› Forums › Geocaching in Wisconsin › General › Not good
- This topic has 43 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 2 months ago by
cheezehead.
-
AuthorPosts
-
11/14/2006 at 6:49 am #1723925
Did you notice the rather unceremonious archiving of one of our previous COTM winners, Peewee’s Small Falls by the powers that be (or at least one “power”) at Groundspeak? While I certainly understand the need to archive this, I would have thought that an email to the owner, copied to the state approvers would have been much more tactful and better for the health of the sport. Maybe there was a long chain of angry emails back and forth that we don’t know about, but on the surface, it looks like someone just decided to provide a demonstration of power. 🙄
11/14/2006 at 1:13 pm #1766953@Team Deejay wrote:
While I certainly understand the need to archive this, I would have thought that an email to the owner, copied to the state approvers would have been much more tactful and better for the health of the sport. Maybe there was a long chain of angry emails back and forth that we don’t know about, but on the surface, it looks like someone just decided to provide a demonstration of power. 🙄
While I understand your point of view, I also see why, if they didn’t send an email. The cache was a violation and GC.com or whom ever does not need to talk to anyone prior to archiving caches that are violating the rules or laws.
I can only imagine the number of violations GC.com has to take care of on any given day and then to expect them to contact and converse with cache owners who are in violation prior to disable it would be overwhelming.
I just find it hard to be upset when the owner put in the listing that it was a State Natural Area. I would hope that if there were just a problem that GC.com would send an email but a blatant violation has no call for one.
11/14/2006 at 2:43 pm #1766954@PCFrog wrote:
While I understand your point of view, I also see why, if they didn’t send an email. The cache was a violation and GC.com or whom ever does not need to talk to anyone prior to archiving caches that are violating the rules or laws.
I can only imagine the number of violations GC.com has to take care of on any given day and then to expect them to contact and converse with cache owners who are in violation prior to disable it would be overwhelming.
I just find it hard to be upset when the owner put in the listing that it was a State Natural Area. I would hope that if there were just a problem that GC.com would send an email but a blatant violation has no call for one.
Note that this cache was placed in 2002, which I believe was before the prohibition on geocaching in SNAs was instituted. While I can agree that the owners were not very sneaky, that would also imply that they would not be resistant to archiving the cache themselves.
Also, I have not seen any other cases in the US where Groundspeak actually archived a cache themselves since the establishment of local reviewers. If you look back to some of the very old caches in the state, you will see the archive notes coming from Groundspeak, but this was back in the early days before the present system. I don’t believe this is a regular activity there (Thank goodness!), so I really wonder why it was done this way in this case.
11/14/2006 at 7:32 pm #1766955I guess I haven’t seen Groundspeak directly archive a cache around here either, but I have seen a couple of caches archived after they were approved and running for a few months at a place that may have been designated as a state naural area afterwards. Too bad, but not much one can do about it if that’s the rules.
11/15/2006 at 2:16 am #1766956Interesting. I just wrote to Michael at Groundspeak to ask why he archived it instead of bringing it to the attention of the Wisconsin reviewers.
11/15/2006 at 3:55 am #1766957This cache is a prime example of why I question the DNR policy banning all caches in SNA’s. The area in question gets 20+ non-cachers a day visiting during the warmer months, you can’t tell me the swimming and climbing on the cliffs isn’t doing more damage than just hiking with a gpsr and enjoying the beauty. I guess it makes sense to them to ban a group of people who actually would treat these area’s with respect.
check out the Alphabetical Listing of Wisconsin State Natural Areas, notice that SOME of these areas have a star next to them. if you read the bottom of the page it states “Indicates areas not suited for visitation by the general public”. I can understand SNA’s contain special plant or animal life that we need to protect, but even the DNR’s own site says there not all off limits/so sensitive none can visit.
I make it a point to visit these areas every chance I get, this ban won’t ever stop my foot traffic.
11/15/2006 at 1:27 pm #1766958Thanks for the list, Hogrod. The site of the caches I mentioned is listed among them, but I’m not sure how long it has been designated as such. I wonder if more areas get added to the list each year, and how many caches are placed in those areas now.
11/15/2006 at 1:48 pm #1766959Here’s the response I received from Michael:
Because as a Groundspeak employee when we get an email from the land managers demanding it be removed we do it right away. We do not wait for the reviewers to be notified that can take days. The policy has always been to archive the cache instantly. There will always be people that complain. In cases like this it is important to respond to the Land managers request.
Does that answer your question?Michael
Groundspeak, Inc.
http://www.geocaching.com11/15/2006 at 1:51 pm #1766960I was in the middle of posting that Groundspeak wouldn’t archive a cache unless requested to by a land manager. I see Ken’s typing at the same time :).
Existing caches in SNA’s are NOT grandfathered. If a cache is in a SNA, it is not allowed by DNR policy, and must be removed. If you really want to catch somone’s attention, in the cache description, tell everyone that it’s located in the SNA.
11/15/2006 at 8:49 pm #1766961Although this was a memorable cache and on my favorites list, I have no problems with how it was archived under the current rules.
My issue is with the current rules as they stand by the DNR. As per their website, geocaching is not allowed, but hunting, fishing, trapping and hiking are – even though there are very few established trails. C’mon – trapping??? That’s somehow better?
I know their concern is the caching trails that can get established and obviously there should be no caching (or other activity) in those “sensitive” areas where things must not get trampled. But as we can see from hogrod’s list, it appears that most of them do not fall into this category. I live near one of these SNAs and during hunting season, there are vehicles and people all over the place – but I can’t have a geocache there. At Peewee’s Falls, teenagers are jumping off the rocks and swimming in the falls, but the geocache is just too damaging somehow. It just irritates me, but then I think about those other states that can’t have geocaches on any DNR land and I feel a bit better.
Thanks for letting me vent. 😈
11/15/2006 at 9:33 pm #1766962@LightningBugs Mum wrote:
My issue is with the current rules as they stand by the DNR. As per their website, geocaching is not allowed, but hunting, fishing, trapping and hiking are – even though there are very few established trails. C’mon – trapping??? That’s somehow better?
I know their concern is the caching trails that can get established and obviously there should be no caching (or other activity) in those “sensitive” areas where things must not get trampled.
I’m wondering if this is something we can revisit with them, now that we have an official DNR policy. Since a request form must be approved, I would think that this would give them the tools to screen out any objectionable placements without banning the entire system. Maybe someone involved in the original discussions could comment??
11/15/2006 at 10:01 pm #1766963This policy does seem a little bizarre. Besides the items lightning bugs mum quoted, I know of an SNA that also allows snowmobiling, horses, mountain bikes and foot travel anywhere with or without the use of trails. This land isn”t owned by the dnr, though I didn’t feel it necessary to push the issue at that time. Maybe soon?
11/16/2006 at 3:30 pm #1766964Just a couple things …
(1) I don’t know much about SNA land, but I do know that typically DNR agents/rangers are assigned to check on the land. In our area the ranger at Harrington Beach State Park has to make occassional rounds the to the SNA’s and check on things.
(2) I see the logic in having SNA land areas and even making SNA land off limits to certain activities such as caching. What seems odd to me is why some land is marked as SNA. As in the examples already stated some of these areas are not treated in such away that warrants them being SNAs. There are exceptions to this, there’s a new area that use to be private land on the edge of Saukville, WI that has just been turned into a SNA. Because of the sensitive condition of the area, it truely has limitations put on it and it would be bad news to have trails forming due to caching.
11/16/2006 at 6:44 pm #1766965It would be different if they restricted other activities in these places, but they don’t. Additionally, most of the SNAs (actually ALL the SNAs that we have been to) have no signage or indication that it is an SNA. In many cases, there is either no map (Lodde’s Mill Bluff) or a very poor map with no coordinates, elevations or even section lines to determine where the borders lie. While I am sure the DNR has detailed the exact coordinates of their SNAs in their records, it is a little difficult to comply with the policy if they don’t share those records with us. I was out wandering around Honey Creek wildlife area on Sunday, trying to determine the borders of the SNA. With the information they are giving me (and this area has some of the better maps on the website), I don’t have any way to ensure that caches I place there are outside the boundary.
There is a “new” SNA called Mukwonago River, which has been drawn (at least by my eye on the rather weak map) to include virtually all of Miniwaukan Park, including the Frisbee golf Course, playground equipment, etc., as well as roads, bike trails, power transmission lines, dog walking area, etc. There have been at least two caches (one archived, the other in the “about to be archived for long term disabled” program) in this park in the past few years, and I am not aware of there being any significant problems with them (other than bees!) So what about this area so sensitive as to require protection from us evil geocachers?
11/16/2006 at 7:24 pm #1766966Groundspeak got an email from the land managers demanding it be removed. Like it or not, it’s the end of the story.
We as a group should not get in the DNR’s face every time a land manager demands that a cache listing be removed. It does sound like the area is very used, but our agreement with the DNR is very clear.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.