Jump to content

Nys Parks & Recreation Survey


geobernd

Recommended Posts

Not all state parks are as unfriendly to geocaching as the Palisades region. Like most of you posting here I've been met with open arms at most of the park offices I've been to. I'm listed on our local website as a contact person and the other day I found the email you see below in my inbox. I'm posting it here with permission of Mr. Herisko.

 

Hello!

 

I recently came across your site and was hoping to inquire further about placing geo-caches.  Here at Lake Taghkanic we haven't placed any geo-caches along our trails yet, however we would very much enjoy a group to use our facilities for that function.  In fact we would like to possibly host a geo-caching event, where individuals could learn to use GPS, and trail map/coordinate reading.

 

Lake Taghkanic State Park is located about 40 miles southeast of Albany, right off of the Taconic State Parkway.  We offer a 60 site campground, 30 cabins & cottages, roughly 10 miles of hiking & multi use trails, 2 beaches, picnic areas, swimming and boating.

 

Please contact us if you are interested in placing geo-caches in our park.

 

Sincerely,

 

Thomas A. Herishko

 

Lake Taghkanic State Park

NYS OPRHP - Taconic Region

Thomas.Herishko@oprhp.state.ny.us

ph: 518.851.3631

fax: 518.851.3633

 

I live about 40 miles north of Albany or 80 miles from Lake Taghkanic park. It's not in a direction I normally travel so maintenance of a cache there would be a problem for me. Hopefully someone living in that area will read this, contact Mr. Herishko and place a couple caches there.

Link to comment
live about 40 miles north of Albany or 80 miles from Lake Taghkanic park. It's not in a direction I normally travel so maintenance of a cache there would be a problem for me. Hopefully someone living in that area will read this, contact Mr. Herishko and place a couple caches there.

 

How did we miss that park?

Link to comment

I drive by there everytime I go to the Daks on the Taconic. I've been in there twice, it has boating, swimming and some hiking trails. This is a park with the opposite problem to Harriman, it is underused, hence the effort to promote the park by encouraging Geocaching. It is about 80 miles north of Westchester County.

Link to comment
Ok, back to the drawing board.  I need to update my list of caches within the State Parks and other areas requiring permits.

Junglehair,

 

I just discovered this thread and I too have one in Chittenango Park.

 

I'd be happy to help you notify others with affected caches. Let me know what help I can provide once you get the list together.

Link to comment
Ok, back to the drawing board.  I need to update my list of caches within the State Parks and other areas requiring permits.

Junglehair,

 

I just discovered this thread and I too have one in Chittenango Park.

 

I'd be happy to help you notify others with affected caches. Let me know what help I can provide once you get the list together.

Thanks! Right now, we're just waiting on a list of contact info from the Parks and Rec department.

Link to comment

Sebago Beach CITO event The region manager for Sebago beach will be on hand to answer questions about the permit process as it pertains to Harriman.

 

I will be interested to know if we can get permits for other people's caches such as the Boston Cache if the owner isn't around.

 

I would also like to know when we have to fall into compliance and what will be done with those caches that aren't.

 

 

If anyone has any questions they would like me to ask on their behalf, please list them here.

Link to comment
I would also like to know when we have to fall into compliance and what will be done with those caches that aren't.

The park level authorities have some discretion and they seem to be handling this flexibly [edit: elsewhere in NYS].

 

There may come a time when they have to set a deadline or take action against unregistered caches, but from what I've seen so far, they may be satisfied with a good faith effort to comply and "grandfather" a few existing caches that haven't been registered, as long as those caches aren't causing a problem. It's unlikely that they will officically adopt or state this policy, for fear that it would encourage everyone to disregard the new policy.

 

If we insist on a deadline, they may have to create one. If we insist on knowing what will be done with unregistered caches, they may have to decide. Or, worst case scenario, they may ask Albany to further define the policy, and things could get much more "well defined" (i.e. rigid) statewide! We need to be careful what we wish for!

Edited by Kai Team
Link to comment
Sebago Beach CITO event The region manager for Sebago beach will be on hand to answer questions about the permit process as it pertains to Harriman.

 

I will be interested to know if we can get permits for other people's caches such as the Boston Cache if the owner isn't around.

 

I would also like to know when we have to fall into compliance and what will be done with those caches that aren't.

 

 

If anyone has any questions they would like me to ask on their behalf, please list them here.

Their deadline is set. Immediate compliance.

Link to comment

What cache owners of caches in Bear Mt/Harriman need is a map of the five regions into which the area has been divided, so they can determine which area their cache is contained in, and a list of who has to be contacted for each area within Bear Mt/ Harriman. Another thing that would be very useful is a method of obtaining permits by mail. I obtained permits in Fahnestock and Rockefeller and in each case it took numerous phone calls and three visits to the office. Right now, these permits can only be obtained during business hours, during the work week, and even if you take time off work and go to the office, there is no guarantee you will find the right person in the office. You need to make an appointment for a specific time before you make the trip to the office.

Link to comment
Another thing that would be very useful is a method of obtaining permits by mail.

If you contact any of the regions during the week and ask for them to mail you permits I have had success that way.

 

Bear Mtn - 845-786-2701

Anthony Wayne - 845-942-2560

Beaver Pond - 845-947-2792

Torati Lake - 845-351-2568

Sebago Lake - 845-351-2583

Lake Welch - 845-947-2444

Link to comment

Personally, I don't have any caches left in Harriman, but if I wanted to place a new one, it would be hard to know how to go about it. Where the dividing lines would lie between these regions is by no means obvious. Beaver pond, for instance, is right next to Lake Welch, whilst Lake Sebago would seem to cover almost the whole southern third of the park. As these administrative boundaries are not known to us it makes it difficult to know who to apply to. When I talked to Tim Sullivan, the park super who administers the permits for Storm King, he told me he had no idea how these areas were divided. This is not to criticize you, Mark, I only point out that even those few of us who are intent on complying with the permit regulations, find the situation in Harriman daunting.

Link to comment
Personally, I don't have any caches left in Harriman, but if I wanted to place a new one, it would be hard to know how to go about it. Where the dividing lines would lie between these regions is by no means obvious. Beaver pond, for instance, is right next to Lake Welch, whilst Lake Sebago would seem to cover almost the whole southern third of the park. As these administrative boundaries are not known to us it makes it difficult to know who to apply to. When I talked to Tim Sullivan, the park super who administers the permits for Storm King, he told me he had no idea how these areas were divided. This is not to criticize you, Mark, I only point out that even those few of us who are intent on complying with the permit regulations, find the situation in Harriman daunting.

I agree. I hope to clear some of that up on the 17th. At least the Sebago Manager can tell me his territory. It is still unclear.

 

When I asked the central office to forward me to the person in charge at Kanawaukie, (near my Africa Loop Series) I was forwarded to the Lake Torati office, which isn't even close (unless the regions are not squarish in nature). It is definately an issue we need to clear up to make both our lives and the park managers lives easier.

Link to comment
Has anyone had contact with the people from Sampson, Cayaga Lake or Taughannok Falls State Parks?  These places are like ghost towns in the winter (except hunting season).

I made contact with Chittenango Falls, which was a similar experience. I called twice and there was no answer, then I got an answering machine the third time and left a message.

 

Three days later (today) I got a call back - the person was very friendly and helpful and is mailing me the permit application and a park map (so I can mark my cache on it and submit it along with the permit). She told me that since some of the trails are still closed due to snow and ice, she's not expecting all of the caches to be registered right away (she also said she didn't have the cache stickers yet).

 

My guess is that they're not fully staffed this time of year, so contact is going to be spotty. I'd suggest calling at different times on different days (I got the answering machine and the call back on weekdays, so they're probably a better bet than weekends). If you can't reach anyone, you could try the Fingerlakes Regional Office to ask when someone will be at the parks, or to ask if they can get a message to the appropriate person to call you. Good luck!

Link to comment
Has anyone had contact with the people from Sampson, Cayaga Lake or Taughannok Falls State Parks? These places are like ghost towns in the winter (except hunting season).

I spoke to Sampson a while back. They just took my name and number down and said that they would get back to me after the Park Manager had a chance to review all the caches in the park - probably some time in April.

Link to comment

I met with a regional Harriman manager at the Sebago Beach CITO event and he explained to those present the permit system and the guidelines. The meeting was both informative and positive.

 

What I learnt:

 

• There are 7 regions of Harriman - each with a regional manager who is in charge of the permit process. Each cacher is allowed 5 caches per region.

 

• The region boundaries are a gray area so any cacher placing a cache should probably contact the area first.

 

• The ranger would like for cache owners to remove or obtain permits for their existing caches as soon as possible. But he understands that this may be a gradual process. There is no ultimatum but the end of June (when the park is fully open) looks like the deadline for compliance.

 

• They are issuing permits by the set guidelines to start with to see how that goes. But there may be room for variance - such as allowing a cache 20 feet off a ranger road (which is not stictly speaking a trail).

 

• The rangers are not actively going to go out and remove every cache but would rather leave it up to us to act and remove non-compliant caches.

:unsure:

Link to comment
The rangers are not actively going to go out and remove every cache but would rather leave it up to us to act and remove non-compliant caches.

:unsure:

There would be a need for the rangers to take the intiative on this, after all, they are their regulations, and only they are in a position to know who has or has not obtained a permit. Did he give any indication as to how many people have obtained permits in Harriman to date? My gut feeling is that the local compliance rate is rather low, and cachers are not going to beat a path to the door of their offices clamoring for permits. I don't think they understand how loose knit and unorganized we are.

Link to comment

At the CITO event last Sunday, I took a permit application from Mr. Hamilton. I am seeking a permit for a cache near The Timp in Harriman off of the Blue Dot Trail. Mr. Hamilton said it would probably be in the Lake Welch territory, but to send it to him anyway. The permit I got definitely says "within: Lake Sebago" at the very top. I will let you know what happens.

Link to comment

For people's general information, I met with Ron Roney, Park Supervisor at Clark Reservation near Syracuse. He mentioned that he'd recently been at a meeting in which he'd been told all existing caches should be permitted within 90 days. There was no exact deadline, but it sounds like they may start to pick up unpermitted caches by the end of July (it also sounds like they will do this as part of their routine movements around the park, versus making a special effort just to remove caches).

 

Mr. Roney was very helpful, but because of rare and endangered plants that grow in Clark Reservation, he wanted to see each proposed site before I submitted the permits. I walked the trails with him today and we agreed on some locations. He said that he will be able to approve the permits quickly now that he's seen the locations. I plan to drop the permits off Monday morning.

 

As an aside, I submitted a permit application to Chittenango Falls a few weeks ago for an existing cache and still haven't heard anyting. When I mentioned that to Mr. Roney, he indicated this is a busy time of year for park staff, so they may be slow approving permits.

Link to comment

I was just issued two more Geocache permits for the Hudson Highlands from Bill Bauman. He told me none of the other seven cache owners who have caches in Fahnestock and the Hudson Highlands have come in to get permits. He is a nice guy and eager to issue permits, but he seems to be getting ready to become a little more coercive. Don't think that it will all go away if you just ignore it.

Link to comment

A similar story line in Harriman, but without specific direction from geocaching direction, it still brings us back to the original dilemas posed in this and other threads.

 

1. I can't see the land managers actively pulling caches unless they are easy ones

 

2. We, as the geocaching community, do not have the authority to start yanking other cacher's caches - whether they are active cachers or not

 

3. If they become delisted from geocaching.com it still leaves geolitter in the woods

 

None of these problems have been addressed - and who can address them?

Link to comment

It is possible that some park managers may move to have caches disabled until such time as permits can be obtained. I agree that as long as caches have not been archived, they should be considered inviolate by other cachers. I do feel that if a cache becomes archived, and hence geolitter, there is no ethical constraint against other geocachers removing such geolitter. In such case the proper thing to do would be to hand the cache into the park and allow them to hold the cache and notify the cache owner to come and retreive their cache. There may be cases when park offices are closed or they don't wish to hold removed caches, in which the cache owner should be contacted and offered a chance to retreive their cache. In the case that the cacher is no longer active and has no e-mail contact available, the cache would have to be disposed of. One thing that would be wrong is to lose travel bugs in this process. I retreived a cache yesterday that I had archived some time earlier, and it had a travel bug in it. This was an oversight on my part to allow a travel bug to sit in limbo in an archived cache for over a month, but this was in a remote location during the difficult snow and ice period.

 

The biggest drawback I have encountered to obtaining a permit is that the contact person is usually only available monday through friday, during working hours, and is is often out doing other tasks. The best thing is to call ahead and make an appointment with the contact person, or arrange to mail in the permit aplication if this is not convienient. I do not feel that parks would have caches archived if contact with the park has been made by the cache owner and the application process is started. There will be cases where the cache does not fall within the placement guidelines as established by OPRHP, in which case archiving the cache may be the only option. I have found them ready to stretch the rules a little, but not break them. I feel that it is the moral obligation of the owner to see that any cache they place conforms with park regulations, and that if and when such a cache becomes inactive, it is their obligation to remove it. Other cachers will only need to step in if delinquent cache owners fail to live up to this obligation.

Link to comment
I do feel that if a cache becomes archived, and hence geolitter, there is no ethical constraint against other geocachers removing such geolitter

 

If there is an active owner, I think it would spare a lot of hard feelings if they were asked first. Some may welcome the help. If the owner is no longer active on this site, or a competetor, then I'm all for removing the geolitter.

Link to comment
I do feel that if a cache becomes archived, and hence geolitter, there is no ethical constraint against other geocachers removing such geolitter

 

If there is an active owner, I think it would spare a lot of hard feelings if they were asked first. Some may welcome the help. If the owner is no longer active on this site, or a competetor, then I'm all for removing the geolitter.

Although I agree with contacting an active owner to avoid hard feelings, the owner who archives a cache should say when they plan to remove it in their archive note, and should follow through in a reasonable time. If they don't say or don't follow through, they're abandoning the cache and shouldn't expect people cleaning up their geolitter to jump through hoops.

 

Once a cache is archived, it drops off the radar screen (no longer shows in PQ's, etc). If it's not retrieved in a reasonable time, it never will be, and geocachers don't need a reputatin as people who despoil nature.

 

This is especially a risk with the scrutiny caches in NYS parks are now receiving - the Parks people will know how many caches are permitted and how many are just abandoned. If we don't retrieve the abandoned caches, it's more ammunition for completely banning geocaching. I'd rather risk offending an irresponsible cache owner.

Link to comment

I don't think there is any way for the park authorities to know if an archived cache has been physically removed or not. In order to do so, they would have to have made a printout of the cache sheet before it was archived or had created an account and logged a visit to the cache before it was archived. Then they would have to go out there and check, and since few if any of them are experienced cache hunters, the fact that they could not find it would not neccesarily mean it was gone.

 

If a cache is archived, either involuntarily or not, the cache owner will of course be aware of this, and as such should also be aware that it is their responsibility to pick it up. If they have not done so within a month or two, one can assume they will not. In that case, the other cachers who have already posted a find of that cache will still be able to access the archived cache sheet, and if they perform the public service of picking up the irresponsible cache owners geolitter, they should be praised, not censured.

 

There was such a case in Teatown Reservation where all the caches were delisted, including one of mine. I was hiking in there a few months later and stopped by at the location of one of the other archived caches to make sure it had been picked up. It was gone, but had it still been there, I probably have taken it and e-mailed the owner, telling them I had picked up their cache, and would hold it for them if they liked. My first concern would be preserving the reputation of our sport, and if a cacher who had abandoned his cache didn't like it, that would just be too bad.

Link to comment
I don't think there is any way for the park authorities to know if an archived cache has been physically removed or not. 

Good point - the authorities may assume caches have not been removed unless told otherwise. On the other hand, geocaching's reputation will be enhanced if geocachers tell park authorities when they remove archived caches. Even if the authorities are not tracking specific caches (which they could by bookmarking the pages before the cache is archived), they'll get the message that we clean up after ourselves.

 

I recently removed 4 archived caches in a State park in our area (the owner said he didn't plan to retrieve them), and I took the opportunity to let the park supervisor know and to educate him about geocaching in general. The park manager knew there were 6 caches in his park, and he also knew that no one had applied for permits.

 

I was interested in placing a few caches in the same park, and he decided to walk the trails with me to see the locations I'd picked. Towards the end of our two hour hike, the park supervisor was enthusiastically pointing out spots that would be good locations for caches! I submitted my permit applications and received the permits a few days later. It pays to treat people the way you would want to be treated.

Link to comment

We were caching at Green Lakes State Park last weekend and a Park Police officer had left a business card inside the baggie with the log book at this cache.

 

On the back of the card he wrote a note that a permit is required, and that if a permit is not obtained, the cache would be confiscated. Looks like the police officer was trying to insure that the cache owner is aware of the permit requirement. We noted this in our log so the owners would know about it.

 

This cache is about a mile from the Park Office, not exactly on the beaten path (on some maps it appears to be outside the park, but the park was expanded some years back to include this area).

 

It looks like they will be actively enforcing the permit requirement, at least at Green Lakes (two of the other caches we found at Green Lakes were already displaying the NYS permit stickers).

Link to comment

ok... I just spent an hour slogging though this thread.

 

can somebody pleas recap in one post what exactly is going on (please no complaining)

 

I live in Watertown NY, and am aware of several caches in Wellesley Island State park. One of them just went missing and the log says a park employee took it, then no more follow up. Another one has a found log saying it had be moved, but a placeholder mentioning approval being needed had been put in its place)

 

it seems to me that the owner of these caches has no clue of the necessary permits.

(I certainly had no clue, and had been thinking about placing a new cache on the island, but then again I guess the approver would have mentioned something when I submitted it)

 

Is there any way to have a list of states/regions requiring permits, somewhere on the site?

Something simple that could be easily modified/added to?

Link to comment
can somebody pleas recap in one post what exactly is going on (please no complaining)

NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation has implemented a geocache permit policy at all State parks. They have also banned geocaches at State Historical Sites. These policies are now in effect.

 

GC.com has stated its reviewers will enforce the State rules on new cache listings - i.e. a new listing will not be approved within a NYS State park unless a permit is obtained and the permit number is provided to the reviewer.

 

There is some debate on how actively NYSOPRHP is likely to enforce the policy on existing caches statewide. However, it appears that they will actively enforce it in Central New York beginning about July 1. Per the policy, enforcement means picking up the non-permitted caches and holding them for 30 days in the Park office for the owner to reclaim them. Several people in these forums volunteered to help notify owners of caches in State Parks of the new policy, but I don't know what happened to that effort (it seems to have faded away).

 

GC.com has stated that it will not take action against caches placed in State parks before the permit requirement went into effect unless requested to do so by park authorities. If requested by the authorities, GC.com will archive these cache listings.

 

Permits can be obtained by contacting the Park Supervisor of the relevant park to obtain an application. The application is pretty straightforward, and the rules are fairly reasonable with the possible exception of a rule that requires placement within 20 feet of a trail, and a quarter mile cache separation rule.

 

Permits are valid for 2 years, at which time the cache must be moved according to existing policy (my hope is that this may change once NYSOPRHP realizes that long-standing caches are not harmful to the parks). Once a permit is approved, the cache owner is given a NYS sticker that must be affixed to the outside of the cache container. The sticker includes an expiration date.

 

Individual Park Supervisors have some discretion in interpreting the policy. In Central NY, the Park Supervisors have been very reasonable to work with (I've worked with two parks to obtain permits for four caches, and all has gone well). In other areas (particularly downstate), there is concern that may not be the case.

 

The new NYSOPRHP policy (which applies only to State Parks and Historic Sites) should not be confused with the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation policy, which was recently changed from an effective ban on geocaches to now allowing geocaches, without any pre-approval, on all DEC managed lands except Wildlife Management Areas and Conservation Easements (you can find a list of the lands managed by DEC on their website).

 

The need for a listing of relevant policies has been discussed in these forums before, most recently in this thread.. The Geocaching Policy site referred to in that thread attempts to do what you suggest - provide a central repository of policies that can be easily modified/added to (by simply emailing the site new or changed policies that you may be aware of). The NY Geocaching Organization also attempts to notify members of policies in NYS, as it becomes aware of them (see this page).

 

Hope this helps!

 

PS - if you know of caches in State parks and are concerned that the owners may not be aware of the permit requirement, my advice would be to send the owners a friendly email letting them know!

Link to comment

Just one comment before I start on my reason for this reply....

 

I have had great responses from my local Park Manager. He seems very reasonable and favorable towards caching. I believe he's even become an active cacher, outside of having to find and investigate each cache in his jurisdiction.

 

I think the NYGO officers have gotten him hooked?.. :P

 

On to my question, I know NYGO states on their site that they would like cache owners to note that their caches are approved and to list the permit numbers on the cache page.

 

So.....has anyone gotten any further with an "official" approval logo, or icon we can use in our listings?....Kinda like what Keystone posted back on page 6?

Link to comment
I know NYGO states on their site that they would like cache owners to note that their caches are approved and to list the permit numbers on the cache page.

 

So.....has anyone gotten any further with an "official" approval logo, or icon we can use in our listings?

I'm also not aware of any "official" logo. I created this logo:

 

nysprhpermitcr05023ip.jpg

 

by scanning the OPRHP sticker and replacing the official verbiage with the permit number, which New York Admin asked me to include in my cache description. You can see how it looks on a cache page at Clark's Woodland or my other Clark Reservation caches.

 

If you like this one and have photo editing software, feel free to save this image and then edit the permit number to match the number of the permit you receive.

Link to comment

can somebody pleas recap in one post what exactly is going on (please no complaining)

A very comprehensive list of places in New York that are off limits to geocaching is available at the New York Capital Region Geocachers website. Under the state parks section there is a link to a complete list of OPRHP lands where geocaching is not allowed and permits will not be issued. You can also download a PDF file of the permit but keep in mind it prints on 14 inch paper.

Link to comment

Well, I'll just state a few opinions here, and we'll see how much flaming comes up for it... :lol:

 

1. I personally do not believe that Geocaching should be regulated by any Government Agency (Federal, State, City, etc...). I see it as a private interest and activity of the people - NOT as a city/state/federal *sanctioned* activity. In my personal opinion - it's none of their flipping business.

 

2. I personally do not believe that Geocaching.com should be enforcing any such regulations. I think that Geocaching.com should state clearly that each person to place a cache is responsible for making sure that they are following any applicable laws, and that all Geocaching.com is doing is simply listing coordinates and info.

 

Because what is the eventual fallout? There will be more and more regulation. More and more cachers will say "screw it, this is too much flipping effort, and I'm tired of people telling me I have to follow increasingly restrictive rules that *make no sense*."

 

More people will be inclined to follow their own common sense of where to place caches that will not get in the way of the environment - but if Geocaching.com is enforcing every beaurocrat's wishlist of what NOT to allow us to do, geocaching as an activity will simply go more and more underground - and some other website will become the new standard. Precisely because they will say "you are all responsible for making sure you're in the clear. We just list 'em".

 

Flame away. ;)

Link to comment
Well, I'll just state a few opinions here, and we'll see how much flaming comes up for it... ;)

 

1. I personally do not believe that Geocaching should be regulated by any Government Agency (Federal, State, City, etc...). I see it as a private interest and activity of the people - NOT as a city/state/federal *sanctioned* activity. In my personal opinion - it's none of their flipping business.

 

2. I personally do not believe that Geocaching.com should be enforcing any such regulations. I think that Geocaching.com should state clearly that each person to place a cache is responsible for making sure that they are following any applicable laws, and that all Geocaching.com is doing is simply listing coordinates and info.

 

Because what is the eventual fallout? There will be more and more regulation. More and more cachers will say "screw it, this is too much flipping effort, and I'm tired of people telling me I have to follow increasingly restrictive rules that *make no sense*."

 

More people will be inclined to follow their own common sense of where to place caches that will not get in the way of the environment - but if Geocaching.com is enforcing every beaurocrat's wishlist of what NOT to allow us to do, geocaching as an activity will simply go more and more underground - and some other website will become the new standard. Precisely because they will say "you are all responsible for making sure you're in the clear. We just list 'em".

 

Flame away. :lol:

1. They're not regulating geocaching .... "only" placement of caches on land that is maintained by the agency. Land is already regulated for use by hunters, snowmobilers, bicycles, and in most cases, for good reason. You may argue that geocaches are unfairly treated, as they generally have much less impact that any of the other activities I mentioned, but hopefully that's just an education matter.

 

2. Sure. Just ask how that worked out for napster.

Link to comment

 

1.  They're not regulating geocaching .... "only" placement of caches on land that is maintained by the agency.  Land is already regulated for use by hunters, snowmobilers, bicycles, and in most cases, for good reason.  You may argue that geocaches are unfairly treated, as they generally have much less impact that any of the other activities I mentioned, but hopefully that's just an education matter.

 

 

How many people here have agreed with the current limitations? The "no more than 20 ft from a trail" rule? The "no more than 5 caches per region" rule? And all the others?

 

Regulating the placement of caches IS regulating geocaching to a large degree. And after all, we're not talking about private property. We're talking about *public* parks. Public means open to everyone. And as such, as long as we're not making a negative impact, they should just leave us be. If a ranger *does* see a cache that is making a negative impact, they are free to remove it and contact the owner. But otherwise, the whole permit system is ridiculous.

 

 

2. Sure.  Just ask how that worked out for napster.

 

 

That type of reasoning doesn't fly. You can always find good and bad examples of everything.

 

If you want to bring in the world of P2P, than I would say consider what's happening in the French courts. The president of the french magistrates union is openly advocating decriminalizing online trading.

 

Saying effectively "look what happened to napster", you might as well say "look at what happened when Jews fought against Hitler" - and argue that therefore you shouldn't fight back against an oppressive and evil regime.

 

Sorry, but just because a fight happens to be an uphill battle doesn't mean that it shouldn't be fought.

Link to comment
Because what is the eventual fallout? There will be more and more regulation. More and more cachers will say "screw it, this is too much flipping effort, and I'm tired of people telling me I have to follow increasingly restrictive rules that *make no sense*."

No, we'll just use municipal and county parks more if regulation at state parks gets too onerous.

Link to comment
Because what is the eventual fallout?  There will be more and more regulation.  More and more cachers will say "screw it, this is too much flipping effort, and I'm tired of people telling me I have to follow increasingly restrictive rules that *make no sense*."

No, we'll just use municipal and county parks more if regulation at state parks gets too onerous.

Unfortunately, with rare exceptions, local and county parks don't offer the terrain, scenery and large, unbroken swaths of land that many of us geocachers enjoy.

Link to comment

No, we'll just use municipal and county parks more if regulation at state parks gets too onerous.

 

 

Unfortunately, with rare exceptions, local and county parks don't offer the terrain, scenery and large, unbroken swaths of land that many of us geocachers enjoy.

 

 

Not only that, but it's also a matter of logistics. Parks don't get created overnight. On the other hand, people can switch how or where they are performing an activity at a moment's notice.

 

Path of least resistance means that it's more likely that geocachers will simply start congregating elsewhere, where they aren't being as strictly regulated.

 

If working with Geocaching.com became that difficult, I would certainly switch to a site that emphasized individual freedoms and less enforcement where it wasn't their job to do so.

Link to comment
1. I personally do not believe that Geocaching should be regulated by any Government Agency (Federal, State, City, etc...). I see it as a private interest and activity of the people - NOT as a city/state/federal *sanctioned* activity. In my personal opinion - it's none of their flipping business.

 

2. I personally do not believe that Geocaching.com should be enforcing any such regulations.

You're not the first to launch this pseudo-libertarian diatribe. It's pseudo-libertarian because your argument is all "freedom" and no "responsibility". The lack of common sense and responsible behavior (the "all freedom and no responsibility" attitude) is one reason for the increased regulation of geocaching.

 

If you want to reduce regulation, consider promoting responsible geocaching and working with land managers to educate them about geocaching. Be an example of a friendly, helpful, responsible geocacher with good common sense - never fails to win them over in my experience.

 

Since geocaching in its present form depends on the use of public websites, it will be hard for it to go "underground" (if we can find geocaches, so can the authorities). It's more likely to simply cease to exist if the "anything goes" attitude prevails and the banning of geocacing grows.

 

Saying effectively "look what happened to napster", you might as well say "look at what happened when Jews fought against Hitler" - and argue that therefore you shouldn't fight back against an oppressive and evil regime.

You've invoked Godwin's Law - by tradition, you've lost the argument and a useful thread for exchanging information about NYS policy is now over. :laughing:

If working with Geocaching.com became that difficult, I would certainly switch to a site that emphasized individual freedoms and less enforcement where it wasn't their job to do so.

Also not an original thought - others have tried, without much success thus far for reasons that have been debated at length in these forums (do a search). For examples of exsiting alternate sites, see Terracaching, Navicache or Moving Cache (this is not a criticism of these alternate sites - merely a statement that starting an alternate site that has a critical mass of cache listings is easier said than done). I also don't agree with every policy at geocaching.com, but I do tire of these rants against any form of guidelines.

 

Give yourself more than 4 months of geocaching experience and 10 finds and your opinions might change.

Link to comment

 

You're not the first to launch this pseudo-libertarian diatribe.  It's pseudo-libertarian because your argument is all "freedom" and no "responsibility".  The lack of common sense and responsible behavior (the "all freedom and no responsibility" attitude) is one reason for the increased regulation of geocaching. 

 

 

I never advocated a lack of responsibility and common sense. However, you fulfill the definition of sheep very well, if you believe that only regulation can bring about these qualities. (not meant as harsh as it may sound)

 

 

If you want to reduce regulation, consider promoting  responsible geocaching and working with land managers to educate them about geocaching.  Be an example of a friendly, helpful, responsible geocacher with good common sense - never fails to win them over in my experience. 

 

 

That is not going to reduce regulation. Once it's in the beaurocracy, it becomes *very* difficult to remove. And although the NYS permits are currently free of charge, I am not naive enough to believe that no one has intentions of enforcing a fee once the practice of permits has become commonplace.

 

 

Since geocaching in its present form depends on the use of public websites, it will be hard for it to go "underground" (if we can find geocaches, so can the authorities).  It's more likely to simply cease to exist if the "anything goes" attitude prevails and the banning of geocacing grows.

 

 

It's not difficult to circulate cache info among private circles. Like any underground activity, this would restrict it's size from what it otherwise could be publicly - but it's not difficult at all.

 

Honestly, what does it take for you to email 50 people you know personally with your own cache info, and for them to do the same in return?

 

 

You've invoked Godwin's Law - by tradition, you've lost the argument and a useful thread for exchanging information about NYS policy is now over.    :laughing:

 

 

Cute. But calling an adage a "law" doesn't make it so. :D

 

And the flaws in that "law's" logic are obvious. :o

 

 

Also not an original thought - others have tried, without much success thus far for reasons that have been debated at length in these forums (do a search).  For examples of exsiting alternate sites, see TerracachingNavicache or Moving Cache (this is not a criticism of these alternate sites - merely a statement that starting an alternate site that has a critical mass of cache listings is easier said than done).  I also don't agree with every policy at geocaching.com, but I do tire of these rants against any form of guidelines.

 

 

I agree with you wholeheartedly that it is definitely easier said than done. I never said it would be easy. But if enough people tire of the regulation and enforcement, it will come about. History is ripe with such events.

 

As for the rants - I realize that things may be changing due to the Patriot Act. But at least in theory, we still have freedom of speech - so you should get used to it. :)

 

Although I'm sure that many people spoke your very words about those pesky King speeches... :drama:

 

 

Give yourself more than 4 months of geocaching experience and 10 finds and your opinions might change.

 

 

And what gives you the idea that I have only 4 months and 10 finds worth of experience? Simply because that's all that I've logged *here*?

 

Tsk, tsk. Put a copyright and trademark on a new name of "hide and go seek" if you will - but it's still "hide and go seek". (Not meant as a direct analogy to geocaching - although the similarity is striking)

Link to comment

I never advocated a lack of responsibility and common sense.

My point is that you never advocated for individual responsibility - just against any form of guidelines. It's the distinction between libertarianism and anarchy.

 

However, you fulfill the definition of sheep very well, if you believe that only regulation can bring about these qualities.  (not meant as harsh as it may sound)

Actually, I advocate voluntary compliance with guidelines developed for and by geocachers (not a listing site or government agency), as a means to avoid more regulation and roll back some that are already in place.

 

Since taking that sheepish position, I've been blasted by pseudo-libertarians because I advocate freedom and personal responsibility, while some among the geocaching.com "powers that be" have taken cheap shots at me, presumably because voluntary guidelines developed by the geocaching community threaten their monopoly on deciding what's good and right. Makes one's head spin. :laughing:

 

That is not going to reduce regulation.  Once it's in the beaurocracy, it becomes *very* difficult to remove. 

In working with Park Supervisors and other land managers, I've found them to be very reasonable people willing to bend or change the rules to the benefit of responsible geocachers. We have to be careful not to use too broad a brush to tar the "bureaucrats".

 

I also witnessed New York Admin's successful advocacy with NYS DEC earlier this year that resulted in DEC reversing it's de facto ban on geocaching and return to allowing unregulated geocaching on most DEC lands.

 

The evidence shows that vilifying and dehumanizing land managers doesn't reduce regulations - but educating and working with them does.

 

And although the NYS permits are currently free of charge, I am not naive enough to believe that no one has intentions of enforcing a fee.

Well, you can't live in NY and argue with that concern! :drama:

 

As for the rants - I realize that things may be changing due to the Patriot Act.  But at least in theory, we still have freedom of speech - so you should get used to it.  :o

 

Although I'm sure that many people spoke your very words about those pesky King speeches...  :D

 

That Partiot Act mentality really is insidious - it has people arguing for and against free speech in the same post! :)

Link to comment

 

My point is that you never advocated for individual responsibility - just against any form of guidelines.  It's the distinction between libertarianism and anarchy.   

 

 

You never specifically advocated for not slaughtering puppies and kittens just for fun - but I didn't make any assumptions just because it wasn't stated... B)

 

 

Actually, I advocate voluntary compliance with guidelines developed for and by geocachers (not a listing site or government agency), as a means to avoid more regulation and roll back some that are already in place. 

 

Since taking that sheepish position, I've been blasted by pseudo-libertarians because I advocate freedom and personal responsibility, while some among the geocaching.com "powers that be" have taken cheap shots at me, presumably because voluntary guidelines developed by the geocaching community threaten their monopoly on deciding what's good and right.  Makes one's head spin.  :lol:

 

 

I take no issue with voluntary responsibility. I only take issue with mandatory enforced responsibility (in this particular set of circumstances).

 

 

In working with Park Supervisors and other land managers, I've found them to be very reasonable people willing to bend or change the rules to the benefit of responsible geocachers.  We have to be careful not to use too broad a brush to tar the "bureaucrats". 

 

I also witnessed New York Admin's successful advocacy with NYS DEC earlier this year that resulted in DEC reversing it's de facto ban on geocaching and return to allowing unregulated geocaching on most DEC lands.

 

The evidence shows that vilifying and dehumanizing land managers doesn't reduce regulations - but educating and working with them does.

 

 

I never vilified and dehumanized the land managers. But it's not the individual park rangers that set this permit system in place, is it? Heck, they didn't even know what people were talking about until they were sent the formal notification from those who did implement it.

 

As for the Park Supervisors - yes it's possible that they might bend the rules. But that doesn't negate the fact that these rules were set up in the first place. It's like saying "Well, citizens are no longer allowed to enjoy ice cream - but if you're really good, your local beat cop *might* make an exception." Well, that's nice - but it's not really good enough, is it? :)

 

 

That Partiot Act mentality really is insidious - it has people arguing for and against free speech in the same post!  :)

 

 

As was said in Law & Order... "Ah, the Patriot Act. I read that under it's original title - 1984." B)

Link to comment

I have placed 4 in Wellesley Island State Park. I did this after I heard that the Nature Center Manager had pulled all caches in that State Park. I contacted the manager, set up an appointment, and brought along cache items, information and my best interview face to the meeting. We walked the trails, and he showed me why he pulled the caches (safety concerns) and set places for me to place my caches. By the time we finished our travels and conversations, he had signed me up to be the Geocaching POC volunteer for his parks. He wants me to meet, accompany, assist with cachers setting up caches. I got permits assigned that day, placed them on the caches and marked all locations as required. I had to come back and fill them with the logs and SWAG (I wasn't as prepared as I thought). He also gave me the pulled caches. I removed, and moved the TBs on their way, and notified the owners of ones that are missing from the caches. I am waiting for permission from the cache owner to replace his caches in a safer location near their original coordinates.

 

I found the Park Manager I spoke with to be very receptive to Geocaching. He was told to remove the caches by his supervisors.

 

The NY Admin approver I contacted said that it is up to the Park managers to approve the cache locations, if they gave a permit and I included the number, it would probably be approved (if it net GC.com standards). This Park Manager was OK with placement outside the stated standards if he approved the site, basically, case by case.

 

In my experience, communication works. I know each park will be a little different, but until I spoke with this manager, all he knew was there was stuff in his park that wasn't supposed to be there. Now he wants to know more about caching.

 

I saw someone note that Park Managers were usually available M-F. I am usually free on Mondays, and the Park Manager, (I think) works Tues -Sat.

Link to comment
I never vilified and dehumanized the land managers.  But it's not the individual park rangers that set this permit system in place, is it?  Heck, they didn't even know what people were talking about until they were sent the formal notification from those who did implement it.

 

As for the Park Supervisors - yes it's possible that they might bend the rules.  But that doesn't negate the fact that these rules were set up in the first place.  It's like saying "Well, citizens are no longer allowed to enjoy ice cream - but if you're really good, your local beat cop *might* make an exception."  Well, that's nice - but it's not really good enough, is it?  :grin:

The Park Supervisors I've talked with were pretty clueless about geocaching when the permit requirement first came down. That's why I took the time to meet with them, educate them about geocachers and geocaching, walk the trails and show them what I thought would be good hides. I also offered to be a point of contact if they had any questions or concerns (to point them to the right person, if nothing else). By the time I finished walking the trails with the Clark Reservation supervisor, he was enthusiastically pointing out good spots for hides (he was a geocaching convert).

 

I agree that bending the rules is not sufficient, but my belief is that the Park Supervisors will back pressure those who created the rules and gradually get them loosened or revoked (personally, I find the quarter mile separation the most bothersome - I've found the 20 feet from the trail rule is not as bad as I thought it would be - just forces more creative hides), as long as THEY come to believe the rules are overbearing. They will only come to believe that if they see geocachers acting in responsible, helpful, friendly ways.

 

We can rail against the machine, or we can try to change people's thinking. I've tried both over the years and found the latter more effective at promoting change! :rolleyes:

Link to comment

 

We can rail against the machine, or we can try to change people's thinking.  I've tried both over the years and found the latter more effective at promoting change!  :P

 

 

I don't see why the two have to be mutually exclusive.

 

In the annals of history, the desire to change people's thinking without the passion to fuel it, and the intellect to temper it - rarely survived long enough to do any good. ;)

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...