Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
dogbreathcanada

Parks Bc

Recommended Posts

According to the BCGA website, BC Parks will be implemeting a geocaching policy. BCGA will be involved in the process, which is excellent news. At least BC Parks isn't simply going forth with a policy without insight into the hobby.

 

I've no doubt that directors of the BCGA will ably adn adequately represent the interests of British Columbian cachers, so there's little to fear in the way of a bad policy.

 

The BCGA will be meeting with BC Parks this September.

 

Thought I'd pass the news along to the forums here. The discussion, if there is any, can commence.

 

(To the moderators ... perhaps this thread can be "pinned" along with Parks Canada and Parks Ontario. Thanks.)

 

DBC.

Share this post


Link to post

Knowing this will be a good tool for the remaining provinces to follow. I have a good idea that once the Federal policy is out, all the Provincial parks are either going to follow suit or look at implimenting there own. Hopefully when that happens, the Provincial caching groups are ready, unlike the issues that are happening now with the feds.

 

parker2

Share this post


Link to post

Parker2 said

Hopefully when that happens, the Provincial caching groups are ready, unlike the issues that are happening now with the feds.

 

Well, isn't that an interesting statement. One wonders what it is based upon.

 

I for one certainly hope that British Columbia Parks actually consults with the BCGA 'BEFORE' they go ahead and create, distribute to their staff and ram through any policy that affects Geocaching. That would be very refreshing, since it has yet to happen anywhere else in this country.

 

I do really hope that BCGA is successful. It would be nice to see a community get to actually help create something, instead of what has been the status quo. Maybe other groups would take notice and benefit from the information that people with awareness could provide.

 

 

BQ

Share this post


Link to post

BC Parks is willing to meet with us and consult with us before creating a geocaching policy. The initial information that has been shared between us (the BCGA) and BC Parks has been positive. The BCGA is asking for cachers input on what they would like to see happen with geocaching in BC Parks. This input can be given through the news article on the BCGA website.

 

I am optimistic that a policy that benefits both cachers and BC Parks can be created. I hope that a progressive policy can be created and act as a model for other Canadian provinces.

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for the post Chillibusher.... I'll have to watch the outcome very carefully as i know there is going to be a future policy here in Sask. I know and have chatted with many of the CO's here in Saskatchewan on various levels, and I think that both SERM and Gc's will be able to hammer a good policy out.

 

 

And for the previous post by BQ, I'm not nor have I ever said anything about your help with the Fed. policy. You, along with others from the OGA have done what you could with the shotgun interm policy that I am sure was drawn up prior to any input that was asked from them. I was just stating the issues that are going on now trying to get phyisical caching back into the Fed. parks. It would of been nice if someone would of handed the Feds. a bit more info prior to them even thinking of putting a policy in place. Hopefully the emails are still continuing to flow in to PC and the talks are continuing or it will be a lost battle.

 

parker2

Edited by parker2

Share this post


Link to post
According to the BCGA website, BC Parks will be implemeting a geocaching policy. BCGA will be involved in the process, which is excellent news. At least BC Parks isn't simply going forth with a policy without insight into the hobby.

 

Well, at least that's what we hope will happen. We're optimistic, as Chillibusher mentions, but that doesn't mean that all the consultation and input provided by cachers will be listened to and/or heeded. I've been through negotiations with other bodies/gov't agencies only to see every suggestion given completely ignored.

 

While I was quite ready to assist Chilli in any way possible to begin talks this month (July), it looks like this won't happen until summer winds down. The best shot we have is for cachers in the province, or even cachers outside the province who have had meetings with reps from their park agencies to provide their thoughts and ideas so that we can present what cachers would like to see in any policy regarding geocaching in BC's provincial parks.

 

From the perspective of parks staff, they are going to want to know how cachers will hide caches that won't adversely impact the park environment and how cachers will conduct themselves when finding these caches. There's a wide spectrum of opinion on these two aspects alone. Any feedback regarding physical caches, cache placement, cache size, etc. would also be helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
From the perspective of parks staff, they are going to want to know how cachers will hide caches that won't adversely impact the park environment and how cachers will conduct themselves when finding these caches. There's a wide spectrum of opinion on these two aspects alone. Any feedback regarding physical caches, cache placement, cache size, etc. would also be helpful.

Well, as examples of how I conduct myself in the Parks, I point you to the following caches:

 

Black Mountain (GCP35A)

Hollyburn Mountain (GCP35H)

Norvan Falls (GCNPA1)

Lynn Peak (GCNHXZ)

 

Black Mountain and Hollyburn Mountain are in Cypress Provincial Park. Granted, Norvan Falls and Lynn Peak aren't in a provincial park, but they're still useful examples, as they're in similar terrain to the other north shore provincial parks.

 

My caches are within 5 metres of marked trails (or at the end of marked trails). And I include detailed descriptions (often with photos) to locate the caches (to reduce hack n' slash, stomp n' tromp hunting techniques.)

 

Feel free to use any (or all) of those caches as examples of responsible caching in public parks.

 

If there's anything more I can do with those caches to reduce environmental impact, while still allowing for the physical caching aspect of geocaching, I would make those further changes happily.

Share this post


Link to post

Nooo! This isn't a good thing... Even if they're reasonable about it, which I really hope they are, it will probably mean more restrictions. More restrictions is not a good thing. I really cannot see this ending positively for us... I'm a pessimist, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Nooo!  This isn't a good thing...  Even if they're reasonable about it, which I really hope they are, it will probably mean more restrictions.  More restrictions is not a good thing.  I really cannot see this ending positively for us...  I'm a pessimist, though.

:lol: Do you mean it's not a good thing that Parks will be implementing a geocaching policy or that it's not a good thing for geocachers to talk to Parks to try and hammer out an agreement?

 

Granted, I would prefer that Parks recognized the positive aspects of caching for what they are and didn't seek to limit the activity in parks that we all frequent, enjoy, and pay for....and that geocaching associations didn't have to proceed and talk policies, conduct, etc. The unfortunate reality is that a policy will be implemented whether or not geocaching associations proceed to represent their concerns, thoughts, and ideas. I'd much rather proceed and talk with Parks before we all get stuck with something that isn't acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Nooo!  This isn't a good thing...  Even if they're reasonable about it, which I really hope they are, it will probably mean more restrictions.  More restrictions is not a good thing.  I really cannot see this ending positively for us...  I'm a pessimist, though.

I'd prefer to see a policy in place, if only to limit bad placements. I've seen far too many caches where cache owners believe that looking for a needle in a haystack is a challenge.

 

A "needle in a haystack" cache is a cache placement, usually in a satellite poor signal area, in which the only clue to finding the cache is both vague and representative of most of the environment in the area. For instance, placing a cache in a dense forest, and then supplying the clue "next to a tree." These types of caches experience a lot of environmental damage, due to the fact that cachers have to roam a very very wide area searching diligently under every candidate location.

 

(I'd post links to some examples, but I don't want to single any particular caches out. I'm sure we've all experienced these types of caches, and been witness to the trampling and damage they cause.)

 

I'd prefer to not see "needle in a haystack" like caches in my national and provincial parks. I'd prefer not to see them anywhere, but most especially not in areas designated as environmental reserves. I welcome a policy that would enforce certain regulations on cache placement.

 

I suspect the directorship of the BCGA feels much the same way, thus I'm not concerned that they won't put our best foot forward when trying to develop a policy with BC Parks.

Edited by dogbreathcanada

Share this post


Link to post

Again, my opinion, but likely caching principles the Parks can find agreement with.

 

The Three Principles of National and Provincial Park Cache Placement

 

1. No cache shall be located no more than 5 metres from a marked trail or rest area.

 

2. All caches must contain detailed descriptions to find the cache, to reduce the search area and search time. Environmental damage is proportional to the search area of a cache and the time it takes to find the cache.

 

3. No cache may be within 500 metres of any other cache on park property. To reduce saturation.

 

Number one and two are the most important. I don't believe number three will ever be a problem, but it's a little icing on the cake for them.

Share this post


Link to post

I would rather go in with the current guidelines for the GC.com site speaking personally. You can show that they are adopted across the globe and seem to work well. I would not walk in giving away the farm on some issues, especially if they don't want the farm. Using 500 meters seems pretty extreme. I would go in with 160 meters and see if you get it.

Share this post


Link to post

Some areas might be more ecologically sensitive than others. A 160m cache placement might work in a inhabited area of a park, but other areas like breading habitat, riparian zones, nature preserves might need over a km radius to protect the land.

 

parker2

Share this post


Link to post

I think MTN-MAN has it right. GC.com's guidelines for 0.1 miles/161 meters is a well established limit.

 

I understand the concept of protection ESA's, but why make a blanket ruling that would affect ALL locations?

 

If BC Parks has areas that they have marked as ESA's then they will certainly tell you that, especially if someone tries to place a cache in there (this would probably be an unintentional placement issue).

 

I would guess that it would be more likely that they would say that the 161 meter rule is fine, but no caches can be placed in or near ESA's. It's the same as we have now that caches cannot be placed near active train tracks, military bases, or other terrorist targets.

 

So while the idea of increasing spacing might seem like a good selling feature, it would be better for both groups if you considered "restricted areas" or identify locations that are sensitive.

 

If you could create an arc/polygon map of those areas, you could even send that data to Cache-Tech and he/she would be able to easily identify when a cache gets submitted that is located in a non-sanctioned location.

 

:rolleyes: The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post

If I post in this one, will you lock it as well?

Share this post


Link to post
If I post in this one, will you lock it as well?

No. That other thread had already run its course. Feel free to add whatever thoughts you may have.

Edited by dogbreathcanada

Share this post


Link to post

Apparently some BC Park rangers are deciding for themselves whether geocaching is allowed in their parks or not.

 

The following is a photo of a recent note added to a cache (now archived) in Strathcona Provincial Park.

 

850f7f55-a698-4f02-9d11-38f2f76c0021.jpg

Edited by dogbreathcanada

Share this post


Link to post

Park Rangers deciding for themselves that a cache is not appropriate in a park seems like a good thing to me. I like the idea of a local land manager / local authority deciding whether or not a cache is appropriate in a given area.

 

The local authority is going to have a better idea of what caches would be hamful than someone sitting in an office in Vancouver or Toronto will.

 

The Ontario parks ban prohibits caches in parks even when the local superintendant approves of a geocache. The park that hosted COG: Spring Fling was an example of one such park.

 

One of the geocaching.com rules is to get permission.

Hopefully the ranger that left this card e-mailed the owner of the cache to pick it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Apparently some BC Park rangers are deciding for themselves whether geocaching is allowed in their parks or not.

 

The following is a photo of a recent note added to a cache (now archived) in Strathcona Provincial Park.

 

850f7f55-a698-4f02-9d11-38f2f76c0021.jpg

 

I think we need to shoot all deer, bears and cougars. They walk through the bush, creating trails and "environmental damage" as well!

 

All animals need to start paying park user fees (like the rest of the animals) or else be jailed, shot on sight, and or subject to some other form of prosecution.

 

Sometimes, I think we can get a little bit 'too mental' about environ-mental-ism.

 

Regard,

--- Robb ---

Share this post


Link to post
I think we need to shoot all deer, bears and cougars. They walk through the bush, creating trails and "environmental damage" as well!

Animals belong in the parks, people don't necessarily. The point is the protect the habitat for them ... not us.

 

That said ... I'd prefer to see a Parks BC policy, not individual rangers creating policy based on their own biases and/or misconceptions.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd prefer to see a policy in place, if only to limit bad placements. I've seen far too many caches where cache owners believe that looking for a needle in a haystack is a challenge.

 

I agreed with you that policy limiting bad cache placements in Provincial parks was a good idea. Until today. I was walking with my daughter and my dog this morning when we bumped into a group of about 7 cachers looking for GCNR2H. This cache is hidden in a very park-friendly spot; you don't have to leave the trail to get to it. Or, if you do decide to leave the trail because you have short arms, you only need to go a foot or so off the trail.

 

Now this group of people was milling around the cache site while their kids were wandering around the woods (off the trail!) poking stumps and whacking the brush with their walking sticks. The adults just stood there and let the kids run amuck in the woods. So, a policy restricting cache placement won't do much good when Joe Average is ecologically ignorant.

 

I'm thinking a total ban on caching in our provincial parks is needed. Such a policy will only affect a small percentage of cachers anyways; wal mart will still have it's parking lots and there are still a large number of untouched urban parks that are designed to hold large numbers of careless people.

I don't know man. All my Provincial Park caches are on mountain tops. Those aren't family hikes. The only people (usually) heading to those locations are ecologically educated to begin with. I still feel some locations in the parks are fine.

 

And why isn't this topic pinned? Ontario is pinned and so is Parks Canada. Seems only fair to give us an equal voice.

 

I suspect because the mods are all from out East ... :huh:

Edited by dogbreathcanada

Share this post


Link to post

The following cache is a neat idea ...

 

Sunflower Surprise

 

... except I'm pretty sure Parks BC wouldn't take kindly to it being in a provincial park. I'm pretty sure they're opposed to the planting of non-native species in the parks.

 

Now if this was outside the park, perhaps in a neighbourhood park (which are usually chalk full of non-native pspecies to begin with) this would be a slamtastic idea.

Share this post


Link to post

If there is a specific provincial parks guideline that this breaks, then you should post a SBA note on the cache quoting that rule or guideline.

 

The other way to deal with the cache is to go find it. You can then trade the seeds for something more appropriate. You have done the right thing since you have elected to trade out these items. Just remember to trade up or trade even. In cases like this, I would trade up. I have done this with knives on several occasions.

Share this post


Link to post

* A B C

Edited by Xopster

Share this post


Link to post

*A B C

Edited by Xopster

Share this post


Link to post
Park Rangers deciding for themselves that a cache is not appropriate in a park seems like a good thing to me. I like the idea of a local land manager / local authority deciding whether or not a cache is appropriate in a given area.

 

The local authority is going to have a better idea of what caches would be hamful than someone sitting in an office in Vancouver or Toronto will.

 

You said a mouthfull there Northern Penguin.

 

Being employed like many of us are, we know what is the best way to do things, but seldom is that the way the upper management sees it.

 

It is understandable that the Provincial (or Federal) groups think that it is best to have a uniform policy for ALL of their lands. But often the local Wardens get to decide what is allowed or not allowed at their parks too.

 

Wouldn't it be great if Geocachers could actual meet with the Park Warden and together decide about Geocache placements?

 

I wonder why it doesn't happen that way? :blink:

 

I wonder how the Park Wardens feel about it?

 

:blink: The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post

Wasn't the first BCGA/Parks BC meeting supposed to happen in September? If it did take place, exactly what happened? I'm sure the people of BC would like to be kept abreast of developments.

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post

Chillibusher and I (as BCGA directors), plus a representative from Geocaching.com, met with a BC Parks representative on Friday, September 30th for two hours. This was an introductory and informational meeting. Background information on BC Parks mandate, organization, and operations were shared, as was background information on Geocaching and Geocaching variants. BC Parks has already done some background research on Geocaching policies in other jurisdictions, but feels that a much more reasonable conclusion can be obtained for BC. The fact that a policy will be developed is fait accomplit. Since this was not a working meeting, I don’t have any particular details on particular policy direction to report at this time.

 

The current plan is to develop a policy on Geocaching in BC Parks over the winter and have it in place by spring of 2006. We will start with the development of some guiding principles which will then be used to measure any policy directions against.

 

BC Parks provincial section heads will be meeting in mid October and we hope to fit a field Geocaching session into their already busy agenda. We are awaiting confirmation of this.

 

My personal opinion of the meeting is that it went very well. Through positive and constructive collaboration, I feel confident that we will arrive at a policy that is reasonable and acceptable to most.

 

If you wish to provide feedback or input into this ongoing process, please send your written comments to Chillibusher, as our BCGA contact for parks issues:

 

Ken Chater (Chillibusher)

46530 Uplands Road

Chilliwack, BC

V2R 4M5

Chillibusher@yahoo.ca

 

PS. previous information

Share this post


Link to post

I know I'm new and all and probably shouldn't be entering this conversation.

 

There use to be a course called Leave No Trace. It was my understanding that there were some parks that would not let you enter unless you have taken this course.

 

Scouts Canada put this course on and charged only cost of materials.

 

Maybe something like this could be used or adjusted upon.

 

If there was some sort of way to get this information to cachers and a way for it to be approved on a list....

 

Just a thought....

 

Gaidin

Share this post


Link to post
Chillibusher and I (as BCGA directors), plus a representative from Geocaching.com.

How come you folks don't want to name the geocaching.com representative? As someone who's representing all of British Columbia, shouldn't that person's identity be made public? Why is geocaching.com involved at all? I thought geocaching.com was no more than a listings site? Is this person representing geocaching.com in an OFFICIAL capacity?

 

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume, unless informed otherwise, that the geocaching.com representative is cache-advance (Mr. Gigabyte).

Share this post


Link to post
How come you folks don't want to name the geocaching.com representative? As someone who's representing all of British Columbia, shouldn't that person's identity be made public? Why is geocaching.com involved at all? I thought geocaching.com was no more than a listings site? Is this person representing geocaching.com in an OFFICIAL capacity?

I didn't name the geocaching.com representative just as I didn't name the BC Parks representative. Chillibusher and I were there representing the BCGA and in that capacity I named us. If the other two parties want their names, and possibly contact information, known they'll come forward themselves.

 

Geocaching.com was represented at this meeting since it currently is the largest listing service involved in Geocaching. Their cache approval process will need to conform to any policies that are developed and they have an active interest in policy development. If you have concerns about who might be representing geocaching.com, officially or not, then I suggest you address those concerns to contact@geocaching.com.

Share this post


Link to post
How come you folks don't want to name the geocaching.com representative? As someone who's representing all of British Columbia, shouldn't that person's identity be made public? Why is geocaching.com involved at all? I thought geocaching.com was no more than a listings site? Is this person representing geocaching.com in an OFFICIAL capacity?

I didn't name the geocaching.com representative just as I didn't name the BC Parks representative. Chillibusher and I were there representing the BCGA and in that capacity I named us. If the other two parties want their names, and possibly contact information, known they'll come forward themselves.

 

Geocaching.com was represented at this meeting since it currently is the largest listing service involved in Geocaching. Their cache approval process will need to conform to any policies that are developed and they have an active interest in policy development. If you have concerns about who might be representing geocaching.com, officially or not, then I suggest you address those concerns to contact@geocaching.com.

And are you and this MYSTERIOUS geocaching.com representative on the same page? Or is there friction between you concerning where you'd like to see Parks BC policy lie?

 

Anyhow, it's Bob. I already know. I just wanted to see if you'd give a straight answer or if you'd dance about first. I guess you chose to dance.

 

BTW, I'd like there to be a terracaching.com and navicache.com representative at those meetings, as well. I suggest you contact TLG (he's a BCGA member and a terracaching.com member in good standing) to get him on board in the proceedings.

 

I'll call around Parks BC this week and find out on my own who's the representative. I'll add my own two cents to them at a personal level. I don't abide all the secrecy, that's not the way a public association should be doing business with the people of British Columbia, especially since you pretend to represent ALL British Columbia geocachers.

Share this post


Link to post
...I didn't name the geocaching.com representative just as I didn't name the BC Parks representative. Chillibusher and I were there representing the BCGA and in that capacity I named us. If the other two parties want their names, and possibly contact information, known they'll come forward themselves.

 

Geocaching.com was represented at this meeting since it currently is the largest listing service involved in Geocaching. Their cache approval process will need to conform to any policies that are developed and they have an active interest in policy development. If you have concerns about who might be representing geocaching.com, officially or not, then I suggest you address those concerns to contact@geocaching.com.

By default anyone at a meeting that is going to decide policy is representing the geocaching community at large along with all listing sites present and future. It's entirely appropriate for their names to be shared entirely because so much is at stake.

Share this post


Link to post

I'll call around Parks BC this week and find out on my own who's the representative. I'll add my own two cents to them at a personal level.

According to an article published in the Victoria Times Colonist, the BC Parks representative is Brian Bawtinheimer.

Share this post


Link to post
Anyhow, it's Bob. I already know. I just wanted to see if you'd give a straight answer or if you'd dance about first. I guess you chose to dance.

Who is Bob? And why do people seem to be against him being involved in these talks?

Share this post


Link to post
Anyhow, it's Bob. I already know. I just wanted to see if you'd give a straight answer or if you'd dance about first. I guess you chose to dance.

Who is Bob? And why do people seem to be against him being involved in these talks?

Bob = cache-advance (cache approver/reviewer for Alberta) = Mr. Gigabyte

 

I'm not really against him being involved in the talks. Just really curious why the BCGA is keeping his involvement secret.

 

A number of people in BC do have issues with him. Whether those issues have merit isn't for me to say.

Share this post


Link to post

I'll call around Parks BC this week and find out on my own who's the representative. I'll add my own two cents to them at a personal level.

According to an article published in the Victoria Times Colonist, the BC Parks representative is Brian Bawtinheimer.

Thank you, JRav.

Share this post


Link to post
BTW, I'd like there to be a terracaching.com and navicache.com representative at those meetings, as well. I suggest you contact TLG (he's a BCGA member and a terracaching.com member in good standing) to get him on board in the proceedings.

You seem to have a lot of good ideas and opinions about this parks thingy. Maybe you should be on the committee to resolve this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
BTW, I'd like there to be a terracaching.com and navicache.com representative at those meetings, as well. I suggest you contact TLG (he's a BCGA member and a terracaching.com member in good standing) to get him on board in the proceedings.

You seem to have a lot of good ideas and opinions about this parks thingy. Maybe you should be on the committee to resolve this issue.

Apparently it's a closed club. I'm not a member of the clique.

 

But I will draft up an email this week, with all my views and concerns and pop it off to Brian. I have a number of caches in the Provincial Parks around here, and my method for hiding them and listing them, I feel, is friendly to park environmental policies.

Share this post


Link to post
Apparently it's a closed club. I'm not a member of the clique.

That's too bad. I'll bet that you could be a big help to this situation. It's nice to know that you are setting a good example for the cachers in BC by placing responsible caches.

 

I've been reading about this issue here and at other discussion places, and it's becoming more and more obvious to me that there are problems in the province with regard to a unified voice. I have to question the reluctance of the BCGA directors to share information regarding the progress and intentions of the BCGA and their vision of an acceptable settlement.

 

Are the BC Parks people aware of this discussion thread? If they are, they must be wondering what the heck is going on with the volatile personalities. If they are not aware of what's going on here, they should be. It seems very obvious that the BCGA is not operating in the best interests of the people that it has been elected to represent.

 

There seems to be an awful lot going on that is not proper.

Share this post


Link to post
That's too bad. I'll bet that you could be a big help to this situation. It's nice to know that you are setting a good example for the cachers in BC by placing responsible caches.

Well, there are a lot of good caches in the Provincial Parks around here. I'm not the only one, of course. The Sasquatch Stomp series comes to mind. The Eagle Bluff and Mount Seymour and Othello Tunnels caches, as well.

 

My only concern is that I'm unaware of what proposals this group (BCGA and the geocaching.com representative) may be putting forward. Are they good ideas? Are they bad ideas? Is BC Parks suggesting an approval process on placing caches? If so, are "our representatives" arguing against that? Agreeing with it? There are a lot of questions here. Perhaps they've not reached that stage of the discussions yet. Either way, none of this sort of detail seems to be forthcoming.

 

I'm not a member of the BCGA, nor do I ever intend to become a member. They really have nothing substantial to offer for the membership fee. Yet, they are my representative. And I don't feel I should have to buy a membership to obtain the information I believe I'm entitled too.

 

I'll probably create a letter with my opinions on the matter, what I think would be a policy that everyone could live with, and give examples of existing caches (mine and others) that represent the best of what geocaching has to offer the provincial parks. (If I get a response, I'll be sure to post it here.)

 

Will my involvement ruffle some feathers? Probably. But the BCGA could have formed their opinion on future policy publically, in this thread (if they were inclined), accepting opinions from the community, and then refining the position based upon feedback from the community.

 

(Supposedly they welcome people to send in their suggestions via the BCGA website, but considering we don't know what their policy position is, or how the suggestions are affecting their policy position, it seems a fairly fruitless/pointless process.)

Edited by dogbreathcanada

Share this post


Link to post
I'm not a member of the BCGA, nor do I ever intend to become a member. They really have nothing substantial to offer for the membership fee.

It's a mistake that you don't intend to be involved with the BCGA. If you were involved, I'm sure that there would be something substantial for members. You strike me as the leader type and a good positive role model. You should reconsider. I would support you.

 

The BCGA needs people like you.

Edited by FranticFreddy

Share this post


Link to post

Here is a copy of the message I sent to Brian Bawtinheimer of PC Parks:

 

Hello Brian,

 

As an avid geocacher since December 2001, I was delighted to read

your positive comments in the Times Colonist article on August 13th

titled "Follow those satellites to better health: B.C. Parks is

looking for the best way to welcome tech-savvy hikers".

 

The article states "B.C. Parks has asked two of the main geocaching

organizations for some ideas on a policy covering the use of parks."

 

I appreciate that you have asked geocaching organizations for their

input on this issue, but I worry that the feelings of the majority of

B.C. geocachers may not be heard. Geocachers participate in online

forums, but most of them don't bother to join organizations.

 

Vancouver Island, for example, has more than 250 active geocachers.

The mainland has at least triple that amount. The B.C. Geocaching

Association has just 33 members -- only about one per cent of the

number of active geocachers in B.C. -- so certainly does not speak

for the vast majority of geocachers.

 

There are two major geocaching forums for B.C. geocachers.

 

One is on geocaching.com, a "for profit" company based in Seattle,

and the major stakeholder in these discussions. The BCGA does not

participate in these forums, other than to tell us that discussions

about BC Parks are underway. As geocachers, we have no idea what is

being discussed.

 

The other forum is for people who actively seek and hide caches on

Vancouver Island. I am the webmaster of vigps.com, a community for

Vancouver Island GPS users. All of our 178 members are active

geocachers, ranging in age from their 20s to late 60s. We have been

discussing the issue of caching in parks both on and off the website,

and while there are not many caches in BC Parks on the Island at this

time, we all agree that it would be a shame to lose the opportunity

to go caching in a BC Park.

 

I encourage you to join the BC Parks discussion forums on

geocaching.com, vigps.com, or both, to let the geocachers know your

side of the issue, and to help us understand the changes BC Parks

intends to make to our hobby.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

×