Not good

[Buy_The_Tie]

Not good is right….

I’m going to try and head this off at the pass……

In addition to the cache mentioned above, there have been a few others that needed to be archived. Here is a copy of the e-mail (to the geocaching.com reviewers) received from the DNR today.

While browsing around on the WGA website, I came upon…
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=23628 (Gibraltar Rock)
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=7c2763de-c7df-4905-9ab5-44189ffabe3f Two Creeks Buried Forest
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=247682 (Two Creeks Buried Forest) earthcache
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=31161 (Dells of the Wisconsin River)
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=31166 (Dells of the Wisconsin River)
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=32942 (Parfrey’s Glen)virtual cache
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=84352 (Bayshore blufflands)with permission
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=172765 (Ridges Sanctuary)with permission
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=88928 (Muir Park)
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=31385 (Roche-a-Cri Mound)virtual cache
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=1994 (Powers Bluff)
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=8214 (Dells of the Eau Claire River) on boundary
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=20011 (Castle Mound Pine Forest)virtual cache
Each of these is within a designated State Natural Area (some are state-owned, others are not). In keeping with the policy, and to remain consistent, I’m requesting that you archive these caches.
Let me know if questions.
Thanks.

Conservation Biologist
State Natural Areas Program
Conservation Section
Bureau of Endangered Resources
Department of Natural Resources

In discussions with the DNR, the caches inside of the State Natural Areas came up. As I understand it, the DNR is looking to reduce the quantity of traffic coming to SNA’s, primarily because of invasive species problems. To quote a portion of another e-mail received from the DNR:

Regarding the State Natural Areas issue. I had talks yesterday with the Bureau of Endangered Resources (who administer the SNA program) as well as our own Bureau Director on the subject of either grandfathering in caches at SNA’s or reviewing all requests to see if some of them might be in areas where damage will be minimal. Our conclusion is that we need to stay black and white on this, and not get into the world of ‘grey’. Here are the major concerns: At Lone Rock for example there are no established trails other than a snowmobile trail whose easement pre-dates the states purchase of that property. It is a very pristine property and is currently free from the major invasives (garlic mustard, purple loosestrife etc.) that are ravaging many of our state properties. The primary way of moving invasives is on boots…so hiking in pristine areas that the state and its citizens would like to protect, can be considered harmful. While a person is not forbidden from hiking in most SNA’s, we do little to encourage it and hope that minimal traffic will continue to protect these areas.

In my dealings with the DNR folks in Madison, they have been VERY pro-geocaching. I believe they are just trying to keep these state natural areas as pristine as possible.

[zuma]

Hi,

I have visited several of these cache, and this list really shows how foolish the DNR’s policy on SNAs is.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=7c2763de-c7df-4905-9ab5-44189ffabe3f Two Creeks Buried Forest

This one has a sign on a state highway directing people to a plaque. If they really didnt want anyone in there, why not take down the plaque, and take out the parking area?

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=31161 (Dells of the Wisconsin River)
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=31166 (Dells of the Wisconsin River)

I suppose those Ducks dont cause any environmental damage?

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=32942 (Parfrey’s Glen)virtual cache

This one has signs 10 miles away, trying to redirect tourists from Devil’s Lake to this area. If they really dont want folks back here, why do they spend taxpayer’s money on all the signs????

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=84352 (Bayshore blufflands)with permission

This one has mowed trails right to the cache, and 2 parking areas, one on the bluff below, and one on the highlands. Again, why have parking areas, and mowed trails if you dont expect the taxpayers to come look at our property from time to time?

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=88928 (Muir Park)

There is a mowed trail right from the historical plaque right out to the cache.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=31385 (Roche-a-Cri Mound)virtual cache

This one has wooden steps (303) all the way to the top, with signs telling ya what you are looking at in the distance. I am sure nearly everyone who camps here, climbs it at least once. Why cannot a geocacher climb up here? Our we less of a citizen than the folks who camp here?

I guess I feel that I pay my taxes and I have as much right to access public lands as campers, fisherman and hunters. I am not blaming gc.com for enforcing the policy or WGA for helping implement it. However, I do not feel we need to support a policy that has not been well thought out. Clearly, the ban on caches in SNAs is a policy that needs to be revisited, because it just does not make sense when you take a look at the caches that it has forced to be archived. I am all for protecting the environment, but this policy is not effective in meeting it’s stated aim.

zuma

[Ray]

I suppose that we may have been a bit shortsighted when we (your BOD) proposed, revised and approved our agreement with the DNR. That was in the time when there were no more that 2000 caches in the state and 300 geocachers. We were all visiting caches in SNAs and truthfully didn’t realize the full impact this might have with the growth of our sport. There was plenty of turf for geocaching without using the land in a SNA. So we (or at least I) felt that giving up the SNA land in exchange for the privilege of being able to use the remainder of the state lands with the few restrictions we agreed to was a small price to pay. I was not aware that some SNA were on land that is privately owned. I don’t believe that any of us realized how rapidly geocaching was growing, or for that matter, that the lands designated as SNA would grow as well.

Some designations are troubling, or at least difficult to understand. The restrictions in these areas seem strange. My favorite example is Breakneck Cache (GC1C8E). It has had 146 visits during the past 5 years (29/year) by geocachers. And the park gets almost weekly visits by partiers (Beer and/or weed). I don’t see how one geocacher every 10days or two weeks will contribute a heavy traffic burden to the area. I think that if we were to take a similar look at some of the other geocaches in question, we will find a similar traffic load. When we compare geocacher traffic with the traffic of other activities, there is little doubt that caching does not have enough of an impact to cause the State any concern.

I agree, it is time to revisit the issue of geocaching in SNAs. The state position of taking this issue in a black and white fashion and not allowing those areas of gray is as it should be under the current agreement. I believe that we need to rework this part of our agreement to allow for those gray areas. Control of geocaching in individual SNAs should be at the digression of the individual land managers. The current blanket policy overlooks too many variables.

[hogrod]

@Buy_The_Tie wrote:

In discussions with the DNR, the caches inside of the State Natural Areas came up. As I understand it, the DNR is looking to reduce the quantity of traffic coming to SNA’s, primarily because of invasive species problems.

I do believe that Invasive species is a great reason to want to reduce the traffic to state natural areas, if you think that hiking is the main cause of the quick spread of this problem. I think the DNR is over looking the real contributor to the spread of these plants….. our states climate change in the last 15years.

I see another SNA with a cache located in it (I omit name because it’s not archived yet), since 2001 its had 55 logs, and only like 30 finds…. ya I bet this is considered high traffic. I do have an issue with Gibraltar rock being archived, yes its a SNA, but its also a county park. being a county park there is no way they are ever going to stop the traffic, even if they remove the cache. also you walk a old road all the way to the top so your never off trail.

What can I do to voice my opinion and cause some change on this issue? nothing, but I think I won’t buy a state park sticker this year so I can help stop the spread of invasive species.

[Team Honeybunnies]

First, I want to apologize to Digital Dan. Dan, you took a very public shellacking for standing up for what you believed in while I stood by and watched rather than speak my voice. This is not exactly the same topic, but it is relevant.

Secondly, to all of you who have worked with the DNR to protect geocaching in Wisconsin, thank you. This is not directed against you, and I feel you have made the best of what I increasingly see as a bad situation. I feel that geocachers are being singled out because our online and physical logs identify and quantify our use of these areas.

I have no illusion that my humble opinion on a small forum is going to affect public policy, but do feel the need to vent my spleen as I see what I deem the heart of Wisconsin geocaching being ripped out. My intention is to analyze several of these sites in detail, including how they are used, my personal knowledge of the area, and of the caches that were placed there. My use of some of these areas extends back many years before geocaching existed, and I can still visit all of them as long as I’m not geocaching. As a matter of fact, parking lots and signage tacitly imply that use is encouraged. Groomed trails take that point one step further.

Sooo….

Devil’s Lake Revisited – A crushing loss, and the gem of all the caches at Devil’s Lake. Placed in the talus field, impacts at the cache site are nearly impossible to quantify, as there is no soil or erodable surfaces, and no vegetation. Impacts from the trails at the top and base of the cliffs include soil compaction and erosion, at the top from the marked hiking trail, and at the base from social trails used mostly by climbers. I spent at least 200 days at Devil’s Lake while I was actively climbing, and I can say that I personally caused more impact during that period than all of the visitors to the cache combined, and I was very conscious of the need to preserve this resource. While the cache is not on the West Bluff, that bluff’s parking lot has been paved and doubled in size, implying that MORE visits are encouraged.

Gibraltar Rock – Another area that I climbed, at least 25 days, until climbing was banned by Columbia County, as they did not wish to foot further bills after one climber rescue. I won’t go into that issue as it’s a tangent. Gibraltar Rock sees heavy local use compared to potential cacher traffic. It suffers the same issues of soil compaction and erosion, and the cedars at the edge of the cliff have seen a lot of abuse from people stripping branches for fires at the cliff top. Broken glass and refuse are big problems here, once including an armload of porn tossed off of the cliff. Not an area used reverently by a few in the know.

Parfrey’s Glen – A virtual cache that can be done without ever leaving the trail. The parking lot is full to the point of cars overflowing onto the road on busy days, and this area sees more users in one day than logged the cache in the last year. The trail until it gets to the glen proper is graded gravel and large enough to drive down if it weren’t gated.

Roche-A-Cri – There have been few if any more responsible or proactive geoachers than Lil Otter. Not only did she seek permission and work hand-in-hand with the park manager to resolve their concerns, she also changed one physical cache to a virtual after fear of impacts and held a CITO event. All the virtuals can be done while on trails or in established use areas. No additional impacts and an affront to all the hard work that Lori put in for us.

Two Creeks Buried Forest – A virtual Earthcache that can be done from the parking lot and the adjacent mowed area.

Powers Bluff – A classic woods cache accessible from a nearby trail

Castle Mound – A virtual that takes you to the top of the rock formation on a stairs and platform bolted to the rock. All information can be gathered from this viewing area after using trails that bring you directly to this spot.

Pewit’s Small Falls – This one has been covered by others in detail.

Lone Rock – I saved this one for last as it was a personal favorite and hurts the most. This area has seen a tornado, a forest fire and logging of the remains. It is no longer a pristine area. With some work, someday it will be again. When we visited the logging road was a jagged, muddy gash pointing directly at the bluff. There are many, many names gouged in the rock face, but other than that a pretty remote area with minimal impacts. This one is the hardest to refute, but again, about 50 geocachers over a few years seeking an ammo can in a rock crevice seems the least of their concerns.

The other areas on the list I can’t speak of in detail.

As I said before, I feel that geocachers are being singled out because of the ability to track our activities. I can go to any of these areas and use or misuse them as I see fit without any oversight as long as I’m not a geocacher. I can’t shake the feeling that this is only the beginning. I am not some kind of wise-use lunatic who believes we should be able to use and access all land in the ways we see fit as long as we’re “careful”. While only related, I believe in the Wilderness Act and the government’s right to set aside land for protection. I see a disparity in what activities are going to be allowed in these areas. I do not see any reason why the DNR could not some day arbitrarily change their minds, despite all our efforts to cooperate, and we would be left waving our permission forms like flags of surrender.

SNAs should be protected. I will not argue that point, but there does need to be some review of the impacts we are truly having and an understanding of what they are allowing on these lands.

Lastly, because it shouldn’t be forgotten, the approvers did the right thing in archiving these caches when expected to. This is unquestionable. We just need to seek clarification from the DNR as to why we’re considered differently, and work to have some of these caches reinstated.

[Team Deejay]

Beast,
Thanks for your comments and your past efforts on this matter. I was hoping to hear a little about what was considered during the initial discussions. Maybe the board can consider reopening these discussions with the DNR. I think there are obviously places that we need to protect, but blocking access to every marsh, woodlot, and big hill doesn’t seem to be warranted. Maybe we should try a campaign contribution to certain highly placed state officials…….

[PCFrog]

The DNR does not have the resources (manpower, funds, and legal battles) to actively have personnel posted at each SNA. However, it is easy for them to sit at a computer and look up where caches are and demand they be removed knowing that once they are gone they have stopped our activity.

I do support the DNR if they ban all activity at a SNA but to ban only geocaching is discriminating. I personally have not been to any of these caches mentioned by Team Honeybunnies, Zuma, Cache_boppin_BunnyFuFu, and the alike. The work the BOD did with the DNR was done in good faith and was to build a partnership. Not done so the DNR can selectively ban activity in a cost effective way. For those of you who have been directly affected you can always petition the ACLU for guidance and insight into your rights.

What good does it do to have a pristine area if no one except DNR personnel can ever enjoy the place? What educational value is gained by banning people from places? How does making people unaware of nature by banning them make them appreciate it?

Protect our lands but protect our rights.

[knoffer]

Being a fairly new geocacher and active outdoor enthusiast I agree with the preservation of these areas. However, I do believe that the impact issue needs to be reviewed and better understood. The comments thus far all make sense and need to be presented to the DNR.
Transference of species happens all the time. I suppose that wild animals will be confined to certain areas as to not transfer any of these species as well?? j/k
For thousands of years Man has walked this Earth with no boundaries so to speak. This is how many of the species that exist got here in the first place.
The Black and White issue though easier for the DNR is not fair to the Geocache public. I personally practice tread lightly in all my Outdoor adventures as I believe most Geocachers do.
I will say that I have seen some disturbing environment damage as of late because of difficult to find caches in natural areas. This does bother me as a personnel Environment advocate.
Virtuals and Earthcaches that are located in these areas that stay on DNR maintained trails and paths are no more damaging to the Environment then the Tourist community that we so widely advertise as a reason to visit Wisconsin. If they truly want to preserve these areas they need to be closed to any and all foot traffic. As yet this hasn’t happened.
I for one would not want anybody to be deprived of visiting these areas nor do I want any significant damage to these areas.
I don’t think there needs to be a gray area just a clause that details what the requirements are to place a virtual or Earthcache in these areas. Then just like any other cache that exists today the Wisconsin Geocache community will adhere to these requirements.

[NSLP1]

I will add my support for a revisiting of the SNA cache policy with the DNR.
If they do not want traffic in those area, then clearly state at those areas they are off-limits to ALL activity. Geocachers as a whole are not the ones trashing areas.
I also suspect that one of the reasons geocachers have been singled out is that it is because we are known group that they know how to talk to, and that they have a direct ability to contact. They can’t very well contact the unknown party groups that are trashing areas unless they catch them in the act.

[LightningBugs Mum]

I appreciate that most of the DNR is pro-geocaching – I’m actually very thankful for that. I also appreciate that they don’t want invasive species in the SNAs. I have seen what garlic mustard has done in Blue Mound SP and Peninsula SP first hand.

But how is geocaching contributing to the spread of invasive species to such an extent that it must be banned, yet all these other activities are allowed, and even in some cases encouraged??? I believe what some of you have said before is true – we are being discriminated against because we can be tracked online, and the hunters and fishermen and teenaged partiers and tourists and hikers cannot.

Black-and-white rules are created for those who do not want to take the time and responsibility to look at the facts and render common sense decisions. There are some SNAs where there should be not geocaching and there are many others where geocaching has had virtually no impact and should be allowed along with all the other activites.

[Johnny Cache]

Can an event be held in a SNA or are those banned as well? The Cudahy Woods SNA #351 in Milwaukee County has signage requesting that hikers help with the removal of Garlic Mustard. Would an event doing just that not be allowed? Sounds crazy. I’ve assisted in the removal of Buckthorn from a local park and I think efforts like these as well as CITO events being banned is counter productive. If they ban a virtual or an earth cache, I assume they would ban an event. Is the black and white policy basically saying that an SNA cannot be advertised on GC.com? We need some grey.

[Jeremy]

It is sad to see some of these great caches get archived. Like Seth, I have found most of these caches and fail to see how any of them were doing any damage. Basically I feel that these dozen or so caches were “sacrificed” to appease the DNR gods and allow the 100s of other caches on DNR managed land to remain and be legal… considering the very real possibility of an outright ban on all geocaching on any Wisconsin DNR land, I guess I can live with this sacrifice.

But I would still like to see a discussion opened with the DNR about exceptions to the SNA rules. Specifically, why can’t virtual and/or earthcaches be allowed if they require you to go where 100s of other non-cachers visit each year? Did the person who created this list even know what a virtual cache is? This should be an easy sell to the DNR, and such an exception could be written into the policy without creating any “gray areas”.

I’d love to pick up my archived cache (GC7CA) this weekend, but I won’t bother because I know that there will be people hunting in a blind 100 yards from the cache and another in a climbing tree stand near the trail from the parking lot. Going after deer hunting season will allow me to pick up any litter these folks leave in this “pristine” area (which like Lone Rock was seriously damaged by natural forces… straight line winds… after it was designated a SNA).

[Cache_boppin_BunnyFuFu]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand we have another issue!! I posted on the forum, under “Announcements”, the Archival of my Earthcache… A virtual, but yes….it is ON a SNA, the parking lot and a 40 ft walk on a trail to be exact.

[Buy_The_Tie]

I will pass on the concerns voiced here to the DNR.

Any response I get I will also pass back along in this forum.

I appreciate all of the comments and that everybody has kept it very civil, even for a very sensitive topic such as this.

As I hear anything I will keep y’all up to date.

-Tie

[Cache_boppin_BunnyFuFu]

@Buy_The_Tie wrote:

I will pass on the concerns voiced here to the DNR.

Any response I get I will also pass back along in this forum.

I appreciate all of the comments and that everybody has kept it very civil, even for a very sensitive topic such as this.

As I hear anything I will keep y’all up to date.

-Tie

Thank You Tie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Really Appreciate all you do!!

[Author]

Posts