My take on last night's meeting. Just a few notes and my observation:
It was VERY productive and positive. Almost all of the land management
agencies are NOT against geocaching. The Indian Reservations are not
against geocaching specifically, just against any kind of trespassing
without the proper permits. The main message from all agencies was
geocacher's should follow our own rules. Not on archeological sites, ask
permission, and stay on the trails.
While I strongly agree caches shouldn't be hidden at archeological
sites, and that archeological sites need to be respected, I was little
surprised to hear some land agencies want it taken further. They don't
want any mention of archeological sites in cache descriptions, and are
against posting coordinates on the web site. This borders on violating
our freedom of speech. For example, there's a cache that was mentioned
last night that a land management agency was against. I've visited this
cache. The cache was about 15' off the main dirt road going through the
area. It was about 1/4 mile (or more) from Indian ruins. The ruins are
on a nearby mesa hilltop, and you can see them from the cache. The cache
description tells you to look South and you will be surprised at what
you see. They didn't like this cache, because it gives coordinates that
are near these ruins and indirectly points out where the ruins are.
Remember, the cache isn't AT the ruins - it's over 1/4 mile away. To me,
the kicker is - these same ruins are shown on topographical maps. From
my understanding, their main concern in this case is we're disclosing a
secret archeological site to others. Hmmm... nobody knows how to read a
map?
I was also surprised to hear one agency was concerned that we move
rocks. I talked to this agency personally. They don't approve of
changing the landscape. I've visited the cache they were talking about,
and it was a typical cache in the desert. The cache box was hidden under
a small rock overhang, then a few rocks were placed to cover the
opening. They objected that the rocks were moved to cover the opening.
What made this so surprising was this is the Luke AFB gunnery range.
They are concerned about a geocacher moving a few rocks, yet they blow
the landscape up??? As we didn't have a lot of time to talk, I'm sure I
missed something in their concern.
Don't get me wrong. With exception to the Indian reservations, all
agencies want to work with us. Even the National Park Service, which
we've all been told is 'off limits' stated we can place caches on NPS
land - with advanced permission. Only a few agencies already have
policies or guidelines for geocaching, with almost all the others in the
process of developing policies. We need to continue to be involved with
them. Opening the channels of communication was very important. We, as
geocachers, need to start talking with the appropriate land management
agency BEFORE we hide a new cache. It sounds like they all will approve
the cache, but maybe not exactly where we want to place it. They will
offer another location, and I'm sure they will have some wonderful
locations for us. Some agencies have (or will have) additional
guidelines. I can't remember them all, but (for example), Maricopa
County Parks will allow geocaches, if approved. They want the caches to
be within a few feet of a legal trail, unless it's past 2 miles form the
trailhead. Then they will allow the cache further off the main trail.
Bottom line - to work together, geocachers need to 1) ask permission -
work with the agency for placement in an approved location. They mainly
want to insure the cache is in a good location, and that they are aware
of it's presence; 2) don't place caches on archeological sites - if we
get permission, we would know if the area is an archeological site (see
below); and 3) don't create "spider" trails - stay on the trail (foot
and vehicle). Eliminate a negative impact on the environment. All of
these are rules that are already established on the main geocaching web
site. We just need to "follow our own rules".
Now - regarding the list of caches located at archeological sites that
was provided by Shelly Rasmussen (archeological site steward,
preservation society...). I was surprised to see my "Froggy" cache on
the list. I wasn't aware this was an archeological site. If you haven't
visited this cache, it's very near a 40' boulder painted green that
looks like a frog. How can a large painted rock be at an archeological
site? I asked Shelly about this location. Unknown to me, there's an old
grave in the area of a settler and his dog. Since the grave is over 50
years old, this cache hit the list. I offered to move the cache and
wanted to know how far away from the green boulder would be acceptable.
I was informed "don't worry about it - it shouldn't have been on the
list to begin with". ????
It's obvious Shelly wasn't aware of virtual caches, since a few of them
are on the list. It was funny to see "A sign from the past IV" on the
'list', then hear the forest service applaud Ken for the great cache.
???
Okay, I've said more than little. It's a great beginning, we need to
keep the communication going and see what we can do on our end to get
all geocachers to follow our own rules.
Last comment - please be aware that many of these land management
agencies follow our web sites, read our logs, have looked for some
caches, and subscribe to this news list. Thanks Steve (Team Tierra
Buena) and the others involved in getting this meeting together. Great
Job!
Larry Farquhar
Team "Wyle E"
www.happy-wanderers.com
(text/plain)