like this: but I would've started a new, similar thread, all the same

 

Well, as far as my cache goes, it never was located in an NWR; the whole issue is the Google Maps image of the area, in which they list the parcel as "Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge", when in fact the NWR is 2 miles down the road, winding around the bay to the west and encompassing much of the South Spit.

 

I was going to hold off until it was requested but here is the NWR land status map for humboldt:

 

http://www.fws.gov/humboldtbay/maps/landstatus.jpg

 

In any case, if my cache happens to be a small part of a movement toward more full-disclosure caches and creating a dialogue between Cachers and the agencies that oversee the land they use, then AWESOME. That's what it's all about...solidarity through transparency

 

If you go to the FWS home page (MAIN homepage, not local) and search, you can see how many staff-placed caching programs exist; it's caching on (lololol) ...and Humboldt has its own staff -placed caches, too-listed right on their personal fws homepage.

Edited November 23, 2011 by j4mmin42