|
Post by alaskarambo on Apr 19, 2009 9:22:13 GMT -9
I think that the base needs to post its areas and territories "better" then what they do. You walk off of Hiland road and do not expect to be on "military land" and with no signs or markers ... what did they expect? And don't start the "get a map" not everyone knows how to read one or if they do read it "WELL". There is nothing wrong with Better and More perimeter markers in areas that are not fenced. Don't get me wrong, I work for Homeland I can assure you I understand security and the implications and ramifications when it is lax....however, BOTH groups here need to play fair. And personally, in my "HUMBLE" opinion this is blown way out of proportion...but again, my opinion, I have never been known to be one to keep my trap shut so get used to it. If someone out there doesn't agree with me, go hike back off of hiland road and the powerline. TELL me what kind of markers/signs you see? Perhaps they have been buried in snow (lol - one joke I can lighten up) Again, my complaint is the lack of clear Boundary marking. Its not Geocachers that are being "dishonest" and "hiding" what they are doing....its a military base that uses the fact a that a lot of it is covered by dense scrub and 5 star plus terrain. They have been making the ASSUMPTION that no one is nutty enough to traverse back there....but they just don't "know" us now do they?? It isn't up to the military to mark their land every 2 feet. We who live here, and especially cachers, need to take the time to familiarize ourselves with the area we plan to place a cache in to make sure it isn't military land or someone's private property. Using your logic I should mark my house and land as private property or find one of your caches under my deck. Scobey I DO believe you are taking my comments to the extreme. I was very clear in what I felt was a step in the right direction. There is nothing wrong with marking military property "better'" then it is marked currently. I did not say nor did I ask that it be marked every "two" feet. I don't appreciate the fact that I can not way in my two cents without a sarcastic reply. I feel what I said added weight and value to the conversation. Many of us feel that this is one big mountain made out of a mole hill but are HAPPY to bring ideas and solutions to the table...and I believe asking that military property be marked in "real life" (not on internet maps) is not to much to ask. The military can lay fence EVER inch of their sterile perimeter...how hard would it be to post a sign or markers ever 100 yards that are NEAR trailheads and public use or Muni lands. Last I checked, there wasn't a painted dashed line in the dirt or on the snow. Frankly some geocachers are laying it on pretty thick and pointing a for shame finger pretty heavy at cache owners that have accidently placed their caches on military land. THIS can be handled better and with MORE respect to your fellow cachers. Lets not forget this is a sport, a game, something that brings enjoyment to many families in the great state of Alaska. Can we TRY not to SUCK the fun out of it anymore?
|
|
|
Post by FrostG1anT on Apr 19, 2009 11:19:25 GMT -9
I think there's more to this than a few people looking for caches on Gov property. Instead of starting a land battle with Ft Rich, which we will lose, let's let GeocacheAlaska! Inc. work with them and come up with an agreement that will work for both party's! Let's not let this issue get out of hand. The simple fact of the matter is that the land owners (the military in this case) have requested that geocaches on their property be removed and has been very helpful and cooperative in making this happen quickly and easily for everyone. Geocaching is not allowed on military property unless otherwise stated and has been allowed on Fort Richardson property in the past but for the time being they have come forth and politely asked that this activity cease. For whatever reason this came into effect is really of no relevance as it is their property and they have asked that this activity not take place on their land. This should hold true for any placement of a geocache. Unless the property personally belongs to the cache placer or the land has been deemed "geocache friendly" and a permit of some sort has been issued for the placement of geocaches, then the cache placer should make certain that they have permission from the land owner to place a geocache on their property. This has come up in the past and as Alaskans we like to think of ourselves as "living in the last frontier" and with so much open space around us it easy to forget that all the "open space" around us is privately owned land. It is the geocache placers responsibility to make sure they are not placing a geocache somewhere were it will be trespassing. Remember this is a game, a sport, a fun recreational and social activity and much to the credit of Alaskans this State is a very fine place to geocache.
|
|
|
Post by saidbystacy on Apr 19, 2009 19:08:10 GMT -9
Couldn't have said it better myself. It is sad that cachers will no longer have Ft. Richardson to rumble around on, but perhaps if we establish a good relationship with the gents at Ft. Rich, then perhaps sometime in the future they will pemit geocachers to return.
|
|
|
Post by NorthWes on Apr 20, 2009 11:01:33 GMT -9
This is a pretty straightforward land management issue, and I agree with the last couple of posts completely.
• GeAK! has moved quickly to provide guidance to local cachers regarding the land manager’s instructions; • GeAK! is not the ‘cache police’ but IS the local caching organization recognized by both local land managers and geocaching.com as an agent for communication; • Geocaching.com’s guidelines for cache placement in regards to military lands are clear, as are boundaries marked on the online maps we use; • If there’s a middle ground I’m sure Tinman4x from GeAK! can find it; • If there’s no middle ground to be found, the land belongs to the military first and foremost, regardless of how ‘benign’ and ‘unmilitary’ it may appear to the casual eye. • We must respect land manager guidelines in all cases.
Military land use is quite unique. Persons unfamiliar with military operations wonder why so much land is ‘locked up’ with no apparent activity occurring. All military installations which support land warfare components (Ft Rich & its combat brigade) need big training ‘playgrounds’, which also require wide buffer zones. Installations with flight operations (again, Ft Rich – plus Elmendorf AFB) also require large buffer zones under flight ops areas, as well as buffers between the base ground facilities and the ‘outside world’. I’m sure we’d all agree our soldiers and airmen need the best training facilities available, and I’m delighted to have these two big installations here supporting our local economy as well.
Finally, there’s two things involved in geocaching which are pretty diametrically opposed to military land management. The first obvious ‘thing’ is the left-behind physical cache – soldiers must police their training areas of everything that’s been brought into it (including human waste) and ammo cans (for just one example) represent one of the worst things to be left behind by troops who’ve pulled out of a training zone. The second most-obvious ‘thing’ involves security – and anyone who’s been through the front gate at Elmendorf AFB lately has seen the new signs exhorting military and civilian workers on base to exercise the ‘Eagle Eye’ in looking out for suspicious activities. You must admit there’s something inherently suspicious-looking about a person or group of persons stealthily searching about for something using a satellite tracking device on a military base… and no one wants to be the target of a detention period where your unauthorized use of military land is reviewed in detail.
A thoughtful review of the land use issue will show we’re unlikely to be allowed to cache on post or base. There’s lots of other places to play – where land managers welcome our version of land use, and where we’re not going to be viewed suspiciously when roaming about with our trusty GPS units.
|
|
|
Post by tinman4x on Apr 20, 2009 11:44:32 GMT -9
As for finding some "middle ground" when it comes to the current round of caches requiring removal I really don't think there is any to be found. They are undoubtedly on military ground.
What I do hope to have soon is an exact number of feet to include as a buffer zone. This is needed along the Glenn Hwy bike path corridor as well as the other boundaries of Ft. Richardson and EAFB. As most of you know geocaching.com has a published 150' spelled out clearly for caches along railways.
Thanks to the cachers who have already taken action by disabling or archiving their caches so far. There are a few out there with owners who don't log into GC.com very often so I guess they are not aware of the recent developments yet.
This along with the upcoming CITO events will be some of the topics discussed at tonight’s GeocacheAlaska! board meeting.
|
|
|
Post by Malcore on Apr 20, 2009 13:10:22 GMT -9
The buffer zone is a concern to me also. I have a cache (Airborne Training) thats only 190' from the boundary fence. So if they decide the buffer zone is larger then that I will have to move that cache. So tell me when you get the info and I will do what needs done.
|
|
ak4me
Bronze Cacher
Posts: 24
|
Post by ak4me on Apr 21, 2009 7:58:02 GMT -9
All of my caches in this area will be picked up and archived as soon as I get a day off from work.
|
|
kmags
Copper Cacher
Posts: 7
|
Post by kmags on Apr 21, 2009 8:54:51 GMT -9
I noticed that all the caches along the Glen Hiway corridor are archived too...this is sad. You can drive your Hummer loaded with guns (2nd amendment...remember) on the hiway, but can't put a nano on the bike path becuz it threatens national security???
|
|
|
Post by tinman4x on Apr 21, 2009 10:21:51 GMT -9
which caches along the Glenn hwy corridor are you speaking of?
The caches along the bike path should have been ok except for one cache at a moose gate that was leading cachers to cross well onto Ft. Richardson property.
If we're looking at the same recently archived caches along the Anchorage to Eagle River bike path, those caches were archived by the owner and had nothing to do with Ft. Richardson land use issues.
|
|
|
Post by alaskarambo on Apr 22, 2009 12:25:10 GMT -9
I got a great map at usgs today...granted I havent broke my ruler out yet BUT it doesnt appear happy happy joy joy is even on the "reservation" portion of the base....there is a huge square there that is free game right there at Hiland....The reservation is marked by a nice clear Blue border.....I guess we will see just how BAD I am at reading a map correctly.....
|
|
|
Post by tinman4x on Apr 22, 2009 16:42:52 GMT -9
Happy Happy joy joy is very close to being "not on military land" but it made the conservation officers list of caches to remove. Even if it were moved another 500' to the East taking GZ well away from the shaded Ft. Richardson land it leads cachers to park and hike the logical trail route to ground zero which is clearly crossing Army land. That would essentially make it a trespassing trap for future cache seekers unfamiliar with the area.
As far as relocating some of these caches goes, 50' is the number of feet the Ft. Richardson conservation staff feels is a comfortable "buffer zone" for cache future cache placement. I will be writing a letter to groundspeak suggesting they add that number to the listing requirements for caches placed "on or near military installations". They have a published limit for railways so it would be nice to see an actual numbered limit for military land as well.
In my discussions with Ft. Rich conservation personnel, this particular area is high on their list for additional fencing and signs due to changing training requirements in the upcoming months. I suspect this area will become off limits for all recreational users, not just us lowly geocachers. Placing a "legal" cache that encourages trespassing on the cache seekers part is a bad idea. I have found 5 of the 6 caches in the cluster and at the time I hunted them down I never noticed I was on military land. If I had received a trespassing fine there would have been some real howling going on.
If any of the effected cache owners would like their caches removed and returned to them the Friday please email me please. FrostG1ant, FLYRFN, and I will be heading out to get our user passes and pick a few caches on Friday.
|
|
|
Post by akbearb8 on Apr 23, 2009 18:15:19 GMT -9
Hello, I am one of the Fort Richardson Conservation Officers that geocachealaska managers have been working with to solve the issue involving geocaches on Fort Richardson land. Army/Federal regulations prohibit geocaching on federal/military land. I am pleased at how things are going so far. Most of the caches have been archived from websites and most owners have plans to remove caches soon. Ft Rich conservation officers physically removed geocaches (phonecall, murkle-the-bridge-cache-troll, big-gnarly,reach-for-the-star). The rest will be removed by the owners or geocachealaska.org organized groups that have coordinated with Ft Rich Conservation Officers.
Fort Richardson Training Area 420 located near Eagle River Loop/ Hi-land Road for what ever reason was poorly marked with "Army Property Keep Out Trespassers Will Be Prosecuted" signs. BUT! As of 21 April 2009 several signs have been placed at key locations in high access/activity areas clearly marking the property line. More signs will be placed soon. Training area 420 is and has always been closed to all recreational activities. AK4me has coordinated the removal of the illegal caches in that area soon. Several people have visited the caches illegally "AFTER" the Army Property Signs were put up. This is happening at other caches also. This is unacceptable! We are trying to respect this sport and the owners by allowing them to collect their caches and the great history that they have stored within them but if people keep ignoring Army regulations and boundaries we will have no choice but to confiscate all affected caches. We are not picking on geocachers. These rules apply to everyone that use army property. Anyone that is caught in a training area that does not have a recreation pass and is not signed into the area will receive a 1 year recreation barment from Fort Richardson and possibly a Criminal Trespassing Mandatory Court Citation.
Everyone must have a recreation access pass to recreate on Army Land and you must sign in and out every time you recreate. You can get the free one year pass at the Fort Richardson Front Gate. make sure you get the flyer that has instructions on signing in/out and has a map of the training areas.
The Fort Richardson Conservation Office is pleased with how this process is going and we will continue to work with geocachealaska.org managers in solving this issue in the best way that will benefit the great sport of geocaching and Fort Richardson.
Thank You For Your Time,
Officer Doug Deese Conservation Enforcement Fort Richardson, Alaska
|
|
|
Post by li1gray on Apr 23, 2009 23:35:31 GMT -9
Well it is a shame to see all the caches on Ft Rich go away. I know they have had the signs up that you must sign in that are near the sled hill too and they watch those folks that used the hill to sled on very closely this winter.
I have a RAP pass and now even if you go drive around and explore with your 4X4, bicycle, or want to Hike, fish, hunt, canoe or camp on the back side of the Post thru a set of fences they have signs that say you need to call if you go past that point. Even though you have to pay to camp or rent the canoes at Otter Lake.
So even the "personnel" on Post have to have a RAP to access the same areas. I volunteer at Elmendorf and this affects the Rafting trips on Eagle River and bicycle rides that go along the range areas. They didn't just single out the geocachers.
Yes I have been stopped by Office Doug a couple of times as I thought it was a hassle to call in to drive around out at Otter Lake to scout out the lake or camping area or go grab a cache that was "just off the road"...
Guess I should have taken Eagle 618 up on just logging the Eagles Fence cache as she said she didn't want me out there with the bears this past summer, Guess I will have to grab another cache instead some place else. Would have liked to have walked back to that lake though. A new and interesting place I am sure that geocaching would have taken me that I would have never gone otherwise!
I am glad we still the ones up high so they can count towards my Multiply and Summit cache by MtBoy!
|
|
|
Post by erik88lr on Apr 24, 2009 11:38:33 GMT -9
Thanks for your cooperation in removing caches as requested. If I've had to archive your cache listing please don't take offense.
I can honestly say that "I've been there, done that." in having to remove caches and play catch-up in explaining our sport and requesting permission to place a cache when problems would have been prevented in just securing permission before hand. We sometimes assume it's easier to ask forgiveness than to ask permission, and sometimes it is. Unfortunately when a couple of dozen caches are involved it is painful.
But we'll get over it. I would encourage an open minded and positive discussion with the base folks and let's move on with a defined buffer zone as mentioned earlier in this thread. Then I would encourage pursuing a permit process with the goal of caches placed in approved areas on base in the future.
Alaska is not Iraq or Afghanistan, but I believe the military is discovering what a great recreation alternative geocaching on bases in those countries are for off-duty GIs who would otherwise be stuck playing video games in their barracks. Hopefully some of that will influence perceptions as members of the military return to the US and ask permission to place caches on base as they did in the Middle East.
~erik~
|
|
|
Post by FrostG1anT on Apr 24, 2009 17:41:26 GMT -9
I would like to say thank you to all the cachers who had caches on Fort Richardson for promptly complying with the wishes of the land owners and removing and archiving your caches quickly and within the time-frame set forth by the Conservation officers from Fort Richardson.
This was an unfortunate loss for our sport, but everyone came together and honored the wishes of the land owners and this goes a long way toward the benefit of this game. So thank you for your timely response.
All of the physical caches have been removed from Fort Richardson as of 5:00pm today. The conservation officers have some of them that were not removed by the cache owners themselves. A group went in today and collected the containers and the cache owners have been contacted so they can be returned to them. Several of the cache owners are not currently in Alaska and have provided instruction as to what to do with their caches that were removed from the base. Several of the caches on the base were missing already. Please do not go onto the base looking for caches now as there are no longer any caches there. Blazingpathways caches were not checked as she had posted that she had removed and/or relocated them or would be relocating them very soon. Judging from the last logs on some of the caches found today she has already been out to do that.
The USARTRAK process is quite simple and now that I have a permit I plan to make use of it as I discovered some beautiful country today. There are some nice trails there to recreate on and I plan to spend some time out there this summer if the base is open to recreational activities.
It is quite simple to get a permit, just go to the gate and request one. You will need proof of insurance for your vehicle and an ID. The permit is good for one year and has a phone number to call and register where you will be recreating on the base and allows you to find out if that area is open for recreation that day or not.
Thank you all again for coming together and making this happen in timely manner.
|
|
|
Post by li1gray on Jul 7, 2009 1:47:21 GMT -9
Well I see we have a new cacher that has a cache out along the weigh scale on the inbound side not sure if it is on Ft Rich buffer zone as I didn't see any signs out there tonight but I know just down from the scales the area is posted. Cache is only about 5 ft off the trail so it will be easy to remove it if ends up being in/on Ft. Richardson. Just so easy to get access and along the trail you would think they would be okay as long as you don't cross the fenced area. Guess we will see...
|
|
|
Post by AKFossil on Jul 21, 2009 8:43:11 GMT -9
I don't think there would be a issue with that as Ft. Richardson's biggest complaint is keeping positive control and tacking on people on its base. They have a bad enough time with the joggers who think its their right to ignore the no tresspassing signs to jog in the "wild" which poses a threat to themselves as these are live fire and populated wildlife (bears, wolves, moose, etc) areas they wish to run in. The Army is doing everything it knows how to do to avoid the 1 in a million chance of someone getting hurt out there and no one knowing.
As long as its on the right side of the fence I think we are ok.
|
|