Our "Moxie Trail Crossing (http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=c612a590-299f-4cc3-a1f8-10598f818faa)" cache was archived by GC.com.

Their comment was:

"The land manager has asked Groundspeak to archive this geocache because it is located on NPS corridor lands that buffer the Appalachian National Scenic Trail. On behalf of the National Park Service and the Appalachian Trail Conservancy, we ask for assistance from the cache owner in collecting the geocache at your earliest convenience.

Please communicate directly with the Appalachian Trail Conservancy about this cache.

If the situation changes in the future, we would be happy to discuss the re-listing of this cache."

I'm gonna give up the fight on this one, although the cache realistically could not be accessed from the AT, but from a public road. Yes, if the AT corridor is 1,000 feet at this point, it was probably inside the corridor. But I think their position is a little excessive...

IMHO...

Bruce,
I called my dad today asking about this one. The land manager for this section is Jim Young. Dad is going to try to find out where the request came from because they are supposed to report corridor issues to him and he hasn't heard anything about this. I'll keep you posted.

Get used to it.

Get used to it.

To what specifically? Just to clarify.

Looks like "Bemis", and "Twisted Sister Cedar Stump" have also been archived.

Our "Moxie Trail Crossing (http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=c612a590-299f-4cc3-a1f8-10598f818faa)" cache was archived by GC.com.

Their comment was:

"The land manager has asked Groundspeak to archive this geocache because it is located on NPS corridor lands that buffer the Appalachian National Scenic Trail. On behalf of the National Park Service and the Appalachian Trail Conservancy, we ask for assistance from the cache owner in collecting the geocache at your earliest convenience.

Please communicate directly with the Appalachian Trail Conservancy about this cache.

If the situation changes in the future, we would be happy to discuss the re-listing of this cache."

I'm gonna give up the fight on this one, although the cache realistically could not be accessed from the AT, but from a public road. Yes, if the AT corridor is 1,000 feet at this point, it was probably inside the corridor. But I think their position is a little excessive...

IMHO...

yeah, and nevermind that we had about 10 vehicles drive right up to it at the first tread lightly event... and the only thing we saw of the AT was the sign pointing in the direction to the trail...

Looks like "Bemis", and "Twisted Sister Cedar Stump" have also been archived.

There's one more 2001 cache gone! Oh well........ one less to log, to finish Sudonim's Challenge. :rolleyes:

I see that this is happenng not just in Maine but all along the AT. I found a bookmark listing and lots of them are now archived.

yeah, and nevermind that we had about 10 vehicles drive right up to it at the first tread lightly event... and the only thing we saw of the AT was the sign pointing in the direction to the trail...

Sheesh, yeah - I'd forgotten about that! LOL

With Bemis and Twisted Sister, you actually had to walk the AT to get to the cache, which was just off the trail. With Moxie Crossing, it was placed with the understanding that you DID NOT have to access the trail to get to it.

I'm not going to get into the whole political thing about caches along the AT but I think that the amount of visitors that these caches get is miniscule compared to the amount of foot traffic that the actual AT gets. Just MHO. And "get used to it" doesn't count in my book. It's just one more so called "activist" getting his nose in where it doesn't belong. Next thing you know they won't allow you to "Pee" on the AT......:mad: You'll have to carry that out too.

I agree with Haffy. I just don't get it. But all things considered, the AT is a very narrow path along the East coast. I bet there are a million other places that we can put caches.

After reading the Bemis cache page it looks like a great place to watch the sunset. I had been saving it for the event in Eustis later this year. I still plan on visiting the area, just before sunset. :)

The view from Bemis on Rt. 17

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a125/haffy6/BemisLarge.jpg

[quote=Team2hunt;43808]There's one more 2001 cache gone! Oh well........ one less to log, to finish Sudonim's Challenge. :rolleyes:

THAT LEAVES ONLY 21 LEFT IN MAINE AND ONE IS DISABLED.:(:(

If I clarify too much I will certainly offend someone here and I dont want to do that. Lets just say I am not a big fan of the current ENVIRO movement.

If I clarify too much I will certainly offend someone here and I dont want to do that. Lets just say I am not a big fan of the current ENVIRO movement.

So . . . uh . . . what do you think of Roxanne Quimby EH? ;):D:D

To other folks . . . this is an inside joke . . . EH and I go back aways to another BBS and RQ was always a hot topic on that BBS . . . note I said she was a hot "topic" . . . not that she was "hot". :D

So . . . uh . . . what do you think of Roxanne Quimby EH? ;):D:D

To other folks . . . this is an inside joke . . . EH and I go back aways to another BBS and RQ was always a hot topic on that BBS . . . note I said she was a hot "topic" . . . not that she was "hot". :D

Come on Jake, be PC. She's aesthetically challenged! (Very...)

JAKE! you really know how to get me stirred up! :) :P

So . . . uh . . . what do you think of Roxanne Quimby EH? ;):D:D

To other folks . . . this is an inside joke . . . EH and I go back aways to another BBS and RQ was always a hot topic on that BBS . . . note I said she was a hot "topic" . . . not that she was "hot". :D
Come on Jake we know how he feels about her and we do not want that type of discussion on these forums. You know how it always turns out when Homer gets going on that. These forums are not about that type of discussion.

Come on Jake we know how he feels about her and we do not want that type of discussion on these forums. You know how it always turns out when Homer gets going on that. These forums are not about that type of discussion.

Actually EH has been remarkably calm over here . . . I think we must have a soothing effect on him. :D

Actually EH has been remarkably calm over here . . . I think we must have a soothing effect on him. :D


*hides cloroforum bottle behind back* *slowly waves hand in the air* yooooou didn't seeeee anything......... :cool::D

I had been saving it for the event in Eustis later this year. I still plan on visiting the area, just before sunset. :)

Need some company? Haffy's pic has got me amped to head out here.

Need some company? Haffy's pic has got me amped to head out here.
Fear not, folks. Bemis may have been archived but there is another cache at The Height of Land. KG has CG14Y72, a micro. I still remember the early fall morning when I found that one, sunny, cold, crisp air and the views were spectacular. Moose tracks lead right up to the cache. Easy find too. But I did love Bemis.....

BUT, how come the cache I adopted, Fallen Arch, hasn't been archived? That's just off the AT and you walk the AT to get to it, although one poor person did bushwack to it. If they archive it I can retrieve the cache and put it elsewhere. So many beautiful palces to choose from here in Eustis. For some reason, I can't convince myself to archive it myself... Why don't they "catch" me??

And if you go to H of L to get KG's cache, there are others along the way to bag too, Overlook, Rangeley Overlook....

BUT, how come the cache I adopted, Fallen Arch, hasn't been archived? That's just off the AT and you walk the AT to get to it, although one poor person did bushwack to it. If they archive it I can retrieve the cache and put it elsewhere. So many beautiful places to choose from here in Eustis. For some reason, I can't convince myself to archive it myself... Why don't they "catch" me??

Just got an e-mail that my Fallen Arch cache has been archived. I guess that's the last AT cache in Maine. One less to find at the event. But I have four new ones out, to be published the day of the event (but NOT along the AT). :eek:

It's really too bad that Twisted Sister was disabled. I have a great photo of my two little ones under the "you will die if you try this portion of the trail without the correct gear" sign. Considering they were 4 and 8 at the time, my guess is that is the last of the AT they will see for a while. I'm not sure why the AT and National Parks have such a bad opinion of Geocaching. I do not think that the foot traffic is that high. We try to obey the rules (just as long as one of EH's geocoins isn't involved) :) and it's a great way to get kids into hiking and nature. I suppose that's a terrible thing for government. The only bad part of Twisted Sister was that I dropped off a TB and it wintered over.

I saw many caches along the AT in Mass. got archived today too. They were all in the Mount Greylock area.

I saw many caches along the AT in Mass. got archived today too. They were all in the Mount Greylock area.

One of our new members - I forget her user name - is the "Boundary Program Mgr. for the Appalachian Trail Conservancy (ATC) and the National Park Service (NPS)". She provided me with some information regarding caches along the AT, which I have forwarded to Attroll, our webmaster, who is very active with the AT.

We should hear more about this in the near future.

It is to bad that the Twisted Sister Cedar Stump cache was archived also. I don't think it was archived because it was on the AT though. I think the owner archived it. I looked at the maps and it looks to be far enough off the AT where it should not have been a problem.

One of our new members - I forget her user name - is the "Boundary Program Mgr. for the Appalachian Trail Conservancy (ATC) and the National Park Service (NPS)". She provided me with some information regarding caches along the AT, which I have forwarded to Attroll, our webmaster, who is very active with the AT.

We should hear more about this in the near future.
Bruce

I do not know this person that sent the policy to you but from what I read in the policy it leaves things vague. It sounds like caches are allowed on the AT with permission only but as long as you do not trample vegetation or any part of the enviroment. In other words you can not leave or get off the trail to place a cache.

It is to bad that the Twisted Sister Cedar Stump cache was archived also. I don't think it was archived because it was on the AT though. I think the owner archived it. I looked at the maps and it looks to be far enough off the AT where it should not have been a problem.

I've found Twisted Sister (and loved it) but it was closer to the AT than Fallen Arch was. So distance from the AT doesn't seem to be the problem. Although later you said it might be okay to place one if you don't have to leave the trail to find it, i.e. don't have to trample vegetation to get to it. Bemis was archived and that was practically on the trail....Who would you get permission from to place an AT cache? Can we get some more info on this matter?

The AT trail corridor varies in width from a couple hundred feet to over 1/4 mile. This may help explain the apparent randomness to these decisions. I'm currently trying to find out more about permissions for the trail.

I retrieved my AT cache today, as requested, and the last two people to sign the log were the two Alabama boys. They signed on the 15th, the cache was archived on the 17th. Obviously, neither has been home to log it yet. Can they log a cache that they found before it was archived??? :confused:

Di and I may have been the last cachers to do this cache. We were camping for a week in Rockwood and the cache was archived after I loaded the caches for the week. It is actually was within 50 feet or so of the trail and we both had a lot of laughs navigating across the stream just before the cache.

Now to think about this like an attorney. First of all it is unlawful to discriminate against people for a variety of reasons, national ancestry and sex being two of the biggies. I know that we have cachers of Native American descent and probably as many women caching as men. This position by the AT people violate their rights. (This might be a bit tongue and cheek, but please read on)

The land is not owned by the AT Conservancy. While the ATC does a lot of the legwork and acts as stewards, federal tax dollars, yours and mine support the National Park Service and the USDA Forest service.

The stated mission of the ATC is "to ensure future generations will enjoy the clean air and water, scenic vistas, wildlife and opportunities for simple recreation and renewal along the Trail." Anybody think that geocaching doesn't fall squarely within the definition?

The ATC also "guards against incompatible uses. Are we, as a group, incompatible?

These are public trails and it's incomprehensible to think adding a gps and little tupperware is justification for banning us from enjoying ourselves in a manner in complete accord with their stated mission. The Groundspeak leaders should fight this. Maybe I will restrict the trails to caches that I have placed on private property to ban anybody that doesn't carry a gps or can't give me a one sentence answer to what geocaching is!:)

I'm calling Joe Bornstein!




It is to bad that the Twisted Sister Cedar Stump cache was archived also. I don't think it was archived because it was on the AT though. I think the owner archived it. I looked at the maps and it looks to be far enough off the AT where it should not have been a problem.

It is to bad that the Twisted Sister Cedar Stump cache was archived also. I don't think it was archived because it was on the AT though. I think the owner archived it. I looked at the maps and it looks to be far enough off the AT where it should not have been a problem.

This cache is RIGHT ON the trail. You've got to walk down the trail to get it, and it is only a few feet from it. (Well, unless they moved it since we logged it, I mean! LOL!)

That's right, Bruce. And I always look for a "path" to a cache,(which would be the only thing the ATC would be concerned with) and there was none to that cache.

My barber commented today that he's doing some trail maintenence this weekend on Cranberry on the AT. Seems that if there's a lot of use on trails and the campsights and lean to's fill up, the hikers pitch tents in undesignated spots and this causes concern. I guess I don't get the issue. I never thought of hikers as an elite group that turn their noses up to us mere cachers. Hope that's not the cace.:D


This cache is RIGHT ON the trail. You've got to walk down the trail to get it, and it is only a few feet from it. (Well, unless they moved it since we logged it, I mean! LOL!)

The impression I've gotten is that the AT policies on caching are still being developed and are NOT set in stone yet. They are not sure how to proceed on a national level and are still "working on it".

This is the log that was posted with the archival on the caches in Mass.

Groundspeak has been contacted by the National Park Service and asked to archive this geocache listing, effective immediately.

The National Parks Chief Ranger has identified this geocache as one that is currently placed on National Park Service managed Appalachian Trail Corridor lands and/or state lands where the Appalachian Trail passes through. Geocaching is not permitted on these lands. Consequently, Groundspeak is archiving this geocache. Please ensure that the geocache and all contents are removed from its location immediately.

Geocaching Placement Guidelines can be referenced here: (visit link (http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#offlimit))

The impression I've gotten is that the AT policies on caching are still being developed and are NOT set in stone yet. They are not sure how to proceed on a national level and are still "working on it".

This is correct. More and more, Groundspeak and geocachers are showing that we can manage the sport in a responsible manner. Quite often, this means follow directives we don't agree with or appreciate. The ban on caches in our National Parks is still in effect, but there is hope for change in the future.

When we did Bemis we saw lots of hiking needs placed along the trail. A shirt hung in a tree with a tag stating it was a men's medium, a crutch, some bandaids nailed to a tree, some safety pins and numerous other things left for the hikers coming through. Most of these were right on the trail and on one hand we thought wow these could come in handy for through hikers passing through on the other we thought it looked kinda trashy. We assumed these things were place mostly near the trail heads for the most part. Maybe leaving some ammo hiking swag cans would make the trails look a little nicer. Cachers can leave something and get a smiley and the hikers could take something they may need.
Cindy the cinderblock TB probably wouldn't move much ;)

This cache is RIGHT ON the trail. You've got to walk down the trail to get it, and it is only a few feet from it. (Well, unless they moved it since we logged it, I mean! LOL!)
The way I remember the cache was that you took a left off the trail on a side trail to the pond and then walked the waterline to an old tote road. That was the way I got to it. I suppose if you were caching not thinking or observing things around you then some cachers would have took a direct route from the AT straight to the cache and that is why caches are being eliminated from the AT.

[The cache was very close to the trail but I don't understand your comment. I'm not trying to be a wise guy here but are you saying that if a cache is off the trail, which most would be, that it would be ok if people didn't go straight to it, ie if they "meandered" to it? I think the concern must be "geocaching trails" that result but to me that could easily be avoided by placing caches close to the trail where there are natural openings and no obvious sensitive flora. The cache placer could add a waypoint where the a cacher is supposed to leave the trail. Stephanie did that on her Survival of the Prepared cache in Unity. To me, a cache close to the trail, like Twisted Sister, with natural openings, like Twisted Sister, would be environmentally neutral.

The ATC would benefit from forming a partnership with the geocaching community.



The way I remember the cache was that you took a left off the trail on a side trail to the pond and then walked the waterline to an old tote road. That was the way I got to it. I suppose if you were caching not thinking or observing things around you then some cachers would have took a direct route from the AT straight to the cache and that is why caches are being eliminated from the AT.

Yes I agree with you. I guess my point was that the nature of geocaching is that most people will use their GPS and take the most direct and quickest route they can to get there quicker. That is just the nature of it. It does not matter if you spell it out in the cache description not to walk of the trail because someone is going to do it and once someone does it and a small path starts to form then others are going to follow that path. This path is what they are trying to avoid happening. There whole idea is to Leave No Trace and when a path develops then it voids the LNT.

I can see both sides to this. I would love to see caches along the AT but I have also seen some very disruptive caches that have been placed on the AT. You know the old saying "it only takes a few to ruin it for others".

Absolute POWER corrupts Absolutely! Once you let a group/organization/entity etc, become too powerful then it is all over. They become arrogant and then THEY determine/define what is right and what is wrong, AND it never ends. EVER! Once they get control its like watching the tide come in and erode the sandcastle that was once your fun. :(

Yes I agree with you. I guess my point was that the nature of geocaching is that most people will use their GPS and take the most direct and quickest route they can to get there quicker. That is just the nature of it. It does not matter if you spell it out in the cache description not to walk of the trail because someone is going to do it and once someone does it and a small path starts to form then others are going to follow that path. This path is what they are trying to avoid happening. There whole idea is to Leave No Trace and when a path develops then it voids the LNT.

I can see both sides to this. I would love to see caches along the AT but I have also seen some very disruptive caches that have been placed on the AT. You know the old saying "it only takes a few to ruin it for others".

I agree with that, and I am guilty of it as well. I get so wrapped up following my gps at times that I end up going in from the hardest possible direction. A little experience has taught me to research the caching area a little more, if possible. I started to figure it out when I walked up within a few feet of the angry pit bull (another subject for later, I actively dislike pit bulls) before realising I messed up. :eek:

This is correct. More and more, Groundspeak and geocachers are showing that we can manage the sport in a responsible manner. Quite often, this means follow directives we don't agree with or appreciate. The ban on caches in our National Parks is still in effect, but there is hope for change in the future.

Canadian National parks had a ban on geocaching that was lifted this year. They do have guidelines.

I hike the AT and I can tell you that sidetrails are not a good thing. Even though I know what the white blaze looks like, my 12 year old daughter and I went out of our way one day, down a side trail. Fortunately, I can use a map and compass and figured out where we were. We went backtracking and caught up to my sister and son who weren't too worried about us, but had some thru hikers waiting for us too... just in case. Ellen, my sister, was in Maine last weekend and we went to Abol Bridge where she had waited for us. We had a good laugh.

I just received a copy of the new AT policies regarding geocaching:

Geocaching Guidance to Clubs

Following adoption of the geocaching policy by ATC’s Stewardship Council and Board of Directors on November 1, 2008, ATC staff developed further guidance to the clubs relating to the implementation of the policy.

The geocaching policy attempts to strike a balance between the value of geocaching as an outdoor recreational activity and the potentially significant negative impacts to natural and cultural resources that unmanaged geocaching can cause. To this end, A.T. land managing agencies are encouraged to either 1) manage and monitor geocaching activity or 2) prohibit it.

Club responsibilities:

Clubs should disseminate the newly adopted policy and guidance to their members, especially trail maintainers and corridor monitors, and ensure that information is available to members who have questions about the policy. Clubs should refer questions and comments back to ATC.
Clubs are not responsible for monitoring geocaches; however, volunteer help in finding and mitigating caches impacting natural or cultural resources is greatly appreciated. Club members who locate geocaches on Trail lands in the course of other Trail duties (corridor monitoring, encroachment mitigation) are requested to document and report their findings. Ideally, club members should document the placement of the geocaches as precisely as possible as well as any visible impacts with field notes and photographs and report their findings through their club to the appropriate land managing agency and ATC regional office.
Trail clubs are not responsible for managing geocaching requests. Geocachers are responsible for determining land ownership and obtaining permission before placing caches on public or private land.
If clubs receive any requests regarding placement of a geocache on AT lands, they should direct the person making the request to the appropriate land managing agency. If clubs require help in determining which agency is appropriate to contact, they should direct the person seeking permission to the appropriate ATC regional office.
If the request pertains to ATPO managed land, or other lands where the club knows that geocache placement is not permitted, the club should inform the person making the query that geocaching is prohibited on those lands and encourage him or her to contact the appropriate managing agency for more information.
Club volunteers are not responsible for removing geocaches. If club volunteers find a geocache where they believe that such activity is prohibited, or in an area of sensitive or historic resources, or where the geocache seems to be creating impacts (i.e., social trails or any other impact), the volunteers should check with the appropriate land managing agency. If the location and the prohibition can be verified, the agency staff may ask the volunteers if they are willing to help by removing the cache.
ATC asks that volunteers notify their regional office if they become aware that a cache is being considered for removal: ATC will do its best to contact the appropriate cache owner as well as GroundSpeak to apprise them of the situation, the better to educate the geocaching community about existing agency rules and regulations and foster a better working relationship.
Clubs should examine their sections for areas that they believe are particularly inappropriate for geocaching, using criteria such as existing natural and cultural resources and intensity of use, and highlight these areas of particular concern in their Local Management Plans. Clubs are encouraged to work with partner agencies in highlighting such trail management concerns for their consideration. Conversely, clubs may feel that certain unrestricted areas are appropriate for geocaching and may work with partner agencies to highlight opportunities and consider options.

Relevant contact information:

ATPO contact: Chief Ranger Todd Remaley – 304-535-6171
Appalachian Trail Conservancy Regional Offices:
New England – 603-795-4935
Mid-Atlantic- 717-258-5771
Virginia – 540-953-3571
Southern – 828-254-3708




It looks like a lot of critical watching of any cache placement, but at least they are trying to adopt policies recognizing that deal with (instead of a blanket ban) caching. The local clubs have the option of banning caching, so it behooves us to be extra diligent in meeting the AT criteria on any cache we may wish to place in an AT corridor. Hopefully with time, GC and the AT can find policies that work for both groups.

It's a start at least.