Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
dogbreathcanada

Parks Bc

Recommended Posts

Brian's response follows. He asks that people do not email him directly. While he does want to hear cachers opinions, he does not want a whack of emails flooding his inbox.

 

Please post your responses in this forum so he may read them.

 

Thanks Jessica for your note.  I appreciate your interest in this issue as

well as your comments about the article from August. 

 

Awareness of geocaching in provincial parks has been growing internally for

over a year.  Initially, contact with a representative from geocaching.com

and representatives from BCGA came to us rather than us contacting them.

They were the only two groups, until your note below, that I was aware of.

One of the challenges we will have in developing policy for parks and

protected areas is finding a way to be as inclusive as possible for comments

on policy issues.  Perhaps the use of the forums may be a way to best

achieve this.

 

I have had one informal meeting with 2 members of the BCGA and one from

geocaching.com.  The meeting was "high level" in that we did not get into

specific policy development or direction, instead concentrating on

principles, concerns, education, and awareness of issues that will come up

as policy is developed.  The next step is for us to set up the process to

build the policy.  We hope to undertake much of this work over the winter.

 

I noted in the forum discussion quite a range of opinions, assumptions and

concerns about what the eventual policy will entail.  A couple of points

perhaps that I could make early on in this discussion are:

 

1. Policy for managing geocaching does not currently exist.  However,

legislation and regulations do exist that may apply to activities related to

geocaching.  For example, nothing prohibits a person from walking through a

park with a GPS unit looking for something.  However, disturbing a natural

resource is prohibited under the Park Act.  An example would be a cache I

know of in a park where the person who placed it marked certain locations by

spray painting orange dots on trees. The activity of spray painting trees is

a violation.  Geocachers need to be aware that specific activities may in

fact be illegal.

 

2. I think its fairly straight-forward what concerns park managers

would have related to geocaching.  These include digging or disturbing

natural resources, trail cutting or off-trail travel, increasing numbers of

caches that become abandoned (i.e. never taken out) etc.  Comments in the

forums speak to "shouldn't let parks control the situation".  My response is

I would like to see geocachers themselves propose ways that geocaching can

be done in parks in a manner that respects the natural environment and meets

the concerns we have.  I would bet 99% of all geocachers already operate in

this way so bringing a management framework for geocaching forward to us is

a great way to be both proactive and help us develop good policy.

 

3. Finally, I want mention that while I do think geocaching will be

positive for parks, we all have to recognize that even the best policies are

built from "give and take".  Not everyone will get everything and not

everyone will be happy.  Ultimately we want a policy that we can point to

and affirm that if we abide by it, we continue to respect and protect our

parks while having a great time in them.

 

Regards,

 

Brian

Share this post


Link to post
Good letter and an excellent response from BC Parks. Sounds like jrav should also be representing the cachers in BC.

She does manage the vigps.com (Vancouver Island GPS) website. If she's interested (and hopefully she is), I'm sure Brian would be glad to have a representative from the Island involved.

 

Someone should convince Icenrye to get involved. He's a big name from the interior, and he obviously cares about geocaching greatly (as evidence by his wonderful videos).

Share this post


Link to post
Sounds like jrav should also be representing the cachers in BC.

Brian wants ALL cachers to present their thoughts on the BC Parks policy.

 

My response is I would like to see geocachers themselves propose ways that geocaching can be done in parks in a manner that respects the natural environment and meets the concerns we have.

So additional representatives are not required. We can ALL post our proposals in these forums. BC Parks will monitor the forums, and all voices will be heard.

Share this post


Link to post
My response is I would like to see geocachers themselves propose ways that geocaching can be done in parks in a manner that respects the natural environment and meets the concerns we have.

So additional representatives are not required. We can ALL post our proposals in these forums. BC Parks will monitor the forums, and all voices will be heard.

True, that's valuable. But the "representatives" that Brian already has been meeting with (and will meet with again) hold a significant amount of weight with their opinions above and beyond whatever it is we might write here or on the vigps.com forums.

 

Probably a good idea would be to ask Brian to post the outcome of meetings to a public forum where they can be discussed with the BC population at large, rather than let the proceedings occur in a closed-room environment with 3 people (some of whom are problematic with the many in the BC geocaching population).

 

You obviously write a good letter. Perhaps, if you want too and have the time, you could request that Brian forward you synopsis of any future meetings, along with proposed policy ideas. You could post that to a public forum (or three), let the ideas bounce around the geocaching population for a few weeks, and then summarize the various ideas and return them to Brian.

 

That would certainly make for a more democratic process.

 

Edit: (sorry ... that train of thought went from point A to point B in a hurry ... started writing about one thing and then that moved onto other "better" ideas.)

Edited by dogbreathcanada

Share this post


Link to post
Does this mean that the BCGA (and the mysterious GC.com representative) will no longer be in sole control of the talks?

It would appear that Brian might be open to a more democratic process. Hopefully we can work something out. There's no point having three people (of whom the majority of the geocachers in the province did not elect as such) decide policy that will affect the entire province.

 

An open discussion format might prove to be the most beneficial. (The forum would have to be moderated to keep heated debate and flaming from the proceedings. That sort of thing will only drive Parks BC into creating policy internally.)

Share this post


Link to post

Why are rules important to any geocaching policy that Parks BC implements?

 

The most important factor is that geocaching.com (Groundspeak) only responds to published rules.

 

For instance, there is a cache in Golden Ears Provincial Park where the cache contains sunflower seeds, and in which the cache owner suggests that people finding the cache take a seed and plant it nearby.

 

Introducing foreign species inside a provincial park is likely illegal. I asked Groundspeak (via the local approver) to archive the cache. Their response was to ask for the specific rule that made such an activity illegal. If a bylaw could be found he'd be glad to archive the cache. Unfortunately we (TLG and I) were unable to find such a bylaw, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist ... simply that it was buried somewhere in a morass of legal documents (not to mention we may not have been using the correct terminology in our searches.)

 

Obviously Groundspeak responds to specific rules imposed by land managers and are happy to adhere to those rules when they are pointed out to them. Without rules, Groundspeak will continue to list any and all caches in provincial parks according to their own very loose guidelines.

 

Without rules, geocaching.com will happily list caches in fragile ecosystems. They'll happily list caches that are 100s of metres off-trail. They'll happily list caches in which the cache owner marks nearby trees with orange paint. And if anyone suggests that such caches should be archived because they're not respectful of the park, geocaching.com will simply respond with "Show us a rule that limits the behaviour."

 

Without rules, then all policing has to be done by Parks BC. They'll have no recourse for the archival of caches other than removing them themselves. At least with rules, they can "force" Groundspeak to archive those caches themselves, request that next finders remove said cache from the location, etc. With rules, the British Columbia geocaching population can police placements as well, requesting caches be archived when they are against Parks BC geocaching policy.

 

If Parks BC has to police caches themselves, they'll likely just implement a blanket ban. Why? Because it's cheaper. They have limited revenue. And I'm sure they are looking for the cooperation of the listing serives and the geocaching population to ensure that Parks BC geocaching remains safe and environmentally sound for everyone.

 

Just relying on a set of guidelines with no rules whatsoever will likely not work over the long haul. Obviously there have been transgressions to date (which Brian pointed out). And as we've seen in local city parks, some people don't give a hoot about how or where they place their caches. It would be beneficial to place some firm restrictions on them if they ever decide to place in a provincial park.

Share this post


Link to post
Why are rules important to any geocaching policy that Parks BC implements?

 

The most important factor is that geocaching.com (Groundspeak) only responds to published rules.

 

For instance, there is a cache in Golden Ears Provincial Park where the cache contains sunflower seeds, and in which the cache owner suggests that people finding the cache take a seed and plant it nearby.

 

Introducing foreign species inside a provincial park is likely illegal. I asked Groundspeak (via the local approver) to archive the cache. Their response was to ask for the specific rule that made such an activity illegal. If a bylaw could be found he'd be glad to archive the cache. Unfortunately we (TLG and I) were unable to find such a bylaw, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist ... simply that it was buried somewhere in a morass of legal documents (not to mention we may not have been using the correct terminology in our searches.)

 

Obviously Groundspeak responds to specific rules imposed by land managers and are happy to adhere to those rules when they are pointed out to them. Without rules, Groundspeak will continue to list any and all caches in provincial parks according to their own very loose guidelines.

The beloved sunflower cache. I have highlighted one key word -- likely.

 

You don't know if it is illegal. You are simply guessing. That's the problem with guessing and with not checking. It appears you are incorrect, which I have been stating all along. "Unfortunately we (TLG and I) were unable to find such a bylaw, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist <snip>". You and TLG should have spent more time researching to find this mysterious, nonexistent bylaw rather than harassing the cache owner.

 

cd040_27aug04_sunflower_stanley_park_161.jpg

 

Nice picture. It's title is "Sunflower, Stanley Park, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada".

 

You might want to click this link to a discussion from the University of British Columbia Botanical Garden and Centre for Plant Research and their discussion of the new "Sunflower 'Moulin Rouge'". They seem quite happy with it. It does not seem to be in a quarantine area. It looks like it is growing outside. There are even bugs on it!

 

I really like this "sunflower" photo with a good closeup from Tricia Timmerman's "Flowers of BRITISH COLUMBIA" Photo collection on line.

 

There are even sunflower contests locally for heaven's sake. There was one just recently at Maplewood Farms. If scroll down on the linked page, they had an event Sept. 10th & 11th, 2005. They said, "Bring down your home-grown sunflower for judging (Saturday morning only)."

 

Also, my favorite by far, is the location for the largest sunflower head on record. Oh yeah, I'm sure you can guess. That honor belongs to a 32 inch (82 cm) sunflower head that grew in British Columbia. (Source: 2004 Guinness World Records and The National Sunflower Organization)

 

The sad thing is that this cache was eventually stolen by someone. They emailed me taking great pride in the fact that they stole the cache because of the evil sunflowers it contained. Rules should be followed, yes, but it would be nice if you know what the rules are and don't start enforcing some rule you made up or think might exist maybe.

 

 

As a reviewer, I would be happy to work with Parks BC or Parks Canada in what ever way they would like. If there are any questions about future issue they can contact me or other GC.com reviewers or representatives. I am certain that they will.

Share this post


Link to post

I never once talked to the owner of the Sunflower cache, so please don't state that I harassed them. I did all my discussion of that cache through you (I don't even believe I posted an SBA entry).

 

As for all the sunflower pictures. Anyone can grow a sunflower in their backyard. A city can plant whatever they like in their city parks. And UBC probably does all sorts of research on all sorts of plants. People grow cactus here. Doesn't mean cactus is native to our mountain coastal forests as well. There might even be a prize winning cactus somewhere in BC.

 

And don't use the word "you" when referring to whoever stole the cache. I certainly didn't do it. Nor do I condone it.

 

Anyhow, I have a query in with Parks BC, so hopefulyl they can point me to the exact bylaw on foreign species.

 

----

 

On the other hand, the main point I was making, and which you confirmed, is that Groundspeak only responds to written rules and by-laws. Which is why it is important that any Parks BC geocaching policy contain well stated rules on hiding caches in the parks.

Edited by dogbreathcanada

Share this post


Link to post
People grow cactus here. Doesn't mean cactus is native to our mountain coastal forests as well.

You would be wrong about that. I'll let you do your own research, though. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
People grow cactus here. Doesn't mean cactus is native to our mountain coastal forests as well.

You would be wrong about that. I'll let you do your own research, though. :unsure:

No no, please ... educate us with your expansive knowledge. The only cactii area of British Columbia I'm aware of is Osoyoos, but that's interior, not coastal. I'm not a botanist.

Share this post


Link to post
The only cactii area of British Columbia I'm aware of is Osoyoos, but that's interior, not coastal. I'm not a botanist.

Then you should check the "facts" that you use to support your arguments before making those types of claims. Do the research yourself. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Dicovery074.jpg

Heh heh - can't get much more coastal than that, can you? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Dicovery074.jpg

Heh heh - can't get much more coastal than that, can you? :unsure:

Two feet from high tide.... :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

So, what is it? A Little Prickly Pear?

I think so. I haven't been able to positively ID it. (not much on the web)

It grows In a few locations around the Gulf Islands, In the Olympic rain shadow.

Share this post


Link to post
On the other hand, the main point I was making, and which you confirmed, is that Groundspeak only responds to written rules and by-laws. Which is why it is important that any Parks BC geocaching policy contain well stated rules on hiding caches in the parks.

Correct. We *do* look for written information, not unsubstantiated guesses based on rumors. Yes, we welcome a written policy, which I am sure they will provide when the time comes.

 

The sunflower cache is a perfect example of waiting for specific information rather than flying off without facts. You have produced no written law regarding it. To the contrary, facts support that there probably is no such law. Sunflower production is one of Canada's largest cash crop items. Most are produced in Manitoba and production there is some of the largest in the world. They are even protected in some areas of Canada. Here is a great HGTV article about sunflowers. They said:

A century later when Mennonites came and settled in Southern Manitoba they brought their sunflower seeds with them. Soon fields full of 'Russian Giants' were providing locals with their favorite snack. Just a few years after the government funded the first oil press in the region, sunflower oil became one of the most important agricultural products in Canada. The sunflower had finally returned home.

 

Yes, I know the difference between BC and Ontario. I also know that you are relying on *no* research what so ever. Some of us have done research and have gathered facts. So far your response is "because I say so". Yet, we are supposed to believe and respond instantly to what you say because you and TLG say so, even though you have no facts to back up your claims. If you have facts, bring them. Otherwise, you should quit before you fall further behind.

Share this post


Link to post
Canada's largest cash crop

Back in ten minutes... :unsure:

It's not 4:20 yet... :ph34r:

 

Edit - at least not in BC

Edited by Gorak

Share this post


Link to post

But you've supplied nothing that shows that sunflowers are native to the coastal mountain forests. Of course, that's not your job or anything, and you shouldn't be doing it. But to keep posting links to Quebec and Manitoba, it means nothing. Of course I know sunflowers are native to other parts of Canada, especially the prairie areas. But something that's native to one area of Canada isn't necessarily native to another area. We're a big country. But you know that.

 

True, we were unable to find specific information we needed on the net. Whether that's because the information does not exist, or because our Google-fu wasn't sufficient, is up in the air. Since I've been to many national parks (and provincial parks) and have seen signs warning of non-native species introduction, I know there's a law on the books somewhere.

 

Anyhow, I wasn't bringing up "the sunflower cache" other than as an example of why written rules are important to the policy process. Just having vague guidelines is not helpful, since guidelines won't cut muster with Groundspeak, only laws, by-laws, and firm policy will.

 

(I sent BC Parks an email the other day about sunflowers, planting them, and Golden Ears Provincial Park.Hopefully I'll get an official response in the next few days ... edit: or next six minutes, as the case may be.)

Edited by dogbreathcanada

Share this post


Link to post

I just received the following email from Brian at BC Parks:

 

You have to go to the Queen's Printer website to see the Acts and the Regs:  http://qp.gov.bc.ca/

 

Click on "legislation" on the sidebar then click on 'Revised Statutes of British Columbia".  Then click "P" to go to the Park Act.

 

The planting of seeds constitutes disturbance under S.9 of the Park Act.  Anyone planting seeds in a park would be in violation of the Act.

 

Thanks for letting us know.

 

BB

 

Is that enough to archive the cache permanently, mtn-man?

Share this post


Link to post
Is that enough to archive the cache permanently, mtn-man?

Given that the cache has already been stolen by a cache vigilante, isn't it a moot point?

Share this post


Link to post
Is that enough to archive the cache permanently, mtn-man?

Given that the cache has already been stolen by a cache vigilante, isn't it a moot point?

No. It's only temporarily disabled, so it can be replaced. It should be archived.

Edited by dogbreathcanada

Share this post


Link to post

So, what is it? A Little Prickly Pear?

I think so. I haven't been able to positively ID it. (not much on the web)

It grows In a few locations around the Gulf Islands, In the Olympic rain shadow.

Yeah, it is Opuntia fragilis (Little Prickly Pear). Do you have any further photos of the habitat surrounding the cactus? The person I showed your photo too is curious about the area in which it was found living.

Share this post


Link to post

surrounded by moss, sedum and otter crap.

There is a small patch of this cacti on Rum island, But the patch I found a few weeks ago was huge in comparison.

 

Dicovery073.jpg

Edited by Dagg

Share this post


Link to post
Is that enough to archive the cache permanently, mtn-man?

The cache has been archived.

Share this post


Link to post

I took great offense to this statement:

 

Obviously Groundspeak responds to specific rules imposed by land managers and are happy to adhere to those rules when they are pointed out to them. Without rules, Groundspeak will continue to list any and all caches in provincial parks according to their own very loose guidelines.

 

Without rules, geocaching.com will happily list caches in fragile ecosystems. They'll happily list caches that are 100s of metres off-trail. They'll happily list caches in which the cache owner marks nearby trees with orange paint. And if anyone suggests that such caches should be archived because they're not respectful of the park, geocaching.com will simply respond with "Show us a rule that limits the behaviour."

 

Happily? Are you kiding me? No one HAPPILY lists caches that are located in Environmentally Sensitive Areas, or involve Painting Trees. But if the Paint was pre-existing then it is a referrence point, not a violation. {added in edit: As for listing caches in Provincial Parks... not likely on purpose. I KNOW for a FACT from Cache-Tech that they will NOT list any cache in a Provincial Park unless the Cache Owner provides a Contact Person and Phone Number first, and it is verified... I've asked myself!}

 

{Aside: Apologies to BC Parks, as this thread has become rather poluted recently in my humble and not native to BC, opinion.}

 

I cannot speak for any of the Reviewers, but from what I've seen MTN-MAN has followed sensible steps to ensure that rules are followed. I agree that the so called "Sunflower Cache" was not the best idea, but until someone SHOWED proof that it violated a rule there was no requirement for MTN-MAN to do anything ABOUT THE SEEDS or the INSTRUCTION to PLANT SEEDS.

 

This whole thing has been brought up before, both by Cachers and Reviewers. The best and proper procedure for reporting problems with a Cache are

 

1... Send a note to the Cache Owner, so they can fix it

2... After a suitable amount of time, send a note to the local Reviewer

3... Post a note on the Cache Page itself, listing your concerns, if it comes to that.

 

For EVERY one of those... state your reasons for your concern, back it up with FACTS and where to referrence those facts. Presenting a possible solution is a good idea too.

 

And why do it that way...

 

1... The Cache Owner won't be embarrased publically, and it can get fixed before too many people and/or locations are affected. There is no need to make a big public display, it just makes people resentful and often rebellious.

2... This way the Reviewer knows what is going on and why. Help them understand the situation, and assist them with areas that they might not aware of.

3... If it's not getting fixed AND you know you are right, backed with FACTS, then making people aware will reduce the impact and possibly get the problem resolved.

 

Geocaching.com has rules, and the Reviewer EXPECT that the Cachers that submit caches have READ them and agreed to them. That is the purpose of the two check boxes at the bottom of the Cache Submission Page.

 

Can you imagine if for every single cache that our Reviewer had to send us an Email... "Are you sure that your got permission, and the area is appropriate, and the starting contents are safe, and this and that..." What would be the point??? It has already been covered.

 

I think this whole nonsense is in direct response to the recent developements that local BC cachers have had with BC Parks. It is nothing more than a method of smearing those that are trying to make a difference and an attack the Reviewer.

 

If anyone doesn't like their local Reviewer... take it to Jeremy. BC Parks doesn't need to see it. Neither does the Geocaching Community. But if one decides to go to Jeremy... better have your FACTS in order.

 

Stop ruining a Forum Thread that was designed to educate all of the Geocachers of British Columbia about the developements in the discussion with the Provincial Authority. If you are not contributing to improving the discussion, even if by providing alternatives that limit Geocaching, then stop wasting everyone's time.

 

:unsure: The Blue Quasar (who used to enjoy reading this thread, until it turned into something that reminds me of a day-care centre)

Edited by The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post

It's a shame I have difficuty writing my thoughts in words but some people just shouldn't open their mouth as they don't know when to shut up or mind their own business. All this yammering makes me sick to the stomach and I see no good coming out of it.

I still can't believe that geocaching is such a big deal in parks when there's so much more going on in parks. If leaving a small container with a log book for people to find is so destructive then I guess the garbage I come across now and then must be a minor thing to think about. If these parks are so precious, then how did those wide barkmulch trails come to be. Let's look at those parking lots, bet you there was asphalt there since oil was discovered.

I think the whole thing is overated and a waste of time and money, but there will always be someone out there to make a moutain out of a mole.

Since we live in an era where people like to be told what to do, when the parks come out with their new rules and regulations, etc... I hope it won't be just aimed at geocachers but I will try to obey them or just plain stay out of the parks.

Overrated I say.

Share this post


Link to post

There's a forum for policy ideas (no discussion or debate allowed) at the following website, if you want to add your two cents:

 

http://vigps.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=6

 

The owner of the website, jrav, has been talking with BC Parks, and they have agreed (I believe) to check the forum for ideas from the community.

 

(Note to folks that head to vigps.com. Do not sign-up with yahoo, hotmail, gmail, or other free email accounts. You'll have your registration denied. This is not a complaint on their process, just a heads up to those of you who do register, so that you don't waste any time with the registration process.)

Edited by dogbreathcanada

Share this post


Link to post

Who is representing BC in the BC Parks discussions?

 

For those British Columbians who are curious who is representing them in the BC Parks geocaching policy discussions.

 

BCGA (British Columbia Geocaching Association) - two members of the executive are representing the interests of the BCGA and BC cachers in general.

 

VIGPS.com (Vancouver Island GPS) - is engaged in the discussions through a specific BC Parks forum (http://vigps.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=6). The BC Parks representative has stated that they'll peruse the VIGPS forum to gather the opinions of BC geocachers in developing their geocaching policy.

 

Mr.Gigabyte/Cache-Advance - although he originally informed the BCGA that he was representing Groundspeak, it has been confirmed by Hydee (through mtn-man) that he is not representating Groundspeak in any capacity. He is in fact only representing himself in the discussions.

 

Groundspeak - has no representative in the discussions and will not have a representative unless specifically asked by one of the governing bodies in BC. There has been some debate on whether an American company should be engaged in any discussion with a Canadian governmental body concerning government policy. Groundspeak will simply monitor the discourse from the meetings so that they know what regulations they should abide by in the future when approving BC Park caches.

Share this post


Link to post
Mr.Gigabyte/Cache-Advance - although he originally informed the BCGA that he was representing Groundspeak, it has been confirmed by Hydee (through mtn-man) that he is not representating Groundspeak in any capacity. He is in fact only representing himself in the discussions.

That is not exactly what I said. I will quote what I said in the vigps.com forums.

 

A topic was created there saying that neither MrG nor Groundspeak should not be involved in the negotiations with BC Parks. A short blurb was posted about Groundspeak being an American company and because of that they should not be involved in the process. There was then quite a long post about MrG and reasons why he should not be involved either.

 

My first reply:

Please note that Bob does not represent Groundspeak in this matter.

 

Groundspeak is not involved in the process except with regard to following the guidelines set forth by BC Parks. The issues being considered and discussed are between BC Parks and the geocachers of British Columbia.

 

I know in Brian Bawtinheimer's letter to jrav he said, "I have had one informal meeting with 2 members of the BCGA and one from

geocaching.com." This was not in an official Groundspeak capacity.

 

If there are Groundspeak related questions they should be directed to me since I am currently reviewing caches in BC. I am also not involved in any of the discussions with Parks BC. I am only observing these forums to gain information to make sure I do not list caches in error. If the questions for Groundspeak are beyond my responsibility I will forward them to the proper people at Groundspeak.

 

I hope that helps to elevate your concerns regarding that part of the matter.

 

There were then questions about the validity of my post (not from DBC):

Apparently, the information from mtn-man is incorrect. It appears that GC did appoint Bob as the official BC Parks representative.

 

Perhaps mtn-man can confirm this?

 

I then phoned Hydee to confirm that what I had said was proper and correct. After talking to Hydee I posted this response:

Please let me clarify. I decided to call Hydee tonight to make sure I was saying exactly the right thing. All that I said above is correct. Bob does not represent Groundspeak in this matter. The only person who would represent Groundspeak is Hydee. Only a direct employee of Groundspeak would represent Groundspeak. Reviewers are only volunteers and not employees.

 

I think there may have been a misunderstanding somewhere along the way. In that meeting, as a reviewer, Bob could tell people what the guidelines that reviewers follow are and how they apply to the proposed policies from BC Parks. Bob is not allowed to make policy for Geocaching.com though. Only Hydee is able to do that.

 

Please understand that there is no intent to keep anyone in the dark. As I said, as the reviewer for the BC area at this time, I would be happy to answer any reviewer related questions that you would like to ask of me. If there are any questions that I do not feel qualified or authorized to answer, then I will discuss them with Hydee. Either she will answer directly or I will give the answer that she directs me to give. This topic is a perfect example of that.

 

Hydee was quite clear with me that Groundspeak at this time is not involved in these discussions. Groundspeak will happily follow the policies developed by BC Parks. Caches will be reviewed within the BC Parks policies and within the GC.com guidelines, just as is done throughout the world. These discussions are between the geocachers of BC and BC Parks, unless BC Parks wants Groundspeak involved. If they do want Groundspeak involved then they should contact Hydee at the main office. You can also ask me to contact Hydee and I will get in touch with her for you.

 

Regarding Bob, it is up to the geocachers of BC to decide who represents them, not Groundspeak. For example, in my state, two reviewers happened to be in the negotiations with the Forest Service. We were there as members of our organization though. With the US Army Corps of Engineers, ~erik~ and I were not involved. We had another one of our Steering Committee members do the negotiating. How you decide who represents you is up to you.

 

As stated in my first post, Groundspeak is not involved in the process except with regard to following the guidelines set forth by BC Parks. The issues being considered and discussed are between BC Parks and the geocachers of British Columbia.

 

This is the official position from Groundspeak as communicated to me by Hydee. If you have further clarification questions feel free to ask them in this topic or via email. Sorry I took so long to reply, but I wanted to wait until Hydee was in her office to contact her. After all, even Hydee deserves the weekend off too.

 

I was very clear with this statement: "I think there may have been a misunderstanding somewhere along the way. In that meeting, as a reviewer, Bob could tell people what the guidelines that reviewers follow are and how they apply to the proposed policies from BC Parks. Bob is not allowed to make policy for Geocaching.com though. Only Hydee is able to do that." As a reviewer, he could let BC Parks know how the proposed regulations would impact the guidelines for GC.com. For that matter, someone who was a volunteer for one of the other geocaching web sites could do the same thing. It is a matter of semantics, but I wanted to set the record straight.

Share this post


Link to post
he is not representating Groundspeak in any capacity.

It is a semantics issue.

As a reviewer, he could let BC Parks know how the proposed regulations would impact the guidelines for GC.com.  For that matter, someone who was a volunteer for one of the other geocaching web sites could do the same thing.  It is a matter of semantics, but I wanted to set the record straight.

He can clarify the guidelines as a reviewer, he just cannot dictate policy.

Share this post


Link to post

I would like to take this opportunity to clarify my position in discussions with BC Parks.

 

I initiated contact with BC Parks in January of this year when I was informed of a policy already being discussed internally at BC Parks. I came into this knowledge partly through these very forums.

 

As a geocacher in BC, I was concerned as to any restrictive regulations being implemented that would affect the activity as it has recently done so in Ontario and Parks Canada. Anyone could have picked up the phone as well as I and asked to talk to BC Parks.

 

Subsequently, I was jointly invited to attend a preliminary, introductory meeting with BCGA and BC Parks.

 

In my role as a cache reviewer I have knowledge as to the practicality of implementing any regulation or policy from an administrative aspect of listing caches on geocaching.com. It was only in this capacity that my opinions as a volunteer representative of geocaching.com and Groundspeak were made.

 

My interest in the talks as a BC geocacher are just that - as a participant in the activity that may be impacted by any policy.

 

My interest in the talks as a reviewer are from the technical and practical aspect of implementing any additional hurdles and burden to the review process, such as it exists. (i.e. cache types, availability of park boundary maps, conflict with existing general listing guidelines etc.)

 

At no time did I in anyway represent geocaching.com or Groundspeak in proposing any policy whatsoever. Anyone that claims the contrary is misinformed.

 

If Groundspeak has any interest in specific policy, those statements will come from Groundspeak, not from the reviewer team. Reiterating, I never made any suggestions to BC Parks regarding actual policy from a volunteer representative of Groundspeak.

 

I hope this clarifies the situation, my position as a BC geocacher, my position as a volunteer reviewer, and my position in discussions with BC Parks, to which, just like you, are welcome to participate in.

 

I encourage anyone that has any issues to step up to the plate and put forth some effort and time and suggestions to mutually work with BC Parks to come up with a policy that fulfills the mandate of BC Parks and those of the geocaching community.

Share this post


Link to post
I would like to take this opportunity to clarify my position in discussions with BC Parks.

Since a candid discussion of Mr. Gigabyte/Cache-Advance and his role with BC Parks will likely not be allowed to take place (much less exist) on the Groundspeak forums, I suggest that those interested head too:

 

http://www.vigps.com/phpBB2/index.php

 

There are comments in the BC Parks forum, and more candid discussion in the Off-Topic forum.

Share this post


Link to post

As long as you can stay within the forum guidelines, you can discuss what you want. If you cannot, then you should probably not say anything at all. Rational discussion is always welcomed. Disrespectful rants can be met with a visit to your warning meter.

Share this post


Link to post
Rational discussion is always welcomed.

Yeah, but where approvers/reviewers are concerned, it's hard to tell where the line is until it's too late. :huh: Better to just have the conversation somewhere else.

Share this post


Link to post

Take it from me...

 

Wasting time and energy on the negative is just that, a waste...

 

DBC, MrG's involvement in the BC Parks issue is not going to to do anything BAD for geocaching in this province.

 

DBC - who and more importantly, WHAT are you representing through all of your posts?

Edited by canadazuuk

Share this post


Link to post

Here are some statistics for visitation of caches in BC Parks. The last few caches in this list are a sampling of long-term urban caches by way of comparison to the BC Parks caches.

 

Diez Vistas (GCPPE5)

Indian Arm Provincial Park

Hidden: 2005/07/22

Active: 102 days

Visits: 4

Frequency: 1 cacher per 25.50 days

 

Black Mountain (GCP35A)

Cypress Provincial Park

Hidden: 2005/05/30

Active: 155 days

Visits: 5

Frequency: 1 cacher per 31.00 days

 

Hollyburn Mountain (GCP35H)

Cypress Provincial Park

Hidden: 2005/05/30

Active: 155 days

Visits: 8

Frequency: 1 cacher per 19.38 days

 

Serengeti (Mount Strachan) (GCCB11)

Cypress Provincial Park

Hidden: 2003/01/26

Active: 1010 days

Visits: 17 visits

Frequency: 1 cacher per 59.41 days

 

Eagle Bluff (GCQ5P7)

Cypress Provincial Park

Hidden: 2005/08/13

Active: 80 days

Visits: 6

Frequency: 1 visit per 13.33 days

 

Mount Seymour (GCKAG3)

Mount Seymour Provincial Park

Hidden: 2004/08/18

Active: 440 days

Visits: 12

Frequency: 1 cacher per 36.67 days

 

Punta Del Este (GCMYTN)

Indian Arm Provincial Park

Hidden: 2005/02/27

Active: 247 days

Visits: 9

Frequency: 1 cacher per 27.44 days

 

On Top of the World (GCMYAG)

Cypress Provincial Park

Hidden: 2005/02/26

Active: 248

Visits: 34

Frequency: 1 cacher per 7.29 days

 

On Top of the World (GCMYAG) differs from all the other park caches I listed, because you can park within 200 metres of the cache site. That's why the numbers are so much higher. The cache is located at the Cypress Provincial Park picnic area, located at about the halfway point on the road up.

 

Sasquatch Stomp - Greenpoint (GCMWH4)

Sasquatch Provincial Park

Hidden: 2005/02/21

Active: 254 days

Visits: 27

Frequency: 1 cacher per 9.40 days

 

Sasquatch Stomp - Hick Up (GCMWGT)

Sasquatch Provincial Park

Hidden: 2005/02/21

Active: 254 days

Visits: 20

Frequency: 1 cacher per 12.70 days

 

Sasquatch Stomp - Just Fer The Hick Of It (GCMWGW)

Sasquatch Provincial Park

Hidden: 2005/02/21

Active: 254 days

Visits: 30

Frequency: 1 cacher per 8.47 days

 

Sasquatch Stomp - Seabird Outlook (GCMWGK)

Sasquatch Provincial Park

Hidden: 2005/02/21

Active: 254 days

Visits: 14

Frequency: 1 cacher per 18.14 days

 

Sasquatch Stomp - Stumped (GCMWH3)

Sasquatch Provincial Park

Hidden: 2005/02/21

Active: 254 days

Visits: 22

Frequency: 1 cacher per 11.55 days

 

Sasquatch Stomp - The Beaver Pond (GCMWGP)

Sasquatch Provincial Park

Hidden: 2005/02/21

Active: 254 days

Visits: 30

Frequency: 1 cacher per 8.47 days

 

Sasquatch Stomp - The Bench (GCMWGY)

Sasquatch Provincial Park

Hidden: 2005/02/21

Active: 254 days

Visits: 24

Frequency: 1 cacher per 10.58 days

 

Sasquatch Stomp - The Road to Ruby (GCMWH0)

Sasquatch Provincial Park

Hidden: 2005/02/21

Active: 254 days

Visits: 15

Frequency: 1 cacher per 16.93 days

 

Sasquatch Stomp - The Stomp Ends Here (GCMWK5)

Sasquatch Provincial Park

Hidden: 2005/02/21

Active: 254 days

Visits: 11

Frequency: 1 cacher per 23.09 days

 

----------------------------------

 

The following are NOT provincial park caches. They are a selection of urban Vancouver area caches which can be used in comparison with provincial park caches, especially regarding visitation frequency.

 

Vancouver Decachelon - Rampart Scaling (GCG717)

This is not a provincial park cache

Hidden: 2003/06/10

Active: 879 days

Visits: 136

Frequency: 1 cacher per 6.46 days

 

Bookbinder (GCC008)

This is not a provincial park cache

Hidden: 2003/01/02

Active: 1038 days

Visits: 156

Frequency: 1 cacher per 6.65 days

 

Vancouver Decachelon - Bounding Boulders (GCG7GP)

This is not a provincial park cache

Hidden: 2003/10/05

Active: 762 days

Visits: 93

Frequency: 1 cacher per 8.19 days

 

Vancouver Decachelon - Stump Jumping (GCG78A)

This is not a provincial park cache

Hidden: 2003/06/10

Active: 879 days

Visits: 213

Frequency: 1 cacher per 4.13 days

 

Oakalla Vista (GC5F75)

This is not a provincial park cache

Hidden: 2002/06/02

Active: 1252 days

Visits: 160

Frequency: 1 cacher per 7.83 days

Share this post


Link to post
DBC, MrG's involvement in the BC Parks issue is not going to to do anything BAD for geocaching in this province.

I can show you several examples of Mr. G log entries where he admits to bushwhacking in city parks, simply because he was too lazy to use the trail system. And this guy is representing us in the BC Parks discussions? I think it would be better to have people who actually care about the environment in the discussions. If this guy can't stay to the trails in a city park, what makes me believe he'll stay to the trails in a provincial park?

 

No, someone with his attitude towards the environment is BAD for geocaching in this province.

Share this post


Link to post
DBC, MrG's involvement in the BC Parks issue is not going to to do anything BAD for geocaching in this province.

I can show you several examples of Mr. G log entries where he admits to bushwhacking in city parks, simply because he was too lazy to use the trail system. And this guy is representing us in the BC Parks discussions? I think it would be better to have people who actually care about the environment in the discussions. If this guy can't stay to the trails in a city park, what makes me believe he'll stay to the trails in a provincial park?

 

No, someone with his attitude towards the environment is BAD for geocaching in this province.

Some things to keep in mind when posting:

 

Respect: Respect the guidelines for forum usage, and site usage. Respect Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, yourself, fellow community members, and guests on these boards. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, they deserve the same respect.

 

Personal Attacks and Flames will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad, general attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.

You have been quoted the guidelines before. If you have specific examples where you can provide links to logs, then that is fine as is spelled out clearly in the forum posting guidelines. If you do not, then please don't post general flames against other community members.

 

Someone with *your* attitude towards other community members is BAD for geocaching in the province as well.

Share this post


Link to post

This thread is (with it's serious title) is not at all helpful to the cause of geocaching.

 

For some reason DBC, you have taken some mysterious road, and I have no idea where it goes...

 

You make reference to a geocacher bushwhacking here, but when I read the log, I take it as a tongue-in-cheek joke.

 

I guess it depends on what filter you put on the stream of media that your eyes see. Have you considered changing the filter?

 

What is your objective through all of this?

Edited by canadazuuk

Share this post


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

×