Jump to content

Nys Parks & Recreation Survey


geobernd

Recommended Posts

I know some people have voiced concerns about the fact that NYGO worked with the parks to establish these rules.

I - for one - am happy that NYGO took the lead (otherwise we might have gotten nothing) - and continues to do so...

I think the problem right now is that NYGO was also broadsided by the appliaction of this 'work in progress' ruleset to the whole of NY State Parks without any further input....

I just joined the NYGO website - and I am happy to join any online discussions etc. . And - of course- to attend any public hearing that might help our cause....

You are right about that one. We are continuing to develop our relationship with the parks and hope to have more information soon (like when the permits will be distributed).

Link to comment

I wanted to clear up a couple points here.

(like when the permits will be distributed).

Already are. The permits were emailed to all parks as a pdf file (Geocache Application-rev SHS 1-5-05 dc.pdf). Each park then prints the permit/application as needed.

 

The stickers were sent to each of the 13 districts to be distributed from there to the parks they manage. Some regions have already instituted the permit process and are moving forward. Others have chosen to delay the process for their own personal reasons. I just got off the phone with Harriman and at first the lady I spoke with claimed to know nothing about it. After I worked a couple of the right names into the conservation she admitted they had the permit and had a meeting scheduled with all the regions park managers to discuss it. Time marches on.

 

To take a look at the 13 regions and list of parks within each region visit New York State Parks regional maps

 

Other regions are already using the permit and one western NY region has asked me to assist in not only ensuring new caches are permitted but to aid them in permitting or removing pre-existing caches. Notice I said “aid”. I will not take any action without a request from the park manager or TPTB at geocaching.com.

 

My humble opinion is that jonboy’s approach is the only viable avenue to take. Charging in with both guns blazing will not help your cause, ask Jesse James. A little tact and diplomacy will go a long ways towards opening otherwise closed doors.

 

As a cache reviewer I have made contact with and established a line of communication with various state land management offices. I have done this to better enable me to perform my duties as a volunteer cache reviewer. These contacts are an important and valuable source of information that I don’t care to jeopardize so New York Admin will stand on the sidelines this time and just watch. But that doesn’t mean geocacher John Doe won’t be right there with you guys.

 

I have already taken a tongue lashing for reviewing and listing a cache in a state park last week. From this point forward no caches on New York State Park lands will pass review without a valid geocaching permit issued by the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. If your park is not yet issuing permits then don’t place the cache until they do. Plain and simple!

Link to comment
I wanted to clear up a couple points here.
(like when the permits will be distributed).

Already are. The permits were emailed to all parks as a pdf file (Geocache Application-rev SHS 1-5-05 dc.pdf). Each park then prints the permit/application as needed.

 

The stickers were sent to each of the 13 districts to be distributed from there to the parks they manage. Some regions have already instituted the permit process and are moving forward. Others have chosen to delay the process for their own personal reasons. I just got off the phone with Harriman and at first the lady I spoke with claimed to know nothing about it. After I worked a couple of the right names into the conservation she admitted they had the permit and had a meeting scheduled with all the regions park managers to discuss it. Time marches on.

 

To take a look at the 13 regions and list of parks within each region visit New York State Parks regional maps

 

Other regions are already using the permit and one western NY region has asked me to assist in not only ensuring new caches are permitted but to aid them in permitting or removing pre-existing caches. Notice I said “aid”. I will not take any action without a request from the park manager or TPTB at geocaching.com.

 

My humble opinion is that jonboy’s approach is the only viable avenue to take. Charging in with both guns blazing will not help your cause, ask Jesse James. A little tact and diplomacy will go a long ways towards opening otherwise closed doors.

 

As a cache reviewer I have made contact with and established a line of communication with various state land management offices. I have done this to better enable me to perform my duties as a volunteer cache reviewer. These contacts are an important and valuable source of information that I don’t care to jeopardize so New York Admin will stand on the sidelines this time and just watch. But that doesn’t mean geocacher John Doe won’t be right there with you guys.

 

I have already taken a tongue lashing for reviewing and listing a cache in a state park last week. From this point forward no caches on New York State Park lands will pass review without a valid geocaching permit issued by the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. If your park is not yet issuing permits then don’t place the cache until they do. Plain and simple!

Thanks for the info NYadmin. Well, guess I will be removing my other cooler Harriman caches... oh and BTW did I mention Mrs Avroair now has an account. :laughing:

Link to comment
I can't believe this map!!! It's every darn park I know. I'm just going to let someone else go get the one a hid last week, I guess that was a waste of time.

The park service are a-holes

Nice. :laughing:

I am sure glad you're not the spokesperson for our delegation.

 

Your choice of word/words is unconstructive to the cause. This type of language is not only rude, it's also obscene. Please refrain from using it here. Thank you.

Link to comment

As I mentioned in a earlier post, I bought $150 worth of TC books and maps and membership for use in my caching. Money talks. If there's a caching affiliate where TC literature, books and maps are recommended, that means income to the TC. Money, maintaining trails, providing GPS routing info, etc - a caching affiliation can offer a lot to the TC. With support from cachers who are already members in good standing with the TC, well, it's not a long stretch.

 

A relationship adds immediate respect and political clout to geocaching. With positive comments from TC trail maintainers, the governments fear of caching, 20 foot rules, etc will be lessened.

 

I think its a win- win deal.

Link to comment
As I mentioned in a earlier post, I bought $150 worth of TC books and maps and membership for use in my caching. Money talks. If there's a caching affiliate where TC literature, books and maps are recommended, that means income to the TC. Money, maintaining trails, providing GPS routing info, etc - a caching affiliation can offer a lot to the TC. With support from cachers who are already members in good standing with the TC, well, it's not a long stretch.

 

A relationship adds immediate respect and political clout to geocaching. With positive comments from TC trail maintainers, the governments fear of caching, 20 foot rules, etc will be lessened.

 

I think its a win- win deal.

Good point. I have bought several trail maps and books for geocaching. No membership yet, but I was planning to get one this spring.

Link to comment
I just got off the phone with Harriman and at first the lady I spoke with claimed to know nothing about it.

 

Why are they playing games like this?

 

Some regions have already instituted the permit process and are moving forward. Others have chosen to delay the process for their own personal reasons.
If your park is not yet issuing permits then don’t place the cache until they do. Plain and simple!

 

So essentially, geocaching is banned in regions that have not or will not institute the permits process. Great.

 

Have they told you which regions are in or which are out? And have the regions that are out specifically stated that they do NOT want geocaching in their parks or do they just not care one way or the other? This is why I'm content to work strictly with our local region. Apparently each region can make their own decisions the problem is GC.com will do what Albany says to do even if it conflicts with what each region wants. None of this makes any sense. If Albany sets a policy, why aren't all of the regions following it? And how does GC.com know what each region wants? My head hurts. I'm sick of getting tiny bits of information. I'll be spending the entire day on the phone tomorrow calling every single region several times until I know wtf is going on.

Link to comment

Geocachers have to realize that most of the parks peronnel do not attach the same importance to geocaching that some of us do, not only that, but some of them probably disagree with the decision to allow geocaches to be placed in their parks. If you read NYAdmin's post you will see that the permits were sent to the regional headquarters, not the individual parks. It so happens that the Palisades Region headquarters is in Bear Mountain, but the Taconic Region headquarters is in Staatsburg. They may protest this decision, but they will not openly defy it, rather they will drag their feet about it's implementation. They know how to play this game, and they hold the cards, so we have to be a little patient. Instead of approaching them saying "Hey! I'm supposed to get a permit! What are you waiting for?", we should try something like, "What can we geocachers do to make you comfortable about having geocaches in your park?".

 

Only a handful of parks people even knew about geocaching, and many of the others just don't care that much, it just gives them more work to do. Winter is a good time to deal with this issue, as they are not so busy now, but bureaucratic inertia is to be expected. We need to be persistent , without being hectoring and without displaying too much of a sense of entitlement. They will come around because they have no choice, just don't expect an epiphany on their part.

Edited by jonboy
Link to comment

Just looked at the NY/NJ Trail Conference application again. After the application is reviewed by their Board, it must be approved by their Delegates Assembly. They meet quarterly (February, June, October, and December). I believe the next delegates meeting is February 26th. Our application was just recently submitted, so hopefully it can be approved at that time. They should be contacting us prior to the meeting to request a representative from our group attend the meeting.

Link to comment

OK. I just got off the phone with our regional headquarters. They have the permits and they are availible. I will be meeting with the person who is running the show later today. Much to my surprise, everyone I talked to knew exactly what I was talking about!!! Even the person who answered the phone!

Link to comment
Perhaps Avroair ran into a problem because of his speech impediment? ;)

 

Good Luck JMBella! Let us know how receptive and cooperative they are.

I'm from Lawn Gisland. My speech impediment is worse. I'm goinageta cupa cawffee.

 

Wow, that's crazy. Just as I was writing that my phone rang. It was the woman who will be handling this for the LI region. She was very nice but admitted she did not know all the details yet. I told her I would work with them to make their jobs easier as much as I could. She was open to letting me put the Application on our website so it would save cache hiders an extra trip and would save their staff some work as well.

 

Time will tell how easy this turns out to be but I'm optimistic.

Link to comment
I wanted to clear up a couple points here.
(like when the permits will be distributed).

Already are. The permits were emailed to all parks as a pdf file (Geocache Application-rev SHS 1-5-05 dc.pdf). Each park then prints the permit/application as needed.

 

The stickers were sent to each of the 13 districts to be distributed from there to the parks they manage. Some regions have already instituted the permit process and are moving forward. Others have chosen to delay the process for their own personal reasons. I just got off the phone with Harriman and at first the lady I spoke with claimed to know nothing about it. After I worked a couple of the right names into the conservation she admitted they had the permit and had a meeting scheduled with all the regions park managers to discuss it. Time marches on.

 

To take a look at the 13 regions and list of parks within each region visit New York State Parks regional maps

 

Other regions are already using the permit and one western NY region has asked me to assist in not only ensuring new caches are permitted but to aid them in permitting or removing pre-existing caches. Notice I said “aid”. I will not take any action without a request from the park manager or TPTB at geocaching.com.

 

My humble opinion is that jonboy’s approach is the only viable avenue to take. Charging in with both guns blazing will not help your cause, ask Jesse James. A little tact and diplomacy will go a long ways towards opening otherwise closed doors.

 

As a cache reviewer I have made contact with and established a line of communication with various state land management offices. I have done this to better enable me to perform my duties as a volunteer cache reviewer. These contacts are an important and valuable source of information that I don’t care to jeopardize so New York Admin will stand on the sidelines this time and just watch. But that doesn’t mean geocacher John Doe won’t be right there with you guys.

 

I have already taken a tongue lashing for reviewing and listing a cache in a state park last week. From this point forward no caches on New York State Park lands will pass review without a valid geocaching permit issued by the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. If your park is not yet issuing permits then don’t place the cache until they do. Plain and simple!

Everyone seems so upset by the permit rule, but consider this... In many of our parks there are areas that ecologically sensitive, hazardous, down right dangerous or not compatible with geocaching. The permitting process protects these areas and us. You don't know where the endangered species are and that info is confidential to protect the species, but we could be trampling something important and never know it. Some areas have uncovered oil or water wells, quick sand, soils prone to mud slids etc. What camper wants a bunch of geocachers traipsing through his camping area on their way to a find.

The permits are designed to prevent these things. They are not for control over you as a person. I know, I work in a NYS park. I was one of people asked if this is an activity that is compatible with state parks recreation mission. I recommended we allow geocaching, but I also recommended that we somehow protect those places that need protecting. I guess you can blame me for some of this, but part of my position here at the park is to help in protecting parts of this park from overuse or environmental degredation. As you read this you may think, "yeah, but I know what a grape-leaf fern looks like and I'd never walk on it," but that family with the three kids won't. Remember, the state has an obligation to protect the public, that means you. We have a cache in this park that is down right dangerous. Do you think an injured party is going to sue the out of state guy that placed it there, no they are going to sue the state. Think about it folks, there's some good reasons for the permitting. Maybe not all the restrictions are to your liking, but that doesn't mean that with time and discussion some can't be changed. The 20' rule for instance. With some experience on how this works or doesn't, the state may be open to some discussion on it. We welcome geocachers here, and are willing to work with you. Yes our permits are ready. See you in the Park, Cache On.

Link to comment
Everyone seems so upset by the permit rule, but consider this... In many of our parks there are areas that ecologically sensitive, hazardous, down right dangerous or not compatible with geocaching

 

I don't see that here. I see most people here are OK with the idea of permits, but frustrated by the lack of uniformity between parks with regards to them. There is also some criticism of the 20 foot rule, which will lead to social trails, cache theft and eliminate many excellent places.

 

There is also a feeling that geocachers are being singled out even though its a relatively low impact activity, while ATVers run rampant, tearing up our parks with impunity.

 

Other than that most of the posters in this thread seem to be OK with the idea of permits and happy to help protect the land that we all love.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

naturescout, first off, my sincere thanks for responding to this. It means a lot that you've decided to get involved.

 

Brian has a great point. To add to that a bit, What the NYS Parks don't seem to realize is that WE are on YOUR side. We enjoy these parks and want to see them protected every bit as much as you do. Actually, I don't disagree with anything you stated (except that everyone is upset) and I don't disagree with the permit system as a whole. Some of us blew off a little steam and that's to be expected. Don't misinterpret that as a complete discord.

 

When I called my region this morning they were very pleasant and like I said earlier, everyone knew what I was talking about. The person I spoke to said she had the permits but was not sure exactly how things were supposed to be handled.

 

At this point I think we'd all be happy if someone made sure every park in every region was on the same page. We don't plan on being a burden on the State Parks Dept, to the contrary we will be and have been an asset.

 

Other than that, please continue to have an open mind. By the way the rules are written, (ie, 20 foot off trail, unless otherwise approved), makes me very optimistic.

 

Thanks Again.

Edited by JMBella
Link to comment

I just got a very encouraging e-mail from Optimus Prime:

 

John,

 

Just talked to the Fahnestock people here in Cold Spring. They had a special meeting about the cache issue the other night and are expecting people to come in for permits. They were even issued stickers by the State to "legalize" the approved caches. They even said that there is no need to remove the caches, just go in show them were they are (coordinates) and show that they "somewhat" meet the guidelines. They are mainly concerned with placement in ecologically sensitve areas, and like I was just told "hunters get free-rain of the woods bith on trail and off, thus we can't totally prohibit off trail hiking..." I will probably go out some time this week and see ifI can register the few I have in the park. Let me know if you have any other info.

 

MB

 

It seems the Fahnestock people are going to be relaxed about the permit process. knowing this, one of the caches I removed probably could have been left in place. All the others were either more than two years old, just shy of being two years old, on the edge of a cliff or way off trail. I'll still have to remove one in Fahnestock and two in the Hudson Highlands, but I will be going in there to talk to them soon. Harriman is going to be more of a problem, I don't think they will let all those caches stay, I'll probably have to at least pull out my most interesting caches, they will not like ones on the edge of a cliff or in a mine. I am encouraged though, we are being treated reasonably.

Edited by jonboy
Link to comment

Hi everyone. I currently have a cache stashed in Harriman State Park which is on hold because of the permit thing. It is accessed ONLY by unmarked trails, is completely safe, is .50 mile away from any other cache and is under twenty feet from the unmarked trail. What should I do to get this bad boy online. Does anyone know what to do with regards to harriman State Park. If anyone knows, that would be awesome. Please help the lonely cacher.

Edited by matty714
Link to comment

Thanks for the update Jon.

 

Let me ask you; How close does the trail come to the cliff and is it legal to walk in the mine? If the trail is close and it's legal to go in the mine, then I don't see how they could have a problem with it. If I were you I would at least try to get it approved before letting them die. I'd hate to see some of your best work get archive, especially if I haven't found it yet.

 

All in all I would say this is positive news. Can he give you any indication as to if this frame of mind will be adopted by the rest of the parks and regions?

Link to comment
Hi everyone. I currently have a cache stashed in Harriman State Park which is on hold because of the permit thing. It is accessed ONLY by unmarked trails, is completely safe, is .50 mile away from any other cache and is under twenty feet from the unmarked trail. What should I do to get this bad boy online. Does anyone know what to do with regards to harriman State Park. If anyone knows, that would be awesome. Please help the lonely cacher.

I think all you can do is apply for the permit. When you say "unmarked," does that mean it's like a deer path, or a real trail with no blazes? I'm just speculating but I'm going to assume that Harriman will be under a little more scrutiny than most other parks.

Link to comment

JMBella,

I wouldn't approve "Trepidation" or "Lurker at the Threshold" if I was park manager, and I'm not going to try and get away with questionable caches at this time. I wish I had not named another one "Break Dem Bones", as it is not that bad. Yes, going into mines is against park regulations, as is going off trail, and they did enforce that one by forcing the AMC to ban hikes that were listed as bushwacks.

Link to comment
IHarriman is going to be more of a problem, I don't think they will let all those caches stay. .

 

8156ad03-1a05-4fc1-a6a8-0a9a541b3316.jpg

:DB):(:mad:

 

In all seriousness, if all the Harriman caches are achived there are enough of us who frequent the park to pick up the geolitter. :D

 

We could make it a Harriman CITO event! B)

Edited by avroair
Link to comment
IHarriman is going to be more of a problem, I don't think they will let all those caches stay. .

 

db30d8d8-4436-4de0-8724-77701cbb1d38.jpg

 

:D:D:mad:

 

In all seriousness, if all the Harriman caches are achived there are enough of us who frequent the park to pick up the geolitter. :(

 

We could make it a Harriman CITO event! B)

I can't read that but I'm sure it's really funny.

Link to comment
Everyone seems so upset by the permit rule

I, for one, am more upset at the stupidity of the State Agencies. What I mean is if the NYDEC (Department of Environmental Conservation) who is in charge of deciding how to best protect the state's environment decides that Geocaching is an activity with such minimal impact that it can approve it with no permits in ALL NYDEC parks, who is NY Parks and Recreation to overturn that decision. Aren't they the see-saw and merry go round experts?

Link to comment

It's obvious that the governmental agencies overseeing NYS park's operations are going to pick and choose their battles very carefully.

 

Hudson Valley Orienteering has two PERMANENT courses in place in Fahenstock and three in Harriman.

 

I have the map for Harriman (Silvermine area) and count a total of 32 controls. I would expect Fahenstock to have a similiar amount since it was a large competition.

 

Orienteering by nature requires extensive off-trail traffic. I don't recall over the last five years any mention of restrictions on events or control placements. There's even an event on March 13th at Sebago Lake that's touting that the controls will be placed in pits - obviously off-trail.

 

NYARA has also used Harriman extensively with race check points being placed off-trail. The only restrictions I remember were time related. NYARA has held one event there already this year and has at least one more planned for the summer.

 

Participants in these events can number from a few dozen to a few hundred, whereas a cache might see a few dozen visitors over its entire lifetime.

 

By no means am I an advocate of any more regulations, but I do believe that they should be equally applied.

Link to comment
. What I mean is if the NYDEC (Department of Environmental Conservation) who is in charge of deciding how to best protect the state's environment decides that Geocaching is an activity with such minimal impact that it can approve it with no permits in ALL NYDEC parks, who is NY Parks and Recreation to overturn that decision. Aren't they the see-saw and merry go round experts?

 

I think in NY they are different agencies and manage different lands. DEC manages forest preserve, state forests and wildlife areas and the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation manages the state parks.

 

I believe (and NY Admin can correct me if I'm wrong) the permit system doesn't apply to DEC lands, only state parks.

Link to comment
Everyone seems so upset by the permit rule

I, for one, am more upset at the stupidity of the State Agencies. What I mean is if the NYDEC (Department of Environmental Conservation) who is in charge of deciding how to best protect the state's environment decides that Geocaching is an activity with such minimal impact that it can approve it with no permits in ALL NYDEC parks, who is NY Parks and Recreation to overturn that decision. Aren't they the see-saw and merry go round experts?

NYS Parks (OPRHP) have not overuled DEC. They are separate agencies with different land holdings. The permit system being discussed only affects NYS Parks, not DEC forests, etc. or the Adirondack or Catskill "parks" which are DEC forest preserve and private lands, bounded by the infamous blue lines.

 

Briansnat is correct.

Edited by GPS Guy
Link to comment
. What I mean is if the NYDEC (Department of Environmental Conservation) who is in charge of deciding how to best protect the state's environment decides that Geocaching is an activity with such minimal impact that it can approve it with no permits in ALL NYDEC parks, who is NY Parks and Recreation to overturn that decision. Aren't they the see-saw and merry go round experts?

 

I think in NY they are different agencies and manage different lands. DEC manages forest preserve, state forests and wildlife areas and the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation manages the state parks.

 

I believe (and NY Admin can correct me if I'm wrong) the permit system doesn't apply to DEC lands, only state parks.

Well, I'm not NY Admin and you're not wrong.

 

NY State Parks Dept. is entirely different from the NYS DEC.

Link to comment

Well, the feedback so far is encouraging. I am going to wait a week on Harriman (the only park that affects me directly) before calling them. I assume that if the permit is a PDF they can e-mail or fax it to me so I can fill it out and THEN go get approval.

 

Look for a South America Loop Series soon. :mad:

Link to comment
I, for one, am more upset at the stupidity of the State Agencies. What I mean is if the NYDEC (Department of Environmental Conservation) who is in charge of deciding how to best protect the state's environment decides that Geocaching is an activity with such minimal impact that it can approve it with no permits in ALL NYDEC parks, who is NY Parks and Recreation to overturn that decision. Aren't they the see-saw and merry go round experts?

 

I think those who correctly noted that NY Park and Recreation doesn't control DEC parks missed his underlying point. If DEC, who's main charter is to protect the state's environment has no trouble with caches in any of their parks, why is another NY State agency suddenly creating rules for their parks? Doesn't one hand look to see what the other is doing? You'd think that Parks would look to see what DEC is doing especially since DEC just opened up all their territory to caching. Didn't anyone at Parks get the message? Didn't anyone at Parks ask the question why DEC did what they did?

 

If anyone from Parks is reading this post and forum, and I hope they are, I really would like to hear an answer to the question: "Why are you doing exactly opposite what DEC is doing?" Are we to believe the 20' rule is the reason when you acknowledge that hunters violate it all the time? Why you? DEC isn't!

Link to comment

I wouldn't say the DEC had no trouble with caches in the land they manage, I would say they were unable to show how it would cause great harm in order to justify the continued ban. They will be monitoring how geocaching affects their land, and I would say they would be very glad to call for it's restriction if they could show cause. It will be up to geocachers to monitor themselves in order to make sure this permission is not rescinded.

 

I really feel that we do not have grounds to feel agrieved, rather we should feel relieved that geocaching has been endorsed by the two agencies that control state land. Did anyone really believe that we were going to have carte blanche to do as we please forever? They knew that there were geocaches were in their parks, and turned a blind eye to it as long as the impact was minimal, but it was the huge growth in geocaching and the proliferation of caches that forced them to act. Why did Parks and Rec place more restrictions on geocaching than the DEC? They did so because they could point to a park like Harriman, where the placement of geocaches had run amok in order to justify the restrictions. The selective enforcement of off trail restrictions by Parks and Rec is something we have grounds to question, but this does not make them idiots. Parks and rec lands are administered separately from the DEC lands because the pattern of use of a Forest Preserve is different from a park.

 

Apart from the ADK High Peaks area, most of the use is less intense, and the people who use the land are by and large more experienced in wilderness travel. A park like Harriman, with 2.2 million visitors a year, many of whom are urban dwellers with little or no experience in wilderness travel, has many more incidences of lost persons, it happens every weekend in the summer. For this reason they are able to justify off trail restrictions.

 

Quite frankly, most geocachers have little or no wilderness travel skills and venture only as far from their vehicles as needed to find their caches. I am surpised we have not had more incidents of lost geocachers. I feel it is this lack of experience and background in the issues involved in land management that cause many geocachers, who hardly set foot in the woods before geocaching, to leap to the conclusion that these Parks people are idiots.

Edited by jonboy
Link to comment
They knew that there were geocaches were in their parks, and turned a blind eye to it as long as the impact was minimal, but it was the huge growth in geocaching and the proliferation of caches that forced them to act. Why did Parks and Rec place more restrictions on geocaching than the DEC? They did so because they could point to a park like Harriman, where the placement of geocaches had run amok in order to justify the restrictions.

Turning a blind eye or feigning ignorance is not an excuse.

 

The Harriman issue is not one that should go away so easily, nor should it be used as an example of "geocaching run amok". The cache density issue there was addressed in another thread and if I didn't have a job, I'd go look for it now. Harriman is still LESS DENSE than some other local areas.

 

You can go on a ten mile hile in Harriman and come out with 8-12 caches. It is not like you are going on a 10 mile hike and picking up 40-100 caches.

 

If anything, Harriman is the perfect example of how cachers have done the responsible thing with an abundance of land. Cachers who frequent the area fall in love and I am sure many, trash out every time they go there. Geocaching has positively affected HSP in many ways.

 

Talk is cheap. If anything, jonboy, as someone with all these contacts, you should be taking these people you work so well with and show them exactly what geocaching is about and why it should not only be tolerated but embraced by their organization.

Link to comment

I hadn't been willing to get out front about the caching issue because I knew I had placed caches without official permission, and I was embarrassed to admit as much, being that I am an officer in a Search and Rescue group and a long time hiking club official. I don't have any contacts in Harriman, just a few in the Taconic Region and some within the trail conference, the DEC and the hiking clubs.

 

I am delighted at this turn of events, because it enables me come out of the closet as a geocacher and not feel like some kind of outlaw. I have argued in the past that given the size of Harriman there are not too many caches, but I do have a problem with too many being clustered around a handful of parking lots. From the park manager's perspective, 220 caches is an awful lot of caches, no matter how big the park, and I can see how this could be an embarrassment to him, indicating perhaps that he had lost control of his park.

 

If we are to get along with these park people, we are going to have to make an effort to see things from their perspective. It doesn't help to get on this board and insult them, especially when we know that at least one of them, who has lobbied for our cause, is on this board. Try not to say anything here that you wouldn't say to their faces, because one day you might be standing in front of one of them, asking for an exemption from the 20 foot rule.

Link to comment
Try not to say anything here that you wouldn't say to their faces, because one day you might be standing in front of one of them, asking for an exemption from the 20 foot rule.

 

Everything Neil has said so far he would have said to someone's face. :rolleyes: I looked at Harriman and it is a bit of an overstatement to say that one or two cachers have gone wild in the park. Whereas there are a few who have mulitple caches, in a 5 miles - 50 cache radius - I added up at least 15 cacher owners. There are alot of people who have placed one cache in Harriman and are either out of the game or active and live elsewhere. So it isn't as easy as telling a couple of people - archive all your caches and the park will be uncluttered.

Edited by avroair
Link to comment
I am delighted at this turn of events, because it enables me come out of the closet as a geocacher and not feel like some kind of outlaw.

I went through the same process as you folks, back in spring 2003 here in Pennsylvania when our State Park/State Forest policy went into effect. I felt the same way as Jonboy. It was cathartic to be able to discuss geocaching openly with a land manager. I hid four caches in a state park that had previously yanked an unauthorized cache placed in a delicate wildflower preserve. I also ran a CITO Event for their park.

 

The park naturalist was great to work with. They had no problem with caches, it turned out, just with the spot where that one was hidden. I had chosen another spot that, unbeknownst to me, was a rare plant area. The naturalist steered me away from that area and instead suggested a different section of the park that the rangers called "The Vortex" because there are many converging stream valleys. He said that is where most of their lost hiker rescues occurred, and that it would be a cool place for a geocache. I did what he said, and it's one of my best hides.

 

After this experience, I went back and got permission for some of my earlier caches that had been placed under the "don't ask, don't tell" theory. That felt better, too. Nowadays, when I go to a town park department, I can say with confidence that geocaching is a recognized activity. "Hey, it's allowed in the State Parks... just talk to my friend at ABC State Park who I've worked with since 2003. Don't you want a nice geocache or two in *your* park, just like the big parks have?"

 

When PA instituted its permit policy, there were very, very few geocaches that had to be removed forcibly. They sort of grandfathered the old ones in, except for ones that were causing real problems. I hope that a similar common sense approach will prevail in New York.

 

Two years later, with the perspective of time and with the fear of the unknown being gone, I'd say that the permit system is a good thing, or at least tolerable.

Link to comment
So far it sounds like things are better than they were. Perhaps, in time, it will get even better.

 

Good luck in finding your Harriman Lil Bits!!! :rolleyes: Hopefully, I will make it to Harriman in the next couple of weeks to remove my other caches. Until Harriman has their group hug I am not going to call them.

 

Do the state parks have a uniform policy on geocaches already placed. I.E. archive them all and reapply or will they just sit there until they are not maintained?

 

Boston cache was placed in 2000 and is therefore very old in caching terms, it would be a shame to have it archived.

Link to comment
I wouldn't say the DEC had no trouble with caches in the land they manage, I would say they were unable to show how it would cause great harm in order to justify the continued ban. They will be monitoring how geocaching affects their land, and I would say they would be very glad to call for it's restriction if they could show cause. It will be up to geocachers to monitor themselves in order to make sure this permission is not rescinded.

 

I really feel that we do not have grounds to feel agrieved, rather we should feel relieved that geocaching has been endorsed by the two agencies that control state land. Did anyone really believe that we were going to have carte blanche to do as we please forever? They knew that there were geocaches were in their parks, and turned a blind eye to it as long as the impact was minimal, but it was the huge growth in geocaching and the proliferation of caches that forced them to act. Why did Parks and Rec place more restrictions on geocaching than the DEC? They did so because they could point to a park like Harriman, where the placement of geocaches had run amok in order to justify the restrictions. The selective enforcement of off trail restrictions by Parks and Rec is something we have grounds to question, but this does not make them idiots. Parks and rec lands are administered separately from the DEC lands because the pattern of use of a Forest Preserve is different from a park.

 

Apart from the ADK High Peaks area, most of the use is less intense, and the people who use the land are by and large more experienced in wilderness travel. A park like Harriman, with 2.2 million visitors a year, many of whom are urban dwellers with little or no experience in wilderness travel, has many more incidences of lost persons, it happens every weekend in the summer. For this reason they are able to justify off trail restrictions.

 

Quite frankly, most geocachers have little or no wilderness travel skills and venture only as far from their vehicles as needed to find their caches. I am surpised we have not had more incidents of lost geocachers. I feel it is this lack of experience and background in the issues involved in land management that cause many geocachers, who hardly set foot in the woods before geocaching, to leap to the conclusion that these Parks people are idiots.

Your response makes some really good points, but I'm curious. How many cachers have been lost in Harriman while caching?

 

I do agree that Harriman is more urbane and with many more visitors, the park people are concerned. But what is their main motive? The 20' rule, people getting lost, being accused they lost control of their park? Are they creating a "straw man".

 

I guess it's one step ahead (DEC's decision to open their parks). With Parks, it's one step back due to their rules but 1 step ahead at the same time for at least not being in limbo waiting for the ax to fall. It could have been worse. I do think its important they came down on the side that caching should be allowed.

 

I suspect we'll see 1/10 of the caches in Harriman a year from now. For casual hunters like me, I'll never run out of caches to look for in the Parks. However, the impact will be on both the dedicated high volume finder and the interested but casual hider who will find it too difficult for the process of hiding in parks. They will dump more in urban areas and the hides in the parks will be left to a small group of dedicated cachers.

Link to comment
However, the impact will be on both the dedicated high volume finder and the interested but casual hider who will find it too difficult for the process of hiding in parks.

Don't worry about the high-volume finders. Most of them are used to traveling well out of their regions for cache clusters anyway. ;)

Yeah, there are plenty of New Jersey parks for LIer's to come and find clusters. ;)

 

My main worry about Harriman is that people who are responsible (like Jonboy) remove their caches, while the majority are just left sitting in violation of the permit process. Some are one-offs hidden by people no longer associated with the game. The park has quite a plethora (that's superabundance for you Neil! :P ) of hiders.

Link to comment
Do the state parks have a uniform policy on geocaches already placed. I.E. archive them all and reapply or will they just sit there until they are not maintained?

 

Boston cache was placed in 2000 and is therefore very old in caching terms, it would be a shame to have it archived.

My personal approach is going to be to apply for the permit for existing caches, if declined, then I will remove and archive the cache.

 

As for the Boston Cache, for historic reasons, it might be worth trying to get an exception to the rule. I am concerned about the line in the cache page that reads "Near the cache, there are some dangerous (but interesting) features-please be careful, and watch where you are going."

 

Is that the case? If the park perceives this as a potentially dangerous location, I doubt they would approve it.

 

If there are caches like this that we feel have special significance to the geocaching community, NYGO could help work with the cache owner and the park to come up with a solution where the cache can be approved.

Link to comment
As for the Boston Cache, for historic reasons, it might be worth trying to get an exception to the rule. I am concerned about the line in the cache page that reads "Near the cache, there are some dangerous (but interesting) features-please be careful, and watch where you are going."

 

Is that the case? If the park perceives this as a potentially dangerous location, I doubt they would approve it.

 

The cache is located about 100 feet from the Boston mine. Which is an excavation and cave. However, you donot need to go near this mine to find the cache. The cache is within 20 feet of the trail AND the trail then winds down past the mine.

 

115017_200.jpg

Link to comment
The cache is located about 100 feet from the Boston mine. Which is an excavation and cave. However, you donot need to go near this mine to find the cache. The cache is within 20 feet of the trail AND the trail then winds down past the mine.

I will be talking to the Park Manager at Letchworth State Park this weekend. He is the one we were dealing with to work out the details of the new permit system. I'm going to see what he has to say about historical caches and what we might be able to do to preserve them. Especially if they meet the rest of the guidelines, which by the sounds of things, this one does.

 

Thanks for the heads up, Mark. I'll keep you posted on what I find out.

Link to comment
I will be talking to the Park Manager at Letchworth State Park this weekend. He is the one we were dealing with to work out the details of the new permit system. I'm going to see what he has to say about historical caches and what we might be able to do to preserve them. Especially if they meet the rest of the guidelines, which by the sounds of things, this one does.

Just curious if you asked the Park Manager at Letchworth why this turned from an experiment at one park to the standard policy across the state.

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...