New Washington State Park Guidelines

[+Right Wing Wacko]

One of the reasons the WSGA was formed was to combat was appeard to be a coming total ban on Geocaches in our State Parks. I think when you read these new guidelines you will see that they are quite reasonable.

 

I should note that these guidelines are not official state wide YET, however several parks have started enforcing them already. If we don’t start getting permission and following these guidelines voluntarily then we risk having these guidelines change for the worse

 

Washington State Park Guidelines at WSGA Web Site

[Team Misguided]

Thanks for starting this thread and posting it to the WSGA site!!

 

While this policy isn't officially official yet, many of the park rangers are enforcing the policy. I've had several situations lately where a cache has been pulled due to a communication problem over this new policy. I strongly encourage anyone considering placing a cache in a WA State Park to download the guidelines and have the form filled out prior to placing the cache.

 

To speed up the cache review process, please put the contact info for the ranger you worked with in a 'Note to Reviewer' when you submit the cache page.

 

Thanks!!

[+willcall]

Not going to argue, but is there any centralized method of submitting requests and having them routed to appropriate park official (or at least looking up an e-mail or other contact point)? To the extent the bureaucracy can be made easier to work through, I'm sure we'd be much more compliant in doing so.

 

Obviously, it would also be nice if we could also have an interested point of contact for reporting homeless camps, meth labs, pot fields, party sites, and other unlicensed users of our public assets.

 

Again, not trying to be argumentative, just pointing out that finding the local park administrator isn't as easy as it needs to be, if this policy is to be enforced.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Again, not trying to be argumentative, just pointing out that finding the local park administrator isn't as easy as it needs to be, if this policy is to be enforced.

Finding the right person is always difficult. That's one thing that WSGA can help with. Without the pointer to the right person for whatever park you are interested in you can get the wrong person. I've made an effort before in a park that allows geocaching. The person I got though decided that geocaching was an event, and wanted me to pay an event fee, reserve my location and provide my numbers of attendee's. Not quite what I had in mind...

[Team Misguided]

When the policy is formalized there will be a link from the State Park web page. In the mean time you can usually find the Park Ranger or someone who is staffing the park office. Many of the parks have contact info available from the park page on the web.

 

Keep in mind that this only applies to Washington State Parks, not to county or other local parks. You'll have to continue doing the best you can to find contact info for those parks on an individual basis.

[Team Misguided]

Obviously, it would also be nice if we could also have an interested point of contact for reporting homeless camps, meth labs, pot fields, party sites, and other unlicensed users of our public assets.

 

This may be something the WSGA can look into. Creating a list by county of contact numbers for permission requests. As for the rest, any illegal activity should be reported directly to the local police.

[+Right Wing Wacko]

Obviously, it would also be nice if we could also have an interested point of contact for reporting homeless camps, meth labs, pot fields, party sites, and other unlicensed users of our public assets. 

 

This may be something the WSGA can look into. Creating a list by county of contact numbers for permission requests. As for the rest, any illegal activity should be reported directly to the local police.

I just did a quick check. There are currently 112 State parks divided up into ten regions. Looking further there are 23 Job Openings listed on the State Park Website for Rangers. Maintaining a list of who is currently in charge of each park would be a nightmare. The list would change almost daily.

 

It might be possible to keep up a list of the 10 regional managers, but somehow I doubt that is the person one would need to contact for permission.

 

I'm open to ideas!

[+Wander Lost]

Perhaps what TMG had in mind was that we would have a quick reference chart for non-state parks. For example there would be a list of counties and I could click on King county. That would take me to a page that would have known contact info for say King County Parks, Seattle City Parks, Tukwila parks , etc.

 

Another way to do it would be to set up a section in the WSGA forums specifically for land use info. Then as people learn about guidelines and/or contact people they can add a post to the topic.

[+nancois]

It would be nice if there was an online cache permit application form on the State Park's website, which would automatically route it to the proper person(s).

 

Then WSGA and Geocaching.com could just provide a link to this form for when it is needed. If the state park emails a permit back to the hider, he/she can just forward the permit to the reviewer. Also, the hider can print out a copy of the permit for the cache stash note.

 

As it is, it's just inconvenient enough to detract me and probably others from hiding anything in a state park. Perhaps that was intentional?

[+TotemLake]

Perhaps what TMG had in mind was that we would have a quick reference chart for non-state parks. For example there would be a list of counties and I could click on King county. That would take me to a page that would have known contact info for say King County Parks, Seattle City Parks, Tukwila parks , etc.

 

Another way to do it would be to set up a section in the WSGA forums specifically for land use info. Then as people learn about guidelines and/or contact people they can add a post to the topic.

That could work. This way we don't have to worry about the contact changing, just the web page, which seems to frequently happen with wa.gov related pages. However, we wouldn't have to worry about chasing it until someone advises the link doesn't work anymore.

[+Wander Lost]

I'm sure it's not intentional. From conversations I've had with several State Park rangers they simply want to know what's going on in their park. If they are aware of the caches then they can better respond if there is ever a problem with the cache.

 

For example, I was talking to a ranger about two years ago and he asked if there were any geocaches in his park. I described the general location of the two caches I knew about. He suddenly got that look of a light bulb going off as I described the second location. That cache was on a trail that happend to be near the main road. A few weeks earlier the ranger of this park saw, or had reported to him, a 'suspicious' person jump out of a car on the main road and run into the woods. A few minutes later that person ran back to their car and drove off. Since he didn't know about the cache he assumed foul play and had to file an incident report with the local police and his district office. Now that he knew that a cache was hidden there, he put 2 and 2 together and realized that the 'suspicious' person was most likely a cacher. Had he, the ranger, known that there was a cache there it would have saved him a lot of time and paperwork.

 

The proposed permit system boils down to ask permission and fill out a sheet with contact info. This is minor compared to some of the permit systems out there, many of which involve a fee and/or take weeks to get approved. It is also a whole lot better than a complete ban which was a posibility when the WSGA first started working with the parks department.

[+The Navigatorz]

I was considering placing a cache in one of the state parks near where I live. I have a concern over one part of the guidelines:

 

If it is determined that a cache is causing adverse impacts to the park environment, aesthetics, facilities or public use, the cache may be removed by the Park Manager or designee, and the Geocache Placement Permit cancelled. The cache owner will be notified, and will be given ten (10) days to reclaim the property from the park, and shall be responsible for any and all restoration costs.

 

Specifically the last part: "and shall be responsible for any and all restoration costs".

 

Now wait a minute, the cache would not be placed in that location without the Parks approval. So, the Park Ranger looks at the cache container, the contents, the location, and gives approval, BUT, if for some reason it is discovered later that it has an adverse impact on the environment, aesthetics, etc. that the cache owner is responsible for any and all restoration costs???

 

Here's a scenario...you place a cache near a switchback of a trail, the Park Ranger agrees because there will be no damage to the existing vegetation or terrain. Now I know most geocachers are environmentally concientious, but some may not and start cutting off through the woods to avoid the long switchback and create a new trail, thus damaging the terrain and vegetation. The ranger discovers this, pulls the cache, notifies the owner, starts a restoration program, and sends the bill of a few thousand dollars to the cache owner.

 

That clause sounds too open ended to me. Why is the cache owner alone responsible for the restoration costs if the Parks agree to the cache, its contents, and its locatuion? I think I'll not bother hiding a cache in a state park.

[+travisl]

must obtain a Geocache Placement Permit ...

 

must provide a valid address, telephone number, email address, and the website address ...

 

location of the cache must be pre-approved ...  by the Park Manager or designee, the Regional Programs & Services Manager and the Regional Stewardship Manager ...

 

All Permits will be in effect for a period not to exceed twelve (12) months [and] may be extended for up to twelve (12) months upon the request by the cache owner ...

 

Upon [permit] expiration ... the cache owner is responsible for removing the cache [or] it will be removed by park staff ...  Confiscation and disposal by park staff will be recorded in an incident report ...

 

The cache owner .. shall be responsible for any and all restoration costs. ...

 

Cache containers ... must be approved ...

 

Caches may not be placed in locations that may lead to the creation of spur/social trails. ...

 

Caches may not [disturb] any structure, vegetation or stones ... [?!?!?]

 

The Geocache must be checked by the Geocache owner at least every 90 days [as proved by] the owner’s entry in the cache log book indicating the date of inspection.

 

Wow. What an incredible hassle. I understand the parks' desire to know what's going on in their park, but there's got to be an easier way. Combine that with the $5 parking charge for the privilege of hiding or hunting the cache... I know I, for one, wouldn't go through all this to hide a cache. There's too many other decent hiding spots.

 

What does this mean for "renegade" caches that have already been hidden (e.g., Potlatch (GC4340))?

[Team Misguided]

It seems like a lot but it isn't really. Fill out the form before you go, talk to the ranger describe the hide location. Perhaps show him a picture or two of the hide/container. Several people have already gotten these permits and they have not indicated any big problems getting them approved.

 

As for existing caches, there will be a grace period I'm told. How long that is I don't know.

[nolenator]

So the next time, if ever, I go to a Washington State Park I will have to fill out a questioneer to tell them exactly where, what and how I will do IT! Hmm... Oh well lots of other places to go play. Peace, Nolenator

[+evergreenhiker!]

So the next time, if ever, I go to a Washington State Park I will have to fill out a questioneer to tell them exactly where, what and how I will do IT! Hmm... Oh well lots of other places to go play. Peace, Nolenator

Agree with you on that one, man. I just won't mess with State Parks and their million rules.

[+shunra]

Perhaps what TMG had in mind was that <snip>

Are you trying to second-guess what TMG might be thinking?

[+slinger91]

Geocaching used to be a whole lot funner.................

[+shunra]

Geocaching used to be a whole lot funner.................

Ditto. I don't like this new development at all.

 

Does this mean that GC.com will no longer approve caches in WA state parks if no approval from a park ranger was received, and all those clauses are complied with, including the promise to finance restoration costs?

 

If so, this is de facto the end of GC-caches in WA state parks.

 

What about virtuals? They cannot possibly be subject to approval by the rangers. Will virtual caches in State Parks, if submitted, now be approved?

Edited September 4, 2005 by shunra

[+AndrewRJ]

Geocaching used to be a whole lot funner.................

Ditto. I don't like this new development at all.

 

Does this mean that GC.com will no longer approve caches in WA state parks if no approval from a park ranger was received, and all those clauses are complied with, including the promise to finance restoration costs?

 

If so, this is de facto the end of GC-caches in WA state parks.

 

What about virtuals? They cannot possibly be subject to approval by the rangers. Will virtual caches in State Parks, if submitted, now be approved?

No they won't because virtuals are now waymarks, if I understood everything correctly. A geocache listed by GC will be a container of some kind.

[MarcusArelius]

I for one applaud the effort that was put in to allow us the option of placing a cache in a WA state park. If no one had done so they would have been off limits by the States choice, not yours.

 

Although the restoration cost item is a bit ominous I doubt it will ever get applied. And talking with the land managers is something we are supposed to be doing now anyway.

 

That said I probably will avoid the state parks anyway.

Edited September 4, 2005 by MarcusArelius

[+shunra]

I for one applaud the effort that was put in to allow us the option of placing a cache in a WA state park. If no one had done so they would have been off limits by the States choice, not yours.

 

Although the restoration cost item is a bit ominous I doubt it will ever get applied. And talking with the land managers is something we are supposed to be doing now anyway.

 

That said I probably will avoid the state parks anyway.

Good point, Marc, about the option.

 

But it's an option that you, and I, and most people, will decline. Effectively, it is not an option at all.

 

I'd still like to know whether caches the new "state park guidelines" are rules, which, if not followed, will prevent a physical cache from being approved. I'm asking that, particularly in light of the statement that not all WA SPs apply those guidelines.

[+Barnabirdy(s)]

The Chief Ranger in our nearby park (Perrygin Lake State Park) knows us and knew we were cachers. He ASKED us to place some caches in his park so campers, largely the RV crowd, would have something new to occupy their time (besides drinking beer). We placed four in locations he approved and the park staff promotes the hunt for anyone who has a GPSr, not only active cachers. They all seem happy and enjoy watching people exploring where they never used to go.

Barnabirdy(s)

[+Right Wing Wacko]

I for one applaud the effort that was put in to allow us the option of placing a cache in a WA state park.  If no one had done so they would have been off limits by the States choice, not yours.

 

Although the restoration cost item is a bit ominous I doubt it will ever get applied.  And talking with the land managers is something we are supposed to be doing now anyway.

 

That said I probably will avoid the state parks anyway.

Good point, Marc, about the option.

 

But it's an option that you, and I, and most people, will decline. Effectively, it is not an option at all.

 

I'd still like to know whether caches the new "state park guidelines" are rules, which, if not followed, will prevent a physical cache from being approved. I'm asking that, particularly in light of the statement that not all WA SPs apply those guidelines.

 

The rules are not "officially" in effect yet. They have been sent to all the park rangers for comment before being made official state wide. Many of the parks have decided to start enforcing this now, some are waiting.

 

The biggest problem was that many of the County and City Park systems were watching to see what the State Parks did.

 

If Washington State Parks had banned caching, which was the probable outcome of not coming up with this policy, they County and City parks would have followed in short order.

 

I've spoken with some people at the Snohomish County park system, and they have no intention of setting up a permit system... they simply do not have the time to do so, However they do want to know about caches BEFORE they are placed.

Edited September 5, 2005 by Right Wing Wacko

[+shunra]

I for one applaud the effort that was put in to allow us the option of placing a cache in a WA state park.  If no one had done so they would have been off limits by the States choice, not yours.

 

Although the restoration cost item is a bit ominous I doubt it will ever get applied.  And talking with the land managers is something we are supposed to be doing now anyway.

 

That said I probably will avoid the state parks anyway.

Good point, Marc, about the option.

 

But it's an option that you, and I, and most people, will decline. Effectively, it is not an option at all.

 

I'd still like to know whether caches the new "state park guidelines" are rules, which, if not followed, will prevent a physical cache from being approved. I'm asking that, particularly in light of the statement that not all WA SPs apply those guidelines.

 

The rules are not "officially" in effect yet. They have been sent to all the park rangers for comment before being made official state wide. Many of the parks have decided to start enforcing this now, some are waiting.

 

The biggest problem was that many of the County and City Park systems were watching to see what the State Parks did.

 

If Washington State Parks had banned caching, which was the probable outcome of not coming up with this policy, they County and City parks would have followed in short order.

 

I've spoken with some people at the Snohomish County park system, and they have no intention of setting up a permit system... they simply do not have the time to do so, However they do want to know about caches BEFORE they are placed.

So there we go. This agreement with the WA SPs sets a precedent, and now park authorities in every park may want to know about caches before they are placed.

 

How long will it take before we won't be able to obtain approval for caches in ANY park without an affidavit that we have informed the park authorities?

[+The Navigatorz]

Years ago I used to enjoy hunting. Back then, you could hunt all seasons (early, regular, and late), using any weapon (rifle, archery, and muzzleloader), and no restrictions as to the amount of points on the antlers of an elk or deer. A hunting license was good for any game or bird. Things really changed over the years. Hunting became no fun after all the restrictions and permits were added. Now you have to choose the season you want to hunt, choose the weapon, choose the area, you have restrictions on the species, antlers, and have permits for this and permits for that.

 

I can see it with geocaching in a few years. You will have to choose which type of cache you want to hunt and get a Geocache Hunting License for that specific type of cache. You can only hunt caches during specific seasons. If you choose to get a micro cache permit, you will not be allowed to hunt a regular or any other type of cache that year. To hide a cache, you would need to go to Olympia and get a permit from the Washington State Board of Geocache Placement. There would be Geocache Wardens, and anyone caught hunting a Regular Cache while holding a Micro Cache Hunting permit, would receive a citation from the Geocache Wardens and lose his Geocache Hunting License for up to 5 years.

[Team Misguided]

Sorry I've been away all weekend not had a chance to respond. RWW has it correctly. We were in a position where several parks were pulling caches and we had several district managers who were VERY anti-geocaching. Through the efforts of the Advocacy committee we opened up a dialog with the state parks and we even attended one of their district manager meetings.

 

Prior to this, the advocacy committee got together and drafted guidelines for WSGA members. Those guidelines were posted to the WSGA website. The idea was to show that we could police ourselves. I could not find those original guidelines on the WSGA site but the new Washington State Park guidelines are not much different from what we came up with.

 

We got a very favorable response from that meeting and the early word was that no ban on geocaching was going to be implemented. The guidelines that we have been presented with are reasonable. I'm not going to say that I like having a permit policy but I'd prefer that to an all out ban. It could be worse, it could be a lot worse.

 

When this process started we decided to start at the state level and hope that the city and county parks would follow their lead. This appears to be working as currently we have one of the least regulated areas in the country for geocaching. I think that if we as a community show that we are willing to work with the state parks and follow their guidelines, the other park agencies will not feel the need to regulate us further. They'll know they can trust us to act responsibly.

 

Finally, to answer the question posed, yes physical caches will require a State Park permit in order to be listed on geocaching.com once the policy is formalized.

[+willcall]

I can live with the policies, but really would like one single place to send applications, and to allow the park ranger to indicate if there were objections or if they had additional questions or required a meeting. The efforts that have been undertaken to prevent a ban have been great. The policies are pretty reasonable. It's the process that could bog everthing down and ruin the fun.

 

As far as the responsibility, I've always assumed that if there were damages/injuries/or other trouble, that the cachers or muggles who caused the trouble might not be identifiable and that the cache hider would have to shoulder liability. I've decided against a number of placements base upon this concern (it's the same principle as not putting ammo cans outside of schools). It's one of the risks of the game.

Edited September 6, 2005 by willcall

[+Prying Pandora]

What we need to do is turn the rangers into geocachers. Then they will want to place caches in their park themselves and can conveniently take care of the paperwork while they're at work!

[MarcusArelius]

What we need to do is turn the rangers into geocachers. Then they will want to place caches in their park themselves and can conveniently take care of the paperwork while they're at work!

Yes but we would still need to pay the extorti.... err.. parking fee to hunt them.

 

That's the real reason I avoid the state parks.

 

I can live with filling out a piece of paper if I choose to place a cache there.

[+EraSeek]

Holding me (the cache owner) respondsiblefor other people's (the cache finders) actions is wholly unacceptible to me!

I will be removing my "Reverse World" from the state park today!

 

They don't want me in THEIR state parks with the rediculous fees and restrictions, then I'll stay out of THEIR state parks. Being a responsible land manager is one thing, being a land barron of public lands is another.

[+shunra]

Holding me (the cache owner) respondsiblefor other people's (the cache finders) actions is wholly unacceptible to me!

I will be removing my "Reverse World" from the state park today!

 

They don't want me in THEIR state parks with the rediculous fees and restrictions, then I'll stay out of THEIR state parks. Being a responsible land manager is one thing, being a land barron of public lands is another.

You'll have to pay an entrance fee to remove it, too.

 

Why don't you just send the coords to the ranger and ask them to remove it for you. You can archive it on the site when a ranger (or a DNF log) confirms that it is gone.

[+WeightMan]

There is usually a fifteen minute free parking at most parks. Just park near the restroom. Some even have a marked place right there with the fifteen minute limit posted.

[+EraSeek]

I biked in, in the rain and removed it. There was a TB in it, but also I was responsible for placing it and thus also for removing it. However, I will not be responsible for the actions of those finding it!, so I am archiving my cache.

 

It lasted 3 years, and 341 days.

Edited September 9, 2005 by EraSeek

[+EraSeek]

A copy of my E-mail to St Edwards State Park:

 

Thank you for finding and replacing my cache Reverse World. Much appreciated. However, I have removed my cache and am archiving it. I have heard of the pending rules for caches in state parks. One element I can not and will not abide by is the part that makes me respondsible for others actions. I am respondsible for placing the cache, maintaining it, and removing it. I am in no why responsible for the actions of those who find it. It states so on each and every one of my cache pages. They the cache hunter assumes all risks and responsiblities in finding this and any other cache.

Thus I must and have removed it. In your considerations I assure you no geocachers are ever allowed to bury any cache! The first finder would remove it if it was. I feel letting you know of caches placed in the parks is the proper avenue, however please try to not be too overbearing with rules, as it will kill the fun for all.

Thanks for listening.

[+shunra]

I biked in, in the rain and removed it. There was a TB in it, but also I was responsible for placing it and thus also for removing it. However, I will not be responsible for the actions of those finding it!, so I am archiving my cache.

 

It lasted 3 years, and 341 days.

A pertinent point here is the role of the WSGA. The WSGA is not a subsidiary of GC.com, and there is no reason why its negotiations should be binding to anyone but it's own members. It certainly has no power to negotiate on behalf of GC.com, and decisions made by GC approvers, when acting as GC approvers, should be made on the basis of GC policy, not of WSGA negotiations. Even if those approvers are themselves WSGA members too.

 

If the WSGA thinks that by its agreement with the State Parks it can avoid a ban - that's great. It's gentlemanly agreement binding WSGA members, not GC.com. and so it should be.

 

I believe that GC.com (and its lawyers) should consider very carefully whether it wants to endorse those guidelines and make them GC policy, since if it does, it clearly confirms that it is more than a listing service. If GC assumes responsibility, it also assumes liability. In general, not only in state parks. It's a can of worms.

 

The more I think about this, I think the state parks (individually or collectively) should independantly decide whether they want to allow, ban or restrict cache placements, and if they bother to inform GC.com (or other listing services) about such a ban, as in the case of ther National Parks, GC approvers could respect that. But it's not a matter for negotiation, because anyone who empowers himself negotiated on behalf other people, also assumes responsibility for their actions.

 

It looks as if the question is whether we'll have (1) a ban, (2) a bureaucracy, or (3) a grey area. Any negotiations with the SPs makes nr. 3 less likely. Given the choice between the former two, personally, I couldn't care less, because I'd avoid the SPs as soon as either of them would be in place.

 

I have three GCs in the very cache-friendly Ford Flagler state park, but if there is even the slightest possibility that I will be held accountable for any damage caused by other people, I'll pull them as well. As I assume that very few new GCs will be placed in state parks, and many old ones will be removed, I don't think I'll be caching much in state parks anymore, and I don't see much reason to renew my annual State Park vignette.

[+willcall]

A number of very good points, Shunra. From the original forum posts, it looked to me like WSGA's arrangement with Washington State Parks will be reflected in GC.com approver reviews. If there is a distinction, it isn't clear. I have been holding onto a couple of intended hides in our local Bridle Trails State Park, assuming they would be rejected until I manage to find and contact a park ranger.

 

Couple of other thoughts:

--- The date on the linked draft policy was some time ago (don't have it open, but it was sometime in 2004). Has there been recent activity to move towards implementation?

 

--- I've always assumed that hiding a cache without permission could expose the hider to at least a littering or unauthorized use of public property fine. The question of damages related to a cache-seeker's activity is the big wrinkle. If a cache hunter finds the cache, and drops a cigarette while logging the fine, is the fire related to the presence of the cache? There's a good chance it would become an issue. There's also a pretty good legal argument that the hiding of the cache and the posting on GC.com are not proximate causes of the fire. On the other hand, if a drunk camper takes your ammo can and throws it through a driver's window on a nearby road, that might be a more difficult question. The point is that even the State's broad language on liability may not cover that many potential situations (as a lawyer, I need to disclaim this statement -- this is not legal advice -- if sued, I'm not your attorney-- never was, wouldn't want to be)

 

--- Back to my original points -- I just want a process that is simple and easy to comply with. The policies aren't scaring me off - just the hassle.

 

--- One of the thoughts triggered in Shunra's note is whether GC.com might offer a notification service to public land agencies. It could agree to push cache listings to a designated officer in the agency, for them to review for concerns. I'm pretty sure GC.com would take down a listing in a heartbeat. That ability could be offered as a service to public agencies, if they'd be willing to implement a specific, easy to follow, set of policies for cachers (kind of a pre-negotiated permit for GC.com members, subject to removal promises, delisting promises, etc.). Heck, it might even be an aspect of a lobbying effort to open up national parks (probably with certain pre-approved caching zones, if not the whole system).

 

--- Finally, I'm really, really bummed to hear about EraSeek's cache.

Edited September 9, 2005 by willcall

[MarcusArelius]

A pertinent point here is the role of the WSGA. The WSGA is not a subsidiary of GC.com, and there is no reason why its negotiations should be binding to anyone but it's own members. It certainly has no power to negotiate on behalf of GC.com, and decisions made by GC approvers, when acting as GC approvers, should be made on the basis of GC policy, not of WSGA negotiations. Even if those approvers are themselves WSGA members too.

 

If the WSGA thinks that by its agreement with the State Parks it can avoid a ban - that's great. It's gentlemanly agreement binding WSGA members, not GC.com. and so it should be.

 

...

I don't see much reason to renew my annual State Park vignette.

Let's step back and examine the situation from a neutral viewpoint.

 

The park managers discovered a "new" park use and were concerned enough to find out more about geocaching. Being a distributed organization they want to ensure that their colleagues all agree on how to handle the situation. So they propose guidlines and processes.

 

That’s how bureaucracy works, like it or not. This is also what we pay them to do. The good new is they accepted public input during their rule making process. The WSGA did not negotiate on anyone’s behalf. Anyone could, and still can, provide their own input. The outcome will not be a gentleman’s agreement. The outcome with be rules that are binding on the public. That includes the WSGA, GC.com, me, and you.

 

The only problem I am hearing about is the responsibility for any restoration costs. So if you don’t like that part why not let the parks department know? And please be polite if you do so.

 

If you don’t care then simply avoid the state parks and don’t buy parking passes.

[+shunra]

I think you misunderstood me, Marcus. The "not care" part was about whether there will be a ban or a bureaucratic hassle, because the only difference betwen those two is whether all of us, or just most of us, will avoid the SPs.

 

It's great that the SPs are asking for input.

 

And don't get me wrong: it's great that the WSGA is giving it. But it should be very clear to everyone that it is just input that the WSGA is giving to the SPs, and not the opposite. it is not some code of behavior that the WSGA is committing US to, or GC.com. And WSGA input should not turn into GC policy.

 

Now, it is up to the SPs to unilaterally decide what their policy is going to be, and we'll all accept those rules, and GC will apply them, as it does with the National Parks.

 

In the meantime, the grey area remains, and there is no need for changing approval guidelines at this point.

 

The way those guidelines were presented here was as if they reflected the new GC.com policy, and the new SP policy. The truth is: they do neither. GC.com is not bound by the WSGA, and certainly not by something which is only input anyway. And as the SP - when they'll formulate a policy, we'll hear about it. And until then, new approval guidelines on the one hand, and the pulling of caches on the other hand, are both premature.

 

So let's stop refering to private WSGA input as to "guidelines", let's wait until we hear what SP policy is going to be, and let's keep doing our best to keep SP rangers positively disposed to us (in that light, see my recent request to keep the impending cache machine out of FWSP).

[+EraSeek]

Well, hopefully my action of removing the cache and my letter will send a message.

 

You know... that cache had been there almost 4 years. What problem did it cause? What damage was there? Why the big concern by them for overbearing rules? Do you need a permit to throw a frizbee in the park? Seems to me we do a fair job of self policeing.

 

Notification and verbal permission is a good move and all that should be needed.

[nolenator]

So, if the beer drinking crowd decides that the log my cache is placed behind is the new hang out I will be responsible for their damage because I am on record for that location. Something just isn't sitting quite right with me on this one. Our sport brings folks to a park that the might not have visited if the cache wasn't there. Hmm... I am with EraSeek, time to start pulling caches. Peace, Nolenator

[+EraSeek]

On the 90 day rule where you must visit the cache that often... again my cache had been there for almost 4 years. I placed it, I visited it once, I replaced it in 2002, I pulled it 2005. Four visits in 4 years. The logbook was dry as was the cache. The cache is a pencilbox in a freezer bag. Maintenence is a bit of a myth for a couple of reasons. One is that most caches don't need a whole lot of maintenence. The other is that cache finders often help maintain the cache's physical being even if not the content quality. What I am saying is that it is human nature to trade something not as wanted for something wanted, but at the same time they will help to make sure the cache itself is up to snuff.

 

The 90 day thing is not needed. The permits are not needed. We are a self maintaining activity. At the same time I can understand asking for permission on placement from the park managers. We can work with them. They need to work with us, the taxpayers and park users. What need to regulate something that is not a problem to death.

[nolenator]

Oh ES, it is about money and power don't you know. My feet are twitching again guess I might have to go for a hike on Sunday. Peace, Nolenator

[+hydnsek]

I biked in, in the rain and removed it. There was a TB in it, but also I was responsible for placing it and thus also for removing it. However, I will not be responsible for the actions of those finding it!, so I am archiving my cache.

 

It lasted 3 years, and 341 days.

Dang, I never got a chance to find Reverse World!

[+AnalogDog]

So the next time, if ever, I go to a Washington State Park I will have to fill out a questioneer to tell them exactly where, what and how I will do IT!  Hmm...  Oh well lots of other places to go play.  Peace, Nolenator

Agree with you on that one, man. I just won't mess with State Parks and their million rules.

And make that 3, now I have 2 good reasons not to geocache in a State Park, the $5 parking fee, and the "bureaucratic" guidelines.

 

Rob

[+AnalogDog]

On the 90 day rule where you must visit the cache that often... again my cache had been there for almost 4 years. I placed it, I visited it once, I replaced it in 2002, I pulled it 2005. Four visits in 4 years. The logbook was dry as was the cache. The cache is a pencilbox in a freezer bag. Maintenence is a bit of a myth for a couple of reasons. One is that most caches don't need a whole lot of maintenence. The other is that cache finders often help maintain the cache's physical being even if not the content quality. What I am saying is that it is human nature to trade something not as wanted for something wanted, but at the same time they will help to make sure the cache itself is up to snuff.

 

The 90 day thing is not needed. The permits are not needed. We are a self maintaining activity. At the same time I can understand asking for permission on placement from the park managers. We can work with them. They need to work with us, the taxpayers and park users. What need to regulate something that is not a problem to death.

Couple of things of note:

 

I usually do a little light maintenance on caches when I find them, and I have the time: remove junk, empty of dirt, warn the cache owner if its wet, and so on. I can't imagine that others don't do that, too, so that caches are cleaner than we leave them.

 

Secondly, the TB is mine, EraSeek! Be nice to him, and reach nirvana with him!

 

Rob

[+EraSeek]

Secondly, the TB is mine, EraSeek! Be nice to him, and reach nirvana with him!

 

Rob

Hey man, first there was some coffee, then there wasn't, then there was.

We're totally there!

[+travisl]

There is usually a fifteen minute free parking at most parks. Just park near the restroom. Some even have a marked place right there with the fifteen minute limit posted.

Not true. I thought it was -- and told everyone at the Wenatchee Cache Machine that there was a 15 minute grace period -- but the Wet Coast Explorers found out that the 15 minutes only apply if you're actively going to the bathroom.

[+EraSeek]

There is usually a fifteen minute free parking at most parks.  Just park near the restroom.  Some even have a marked place right there with the fifteen minute limit posted.

Not true. I thought it was -- and told everyone at the Wenatchee Cache Machine that there was a 15 minute grace period -- but the Wet Coast Explorers found out that the 15 minutes only apply if you're actively going to the bathroom.

My God, do they check up on your potty habits?

[Team Misguided]

I shouldn't be posting this late but I've been reading this and feel compelled to point a few things out. The clause about restitution is just legal mumbo jumbo. It is CYA stuff, and there is very little chance that they could/would actually be able to prove anything. Additionally by 'approving' your request to place a cache in the park the ranger has, in my opinion, determined that the location of the cache will not cause any long term damage. The parks are under staffed and under funded they will most likely not be checking to make sure you have checked your cache ever three months. As long as they don't have any issues with your cache the rangers will most likley ignore it all together. They have better things to do with their time than babysit a tupperware container.

 

The state parks would have created a geocaching policy with or with out input from the WSGA. Thanks to the WSGA and the Advocacy committee the state parks have decided that geocaching is a desired use of their lands and as such they are creating a policy to ensure that is it allowed. Try to think of it that way, I know that is how I treat this policy. Knowing that a policy was going to happen what we got is far better than I expected. There is no fee, other than the parking and the permits are good for a reasonable amount of time.

 

As far as Geocaching.com goes, when the proposed regulations are made law we will enforce them. Until then, I would hope anyone placing a cache in a State Park will take the necessary steps to get permission.