The Future Of Geocaching

[Golden_Spike]

In light of the recent discussions involving bans being put on geocaching in certain places, i have started this topic to discuss the future of geocaching. here are mine:

 

Due to authoratative agencies constant need to regulate and police everything that becomes popular i think that in the near future the game of geocaching will need to attempt to revert to its small-time roots. Dont get me wrong for a second - having this amazing big website makes caching more enjoyable and accessable to everyone and i like it a lot. At the moment i dont think the regulations have such an effect on people's enjoyment of the game that anything should be changed yet - but heres my idea for what could happen if need be.

 

What if, at a certain point in the future, no new caches were posted on the site? Instead, their information would be emailed directly to users within a certain distance of the cache site. It would be sent as an attachment in a file format that you could open with some program from geocaching.com, so it would have all the maps and hints and stuff, but wouldnt be accessable to anyone who wondered upon the site. Why couldnt anyone just sign up to get the emails you ask? because there would be a prerequisite of finding 100 caches before you could recieve the emails about the new caches. to get those hundred finds, beginers would have to use caches already in existence.

 

anyway, this is just a rough idea of mine - it would probably cause lots of liability concerns for the website among other things, but i only started this topic to hear what people thought and maybe spark some good ideas for geocaching in the future, so here are my questions:

 

Will the game of geocaching have to undergo massive changes in order to avoid being regulated into oblivion?

 

How should it be done?

Edited February 13, 2005 by Golden_Spike

[+Sagefox]

I hope winter ends soon in your part of the country. You gotta get outside more often.

Edited February 13, 2005 by Team Sagefox

[Golden_Spike]

yeah . . . that was pretty constructive, thanks a bunch!

[+Sagefox]

(jerk anti-caching land managers for instance).

How constructive is this? Or will comments like it help hasten the doomsday scenario you are predicting?

 

Your picture of the future of geocaching seem a bit far fetched to me.

[Golden_Spike]

good point.. maybe i was a little harsh. but it is pretty frustrating to me when people try to ban an activity that they probably dont even understand.

 

what are your ideas of the future of the game?

[+Sagefox]

what are your ideas of the future of the game?

I see people with over 2000 finds still having fun with geocaching. I have not heard of any parks on my route between California and Washington State showing any interest in banning caches. I pretty much think it will keep going the way it is right now for quite some time.

 

I expect interesting new features will be added like locating caches along a route and better wide area cache maps. Other cool additions to the site will likely come along within the next two years.

 

A secret insider's game does not seem probable for gc.com. Legal issues aside, I can't imagine the present management being interested in moving that direction.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

I think that's a GREAT idea, how about you kick off the revolution, and from now on you don't post any new caches, but just email yours to members of your local group.

 

At first I thought this topic need not even recieve any replies, but I'm bored so here I am. I think that those who post these topics of "the sky is falling" are just over reacting to a few rare (but over hyped, by paroniods) occasions where Geocaching is restricted in sensative areas. I suppose some people think that anyone who wants to do any activity anywhere they want should have free reign. Well, guys GET REAL.

 

Here's a thread for you(made up to illustrate a point),

 

"Geocaching BANNED in California"

 

It was determined today in a county court that a "Geocacher" who placed a geocache in a strangers backyard without permission was illegally tresspassing. Because there are some people that interpret the the laws to expressly permit anything that is not specifically forbidden, there must now be a new state law written into the books "Geocachers are not permitted to hide Geocaches on private property without permission"

 

Come on you guys, it's to be expected that some places must remain off limits for some activities. If there were not regulations on activities, then the public lands would have long ago been logged/paved/plowed/mined/dammed/setteled Etc. If you can't deal with it, get yourself an arsenal, move to the backwoods and bolt the door

 

The best way to combat regulations restricting our preffered activity is to recpect and honor them, and work in constructive ways to relax them in the future. "constructive ways" reads "positive forum threads, intelligent thought process, respect those who work for us to preserve our land, use common sense in caching, Etc.

 

Instead of berating those who we have entrusted with the protection of our lands, hold responsible the careless cachers who have brought negative light onto the game, by trampling out new trails, disrespecting authorities, damaging landscape, disregarding set regulations, posting threads that berate public servants, Etc.

 

Here's another hypothetical for you.

 

Let's say that I was trying to hide a new cache today, and was shot down by the local park manager (X); of cousse I get really upset, and come home at the end of the day and post a thread here about all the lamebrained park people that won't let me place a cache in "such and so" park district; then twenty minutes later the park guy gets home and decides to go online and see what the heck I was trying to explain to him; the first thread he sees as he enters the forums is the one that's titled "park manager (X) out at "such and so" park district is a lamebrained, powertripping, jerko, knownothing who won't me place a cache in the flowerbeds in front of his office window"

 

YEAH, that kind of thread is REALLY gonna help

 

Remember, "sticks and stones will break your bones, but replies in the forum will never hurt you"

 

I don't mean to be harsh, but this kind of thread could hurt the game more than it could help.

 

By the way I don't type well, so it took me 35 minutes to write this, it must be a hot button with me.

Edited February 13, 2005 by WRITE SHOP ROBERT

[+CO Admin]

<snip>

Come on you guys, it's to be expected that some places must remain off limits for some activities. If there were not regulations on activities, then the public lands would have long ago been logged/paved/plowed/mined/dammed/setteled Etc. If you can't deal with it, get yourself an arsenal, move to the backwoods and bolt the door

 

The best way to combat regulations restricting our preffered activity is to recpect and honor them, and work in constructive ways to relax them in the future. "constructive ways" reads "positive forum threads, intelligent thought process, respect those who work for us to preserve our land, use common sense in caching, Etc.

 

Instead of berating those who we have entrusted with the protection of our lands, hold responsible the careless cachers who have brought negative light onto the game, by trampling out new trails, disrespecting authorities, damaging landscape, disregarding set regulations, posting threads that berate public servants, Etc.

 

Here's another hypothetical for you.

 

Let's say that I was trying to hide a new cache today, and was shot down by the local park manager (X); of cousse I get really upset, and come home at the end of the day and post a thread here about all the lamebrained park people that won't let me place a cache in "such and so" park district; then twenty minutes later the park guy gets home and decides to go online and see what the heck I was trying to explain to him; the first thread he sees as he enters the forums is the one that's titled "park manager (X) out at "such and so" park district is a lamebrained, powertripping, jerko, knownothing who won't me place a cache in the flowerbeds in front of his office window"

 

YEAH, that kind of thread is REALLY gonna help

 

Remember, "sticks and stones will break your bones, but replies in the forum will never hurt you"

 

I don't mean to be harsh, but this kind of thread could hurt the game more than it could help.

 

By the way I don't type well, so it took me 35 minutes to write this, it must be a hot button with me.

VERY well said. More than once I have had a land manager reference threads in these forums as examples of "Typical" behavior when cachers post that they will trash lands that ban Geocaching or us abusive language about land managers. You will never see a DC lobbyist calling the people they are trying to influence a jerk. Isn't that interesting?

[+LthrWrk]

That reads like some scifi end of the world movie and anarchy prevailing.

 

I doubt that 'policeing' would ever be like that.

 

Better still get active and support Geocaching with positive discussions about it. Local cachers forming together to help inform the often 'misinformed land managers' can make a huge difference.

[+KolarBear]

In any New York State Park there are newly made rules on caches. That are very annoying. Like how to can only we 20 ft off a trail and not within .25 mile of another cache.

 

Personally I think that old saying works here,

 

"If it isn't broke, don't fix it."

 

Most cachers don't abuse anything, and sometimes even IMPROVE the environment

 

But eventually all the agencies will get tired of trying to keep up with all us cachers and just leave us alone!

 

If not well...

 

I'll worry about it then!

 

-KolarBear

[+Sagefox]

In any New York State Park there are newly made rules on caches. That are very annoying. Like how to can only we 20 ft off a trail and not within .25 mile of another cache.

 

This means that they allow geocaching. That is a good thing. 20' and .25 mile for a State Park is not a bad deal.

 

But eventually all the agencies will get tired of trying to keep up with all us cachers and just leave us alone!

 

I would not be too sure about that.

Edited February 14, 2005 by Team Sagefox

[+AuntieWeasel]

In the (extremely unlikely) event of a blanket ban on leaving a log book in the wilderness, I would accept "go to these coordinates and take a picture" as an acceptable alternative way to earn a smiley. Let's see someone enforce a ban on that.

[+sept1c_tank]

I see the future of geocaching through rose colored glases.

[+MickEMT]

I've seen caches placed in "banned" areas. That's the sort of thing that will cause trouble for the sport.

[HIPS-meister]

Perhaps I am sympathetic to those law-enforcement officers; and to the various site managers, superintendents and so-forth. I understand their position; the job they do; "where they are coming from," whether I agree with them in every example or not. We do not live in a nice world. Not everyone whom these people encounter are "nice people like us," and sometimes it's hard to know the difference -- or dangerous to take the chance. Since we are "nice people," we can work with them. They really are "on our side," and we on theirs.

 

Geocaching isn't a counter-culture sport. Stealthy it might be, but our intentions, if revealed (thus spoiling the fun...) are honorable and legal. We go -- or we always should go -- where we have the right to be, when we have the right to be there, and with the knowledge and consent of the property owners whose lands we enter (and whom we invite to "play along with us"). If questioned by an officer, we answer truthfully and completely. If asked to leave, we politely and immediately do so. We are here to have fun, and nothing more.

 

We need to be mindful that some very ugly people are out there, too. And I don't mean administrators. We don't want to encounter those nasty folks either. Some of the administrators whose decisions we might not agree with, do deal with these cretins and with the damage they do. Sometimes they must [literally!] "shoot first," and believe it or not, sometimes they have to. (Uh huh, when someone cries "somebody call a cop!" ... they get called. )

 

When setting policy, they don't always see a way to set a policy that will allow us and to exclude them. It's their choice, their responsibility, and their authority. "The buck stops there." In lots of those decisions, everyone can't win.

 

When faced with a decision we don't like, the first thing we all should do ... and be very clear that we are doing ... is to respect the decision and to affirm the authority of the person who made it and that we have no intention of defying that decision. We respect and work within the system. Try to understand why the decision was made. Then try harder. See if there is common-ground; room for compromise. Does the administrator simply lack information? What is his or her point-of-view? What are the constraints on their power? Be creative in looking for workable solutions (hint: that might not be as easy as you think!!), and respectfully submit them to the decision maker through due process. Honor the decision until it changes.

 

Administrators are people too. (Believe it or not... )

 

As pious as this may sound, it is what I truly and sincerely believe .. and recommend.

[+Team Tecmage]

I've got popcorn ready for this one.

 

BTW, I actually believe that Geocaching will GAIN acceptance by park managers.

[Jeremy]

Wow. Some new "faces" and some great answers. Keep them coming!

[+mooneyguy]

Excellent reply by HIPS-meister. As an example of a cache that was the result of a compromise with park authorities, check out Fort Yargo geocache. Georgia state park policy prohibits the placement of cache containers, so a very clever scheme was devised with the co-operation of the park manager at this park. The cache is a multi-stage where you travel around the park collecting numbers. Those numbers are then combined to form the combination for a padlock that is on the cache container. The container itself is obtained from a park employee at the end of your search, but of course you need the combination to be able to open it. I thought this was a very clever way to work around the restriction and still provide a fun and interesting "hunt".

 

Unfortunately the cache is currently unavailable, but that is merely a technical matter.

Edited February 14, 2005 by mooneyguy

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

That's a great example, thanks for posting

 

Most cachers don't abuse anything, and sometimes even IMPROVE the environment

 

Yes this is true, but as another example, most young people who go to a city park and drink beer at night are harmless, but it only takes ONE breaking bottles all over the playground, and we all want their activity banned.

Edited February 14, 2005 by WRITE SHOP ROBERT

[+archeangelsk2002]

okay folks, im getting confused, and i really shouldnt be. as i have read numerous posts in the forums concerning the negative press i have read concerning our sport, i am surely and sorely confused even more.

i have read posts detailing the imaginations of those who wish to ban geocaching. as a result i have a few questions.

1.)do we not pay federal taxes, of which, a certain percentage goes to the care and maintenance of federal and state parks?

2.) do we not pay taxes on the purchase of our GPSr and other equipment deemed necessary for geocaching?

it seems imbicilic for anyone or anything to ban geocaching. further, the logic is apparently pay for the product but do not use it(i.e federal parks etc. by taxation).

i would go so far to say that this a form of taxation without representation. taxes we pay and parks we cant use. i agree entirely with one post i read where the individual posted as longs as the law isnt being broken leave geocaching alone.

unfortunately, the short sightedness of certain government agencies will once again attempt to control our lives even more. above all else some entities have targeted geocaching. once again it appears the logic is dont get excercise dont go out in the parks a walk off that thanksgiving dinner et cetera. i have seen a lot of fat politicians who would benefit greatly by wandering around in the woods and looking for a few microcaches.

in conclusion, whatever happened to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.better still, what is to become of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, let alone certain unalienable rights.

regards

archie

[+The Leprechauns]

Oh goodie. Now the sky is falling in three threads instead of two. But in this one, the sky is falling on the Declaration of Independence. Sounds serious!

 

EDIT: Thanks to CO Admin for an appropriate thread merger. Back to two threads.

Edited February 14, 2005 by The Leprechauns

[gridlox]

Most cachers don't abuse anything, and sometimes even IMPROVE the environment

 

Yes this is true, but as another example, most young people who go to a city park and drink beer at night are harmless, but it only takes ONE breaking bottles all over the playground, and we all want their activity banned.

Also, I scratch my head and wonder why some caches that I've read with "Bushwacking Required" get approved.

 

We recently went on a search that the area of the hide made the GPS very unhappy. It was down in a dip between two hills and the tree cover was pretty good even for winter. The GPS was bouncing all over the place. At one moment the cache was right in front of us and then the next it was 180ft on the opposite side of the dip.

 

Although there were no recent DNF's listed on the cache page you could definately tell where someone had recently searched the area and had the same problems we had.

Just about every downed tree had all the leaves pulled out from under them, rocks had been turned over and rolled out of their original spots, .... the place looked like it had just been recently trampled through by a heard of elephants (which isn't very likely for NW Georgia! )

 

Now how is this being Nature friendly?

It's behavior like that, that will get our Sport/Game/Hobbie blacklisted by anyone!!

 

If I owned a piece of property that I could place a hide on, I would definately do it. And with the realization that there will be rare occurances like this happening. BUT, even though I'm involved with GCing, if it were to be a continuing problem then I would definately archive it.

So, I don't see why anyone that doesn't have proper knowledge of GCing wouldn't restrict it after just one occurance, if they find out that it was caused by a GC'er.

 

What it boils down to is that we have to be more responsible in our actions and be willing to work with the different Land Managers & Gov. Officials to properly educate them to the CORRECT way that MOST GC'ers operate.

Nature Friendly, CITO, Family Oriented(for the most part), ...

 

D-man

Edited February 14, 2005 by gridlox

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

I scratch my head and wonder why some caches that I've read with "Bushwacking Required" get approved. 

 

In some places bushwhacking is OK, we have areas that are grossly overgrown in invasive plants, go ahead and whack "The Broom".

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

Edited, as the request was fulfilled my the thread merger

Edited February 14, 2005 by WRITE SHOP ROBERT

[+GrizzlyJohn]

The federal government and by extension my taxes pay for all kinds of things I don't get to use. For me I would love to drive around in one of those stryker vehicles some weekends for fun.

 

Plus there are plenty of other places that are federal land that I can not go. Even in what should be the most public of places, Congress, there are places they do not let the general public go.

 

That does not begin to address the fact that even for activities that are allowed in some parks are not allowed in all of them and may not even be allowed in the entire park where that activity is allowed.

 

Trust me I am a very strict believer in the Constitution. And don't think that the current federal government in any way comes close to following the intents of the framers of that document. But I just can't follow you down the track on this train of thought.

 

[+CO Admin]

Merging this topic Statutory Banning Of Geocaching with one already open.

Edited February 14, 2005 by CO Admin

[+AtoZ]

I think Geocaching's worst enemy is geocachers. How many times have you seen caches placed that DO HAVE have an impact on the environment. Even if it is a social trail. Or how about a cache where cachers root around in the mulch in a tree in a park. I think we need to be more sensitive about placing our caches. I love to put a cache in a new spot, but I try to consider will this crate an unwanted trail. I believe in man's dominace in the environment and that really we can NOT destroy the environment but there are others that think a trail in some brush is a huge impact.

Here is the real question: "WHY DO LAND MANAGERS THINK GEOCACHING HAS MORE IMPACT THEN SOMEONE WALKING THIER DOG." Answer that questiona dn your know what the problem is.

cheers

[+Sparrowhawk]

Edited to say "never mind, mods delete this post." Thanks.

Edited February 14, 2005 by Sparrowhawk

[+bigredmed]

I think Geocaching's worst enemy is geocachers. How many times have you seen caches placed that DO HAVE have an impact on the environment. Even if it is a social trail. Or how about a cache where cachers root around in the mulch in a tree in a park. I think we need to be more sensitive about placing our caches. I love to put a cache in a new spot, but I try to consider will this crate an unwanted trail. I believe in man's dominace in the environment and that really we can NOT destroy the environment but there are others that think a trail in some brush is a huge impact.

Here is the real question: "WHY DO LAND MANAGERS THINK GEOCACHING HAS MORE IMPACT THEN SOMEONE WALKING THIER DOG." Answer that questiona dn your know what the problem is.

cheers

The frustration is that even when there has been a problem, there is rarely an attempt by the park managers to engage in a discussion with the local group or GC.

 

The other frustration is that when rules get placed, there is often no advance notice that the rule is being discussed. Hiking was banned in a section of one of our state parks. No notice, no public forum, no explanation of the problem ahead of time, no media attention to some accident or some other cause of a public hue and cry, just the ranger thought that horses on the trails would get spooked by hikers, so shut the section of the park off to any foot traffic during the summer when they had horses.

 

Note, the absence of a public discussion meant that we didn't get informed, we didn't get to have input, and I could have been arrested for breaking park regs had I not stopped at the ranger's station to ask for a trail map (when I was told of the ban.)

[+carleenp]

The other frustration is that when rules get placed, there is often no advance notice that the rule is being discussed.  Hiking was banned in a section of one of our state parks.  No notice, no public forum, no explanation of the problem ahead of time, no media attention to some accident or some other cause of a public hue and cry, just  the ranger thought that horses on the trails would get spooked by hikers, so shut the section of the park off to any foot traffic during the summer when they had horses.

 

I cleared that up awhile back. The trail is not closed to hikers. It is closed to mountain bikes until 4 or 4:30 pm (I can't remember which). That is because yes, they do trail rides and the bikes could cause issues. The signs there only speak of limiting bikes and we happily hiked there during the day and walked right by a trail riding group. I think the park person you spoke to there a year or two ago was simply confused. That can happen. Either that or they changed the rules.

Edited February 14, 2005 by carleenp

[+flask]

if i HAVE to go underground, i will.

 

in the meantime, i don't place caches in forbidden areas and i prefer to work WITH land managers to promote a cooperative environment.

 

public lands are open to hunters and fisherman and should also be open to other recreations as appropriate for the land and to fairness. there SHOULD be areas in which mountain biking is prohibited and there SHOULD be areas in which huinting is prohibited.

 

land managers need to understand that good geocachers are good neighbors, as are good fisherman and good snowmobilers and good bikers. if there are geocaches in a park i will gladly go in and pay the $7 entry fee, whereas otherwise i would pass on it.

 

to the argument that hunters support land management by purchasing licenses, i would be willing to buy a license in order to hide caches on some lands. i don't think it's practical to require a license to hunt the cache, since anybody could pretend to be out walking, but it my state allowed me to place caches and charged me $30 to do it for the year, i'd pay it. i'd consider it just a way to help keep land managers friendly and to put us on an even footing with other land users when it comes time to help negotiate fair land use.

 

states bend over backwards to accomodate license-purchasing sports. maybe we should get a piece of that action.

[+ibycus]

Here is my personal view on it. I may take a little bit of heat over it, but hey what's life without a little heat.

 

First: I believe whole heartedly that land managers and parks people are NOT out to get us. They have a difficult job to do, and our existence certainly adds to the complications in their lives. Some cachers are NOT environmentally responsible, most are, but some are not. They have to take in to account both the responsible and the irresponsible cachers when setting up regulations.

 

By far the easiest thing for them to do is to ban us from caching on their lands all together. Now, that being said, why aren't we banned everywhere?

 

1. Low profile. Right now, for the most part we are easy enough to ignore. Yeah they generally speaking know about us, but for the most part, they have bigger fish to fry.

2. They don't really want to ban us. We generally are a good bunch of people, and our activity is pretty low impact in general. Some of them are even cachers themselves. This is where loud mouthed obnoxious posts (and I don't think the OP was either), can really hurt us. If smart-arsed person goes and talks to a parks person, that parks person is likely to turn around and say, look you just can cache here. And no, I don't think caching in parks is a right. We are still allowed to participate in any activities occuring in the parks that are not banned, the same as any other people. They aren't banning cachers, they are banning caches. BIG difference.

3. Now this is the touchy one, that I don't think anyone likes to talk about. If 0 day did come, and there was some mass ban on caching through out the know universe (Ok, so I'm being a touch dramatic here ). What do you think would happen to all us cache-addicts? My personal theory is that caching would 'go underground' so to speak. Caches would be shared between small groups of individuals on private mailing lists, and on newsgroups. Just think of Napster. Banning us, isn't going to make us go away, just fracture us somewhat. I don't think anyone really wants this to happen, but I feel that it would be a likely outcome of a mass cache ban.

[+ibycus]

.... the place looked like it had just been recently trampled through by a heard of elephants (which isn't very likely for NW Georgia! )

 

Now how is this being Nature friendly?

It's behavior like that, that will get our Sport/Game/Hobbie blacklisted by anyone!!

I don't know the specifics of the area involved, but I have had one of my caches where someone commented on its environmental impact (Advanced Triangulation 1). Anyways, my first responce was to disable the cache. I then rushed out to the cache site, only to find little to no damage had actually been done, or at least that was still visible, (ok, maybe some bark had fallen off the log in question). My feeling is that a recent storm we'd had might have been to blame, or even might have cleared up the mess a bit. So my question is, are you sure that the environment was actually damaged, and not just disturbed? How long would it take for things to recover? I would be surprised if there was any significant damage actually done.

My personal rule while caching is to do no more damage than a dog or a wild animal might do. If something doesn't move easily, don't move it. If something crumbles when I touch it, I don't feel bad about it, as it was ready to fall apart anyways. If I notice myself doing any damage to the environment, I leave. Its only tupperware after all.

[+Eswau]

but it my state allowed me to place caches and charged me $30 to do it for the year, i'd pay it.

NC state parks have cache hiding permits, but they're $120 per cache per year

 

I have yet to hear of anyone purchasing the right to hide a geocache in a NC park.

 

E

 

edited a spelling error

Edited February 14, 2005 by Eswau

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

NC state parks have cache hiding permits, but they're $120 per cache per year  I have yet to hear of anyone purchasing the right to hide a geocache in a NC park

 

Well, it looks like they have accomplished their goal, or the local group should work with them to adjust that fee.

 

Does the fee include an annual entry pass? If so that would put it right in line with the annual pass price for CA state parks, and does that fee include the right to hide caches in all NC state parks? If these two things are true, then the pass would be well worth it, and they have put in a good measure to insure that the only cache placers will be consistant users of the park, and not very occasional visitors. If those things are not true, maybe that's a change that could be suggested.

[+ibycus]

NC state parks have cache hiding permits, but they're $120 per cache per year

$120/cache! Gorsh and thats USD too. I'd go broke pretty quick placing caches down there.

[+bigredmed]

The other frustration is that when rules get placed, there is often no advance notice that the rule is being discussed.  Hiking was banned in a section of one of our state parks.  No notice, no public forum, no explanation of the problem ahead of time, no media attention to some accident or some other cause of a public hue and cry, just  the ranger thought that horses on the trails would get spooked by hikers, so shut the section of the park off to any foot traffic during the summer when they had horses.

 

I cleared that up awhile back. The trail is not closed to hikers. It is closed to mountain bikes until 4 or 4:30 pm (I can't remember which). That is because yes, they do trail rides and the bikes could cause issues. The signs there only speak of limiting bikes and we happily hiked there during the day and walked right by a trail riding group. I think the park person you spoke to there a year or two ago was simply confused. That can happen. Either that or they changed the rules.

My point still stands. I went to the ranger station to ask for a trail map and was told that hiking was prohibited during daylight. Whether this was a rule or from confusion on the part of the ranger, I can't say. Neither can you.

 

The rule was placed without any discussion or public input. If I had broken that rule, I would have faced consequences, just as if I had broken a real law. The difference is that laws are debated in public forums before they are put on the books. These land use rules are usually not. Certainly in our state, they are not.

[+carleenp]

The other frustration is that when rules get placed, there is often no advance notice that the rule is being discussed.  Hiking was banned in a section of one of our state parks.  No notice, no public forum, no explanation of the problem ahead of time, no media attention to some accident or some other cause of a public hue and cry, just  the ranger thought that horses on the trails would get spooked by hikers, so shut the section of the park off to any foot traffic during the summer when they had horses.

 

I cleared that up awhile back. The trail is not closed to hikers. It is closed to mountain bikes until 4 or 4:30 pm (I can't remember which). That is because yes, they do trail rides and the bikes could cause issues. The signs there only speak of limiting bikes and we happily hiked there during the day and walked right by a trail riding group. I think the park person you spoke to there a year or two ago was simply confused. That can happen. Either that or they changed the rules.

My point still stands. I went to the ranger station to ask for a trail map and was told that hiking was prohibited during daylight. Whether this was a rule or from confusion on the part of the ranger, I can't say. Neither can you.

 

The rule was placed without any discussion or public input. If I had broken that rule, I would have faced consequences, just as if I had broken a real law. The difference is that laws are debated in public forums before they are put on the books. These land use rules are usually not. Certainly in our state, they are not.

I just wanted to let you know that hiking is OK there. The caches there are quite nice little hikes.

 

As for input from parks on rules, that would be nice, but I doubt they can do that all the time. I don't find closing the trail to bikes during certain hours so that they can have trail rides with horses unreasonable. And perhaps they did discuss it with the bikers? Who knows? But if the parks had to hold public hearings just to make such a simple rule, I suspect that nothing would get done.

 

I need to contact them again to clarify some things on the caching policy, but I tend to feel their policy in Nebraska is quite reasonable. Sure it has some silly provisions, but generally people have had sucess getting permits and most (although not all) have reported a positive experience. Permit policies and such make sense to me and don't really bother me.

 

Edit: There were also several signs with all the rules on them at the trail heads when I was at that park. Mostly they had to do with the no bikes before 4 or 4:30 pm. So knowledge of the rule was not difficult.

Edited February 14, 2005 by carleenp

[+Renegade Knight]

..."WHY DO LAND MANAGERS THINK GEOCACHING HAS MORE IMPACT THEN SOMEONE WALKING THIER DOG." Answer that questiona dn your know what the problem is.

cheers...

They are banning that too. More than a few trails are littered with land mines, rendering then unfit for their other intended purposes. Fortunatly geocaches don't need to be scraped off your shoes if you make a mis-step.

[Golden_Spike]

$120 per year to place a cache? thats outrageous! have people been trying to get it lowered?

 

I also wanted to say that if i'm hiking and i see something cool off the trail i dont hesitate in going to check it out. Kind of like when i go off the trail to find a geocache. Could it have some impact on the environment? maybe a little, but not much more than the last moose/deer/armadillo that passed through. As long as you dont actively try to destroy something nobody would even know you went there. I dont think i've ever found a cache where it was necessary to destroy something in order to find it.

[+Eswau]

NC state parks have cache hiding permits, but they're $120 per cache per year  I have yet to hear of anyone purchasing the right to hide a geocache in a NC park

 

Well, it looks like they have accomplished their goal, or the local group should work with them to adjust that fee.

 

Does the fee include an annual entry pass? If so that would put it right in line with the annual pass price for CA state parks, and does that fee include the right to hide caches in all NC state parks? .

Nope - that fee is per cache and does not include any other park fees. I also noticed that the fee is now $35 per 3 months. Here is a copy of the policy. I didn't see mentioned the time frame on this one, but I have seen the fee good for 3 months mentioned several times before.

 

Several people (closer to the state's capitol) have been in discussion with whoever in trying to work with them.

 

My opinion for a compromise is for the state to pick a couple of parks, and allow geocaches to be placed (following the same guidelines - just no fee) and see what happens. If things go bad - then they have a claim on their current policy. I'm disapointed in my state to impose such a high fee - a fee they know nobody is really going to pay to limit such an activity. I would rather see an all out ban, than they try to say they support Geocaching (with their fingers crossed)

Edited February 15, 2005 by Eswau

[+DCDesertRats]

I hope winter ends soon in your part of the country.  You gotta get outside more often.

Good response!

[+El Diablo]

Education is the key. So far it's been a long slow process to educate the land managers and decision makers.

 

I feel that over time we can, and will convince them of the positive side of this sport/hobby /game.

 

El Diablo

[+sbukosky]

1. Most environmental impact heals in short order

2. Most impact can be minimized by adding useful clues to the cache page and if none are given, log that they should be!

3. If an area is being negatively impacted, log it as such. Logs don't have to be nothing but happy chat.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

Nope - that fee is per cache and does not include any other park fees. I also noticed that the fee is now $35 per 3 months. Here is a copy of the policy. I didn't see mentioned the time frame on this one, but I have seen the fee good for 3 months mentioned several times before.

THE POLICY

 

I saw that right after I posted my reply but was too lazy to edit right then, sorry.

 

I read through the info in the link, and it sounds like a good management policy to me, except for the three month part. When I read that policy I get the impression that they have tried to make adjustments of existing procedures and apply them to geocaching, as a way to deal with the unknowns of a (for them) new activity. I think that with time and a better understanding of the game, those will maybe be adjusted even further. (Hopefully)