Washington State Park Rules

[+Right Wing Wacko]

I think you will be pleasently surprised!

 

The rules have gotten a LOT shorter and some of the rules that many of you expressed problems with are gone! There are still some things I would like to see changed, and maybe we can work on that; but overall I think they look good.

 

To the best of my knowledge these rules are now official and will be enforced in all Washington State Parks.

 

http://www.geocachingwa.org/files/directive2006.doc

 

Yes.... You'll need Microsoft Word to read them... sorry. I'll see if I can fix that soon but I want to get these out there so you can see them and comment on them.

[+TotemLake]

I think you will be pleasently surprised!

 

The rules have gotten a LOT shorter and some of the rules that many of you expressed problems with are gone! There are still some things I would like to see changed, and maybe we can work on that; but overall I think they look good.

 

To the best of my knowledge these rules are now official and will be enforced in all Washington State Parks.

 

http://www.geocachingwa.org/files/directive2006.doc

 

Yes.... You'll need Microsoft Word to read them... sorry. I'll see if I can fix that soon but I want to get these out there so you can see them and comment on them.

 

RWW,

 

Even though you can download the document, the website itself appears to be down. I'm receiving an HTTP Error 404 - File or directory not found. Internet Information Services (IIS)

 

It was working okay for me a couple days back.

[Team Misguided]

I think you will be pleasently surprised!

 

http://www.geocachingwa.org/files/directive2006.doc

 

 

RWW,

 

Even though you can download the document, the website itself appears to be down. I'm receiving an HTTP Error 404 - File or directory not found. Internet Information Services (IIS)

 

It was working okay for me a couple days back.

 

Works for me.

[+Allanon]

Yes.... You'll need Microsoft Word to read them... sorry. I'll see if I can fix that soon but I want to get these out there so you can see them and comment on them.

I can distill it into a PDF doc at work on Monday if you don't get it done before then.

[+TotemLake]

dang double posting

Edited July 8, 2006 by TotemLake

[+TotemLake]

I think you will be pleasently surprised!

 

http://www.geocachingwa.org/files/directive2006.doc

 

 

RWW,

 

Even though you can download the document, the website itself appears to be down. I'm receiving an HTTP Error 404 - File or directory not found. Internet Information Services (IIS)

 

It was working okay for me a couple days back.

 

Works for me.

Today I get an HTTP 403: You're not authorized.

 

Sooooo, whatta ya tryin' to say?

[Team Misguided]

Yes.... You'll need Microsoft Word to read them... sorry. I'll see if I can fix that soon but I want to get these out there so you can see them and comment on them.

I can distill it into a PDF doc at work on Monday if you don't get it done before then.

 

You might be able to do a more professional version but I patched a pdf version together today. It's on our website here.

[MarcusArelius]

 

Today I get an HTTP 403: You're not authorized.

 

Sooooo, whatta ya tryin' to say?

 

I think they are saying that you need to call tech support.

 

Also, there one part that sounds like trouble for a geocacher that I have heard storys about:

 

"Metal detectors may not be used in cache searches."

Edited July 9, 2006 by MarcusArelius

[+Shop99er]

I couldn't get there, either

[+Right Wing Wacko]

Also, there one part that sounds like trouble for a geocacher that I have heard storys about:

 

"Metal detectors may not be used in cache searches."

 

Yea... I don't quite understand that one. At first I thought it might be because Metal Detectors were banned in state parks... so I looked it up:

 

Metal Detecting

 

Metal detecting is permitted at more than 60 state parks throughout Washington. Users of metal detectors must register first with Washington State Parks and comply with posted regulations.

 

So that can't be it.

[+AndrewRJ]

Interesting read. What's this mythical virtual cache they keep talking about?

Edited July 9, 2006 by AndrewRJ

[Team Misguided]

Interesting read. What's this mythical virtual cache they keep talking about?

 

I was going to correct them on that but then I remembered that geocaching.com is not the only listing site.

[Moun10Bike]

I see that the regulations have led mohai to archive all of his caches in Wallace Falls State Park.

[+TotemLake]

 

Today I get an HTTP 403: You're not authorized.

 

Sooooo, whatta ya tryin' to say?

 

I think they are saying that you need to call tech support.

 

Also, there one part that sounds like trouble for a geocacher that I have heard storys about:

 

"Metal detectors may not be used in cache searches."

RWW corrected me. I was using the test domain and not the real domain.

[+TotemLake]

I see that the regulations have led mohai to archive all of his caches in Wallace Falls State Park.

Is that what his beef was? It seemed very relaxed in comparison to the previous version.

[Team Misguided]

I had a VERY nice converstation with the new person at the Washington State Parks on Friday. I'm sure that working with him is going to be a win/win situation for all of us. I urge everyone to not act rashly in these next few weeks. The directive was just signed Thursday. I'm pretty sure the Parks department is going through the same adjustment period that we are.

 

Let's use this thread as a place to centralize some questions we have about the new policy. I know I have a few already. I'm hoping to get a Library meeting room set up for a WSGA meeting and Mr. Horan has indicated he'd make every effort to attend and answer our questions.

 

The questions I have so far are:

• Is there a 'grace' period for caches currently in parks? If so how long do I have to get a permit?
  
• After I fill out my permit how will I know that it's been approved?
  
• As a geocaching.com reviewer I'd like to know if there will be some kind of 'permit number' issued for each cache.
  

[+The Jester]

My question is can a Permit be renewed more than once?

[+SilentNW]

I can see alot of very good caches are going to go away.

 

Although I can see why this is happening, I do not think this going to improve the reputation of "geocaching"... in fact, I can see many more cons vs. any of the pros.....

 

Many questions come to mind... When/Where will be able to bring these questions up? at the next WSGA meeting? State Parks Commission Meetings?

 

I am sorry, I do not want to start 'rant' sessions.... I do see that 'we' just lost control of our caches and activities in state parks.

[Team Misguided]

I am going to try to set up a WSGA meeting for September at one of the Southend Library meeting rooms with the Parks directors. That is when we can discuss this new policy with them directly.

 

I have to say that I respectfully disagree, SilentNW. I think this gives us our control back. The WSGA was founded because some state parks were pulling caches and disposing of them. After four years we now have a policy that says Geocaching is an acceptable use of the State Parks. This opens the door for us to go back into some areas we have been shut out of in the past.

[+TotemLake]

Do State Park policies roll down to County and City Parks?

 

Now that geocaching is a recognized sport with game pieces, do we have legal recourse when unauthorized persons take them?

Edited July 10, 2006 by TotemLake

[+Lizzy]

Also, there one part that sounds like trouble for a geocacher that I have heard storys about:

 

"Metal detectors may not be used in cache searches."

 

Yea... I don't quite understand that one. At first I thought it might be because Metal Detectors were banned in state parks... so I looked it up:

 

Metal Detecting

 

Metal detecting is permitted at more than 60 state parks throughout Washington. Users of metal detectors must register first with Washington State Parks and comply with posted regulations.

 

So that can't be it.

 

Hmmmm....never thought of using that for finding a cache I wonder what my XLT would display when I targeted one - maybe they ought to add a geocaching mode to the search menu on it. Just kidding - I wouldn't cheat like that.

 

On the serious side: Now I've gotta read why people might be removing their caches from State Parks - I'm very concerned & sad about that.

[+Belleterre]

... I think this gives us our control back. The WSGA was founded because some state parks were pulling caches and disposing of them. After four years we now have a policy that says Geocaching is an acceptable use of the State Parks. This opens the door for us to go back into some areas we have been shut out of in the past.

 

This sounds very good compared to the last draft I saw. It also doesn't seem to require a $10 fee which some people have been required to pay to place their cache in a state park.

 

One question I have is if there is any appeal route if there is an anti-caching ranger like we had a big hassle with at Manchester SP a few years ago.

[Team Misguided]

I just booked a meeting room at the Federal Way Regional Library on September 21st. I've got the room from 6:00 until they close. I know many won't be able to be there right at 6:00 but I wanted the extra hour and getting library to stay open later wasn't an option. I hope this will be a casual question and answer session and we'll plan on a system for taking notes so people who arrive late will see what questions have been asked and answered.

 

Look for a cache page to be up soon.

[+Ambrosia]

I looked at the document, and I probably just skimmed it and didn't read it very well.

 

I have a question that was sparked from a comment in the main forums about state park caches. I have a cache that is a virtual multi through the state park that ends in a physical final outside the state park. Would that need a permit? My local park person knows about the cache and verbally approved of it. This was a couple years ago, of course.

[Team Misguided]

I looked at the document, and I probably just skimmed it and didn't read it very well.

 

I have a question that was sparked from a comment in the main forums about state park caches. I have a cache that is a virtual multi through the state park that ends in a physical final outside the state park. Would that need a permit? My local park person knows about the cache and verbally approved of it. This was a couple years ago, of course.

 

My first thought would be no, the physical cache is outside the park. But I'll put that down on the list of questions to ask. Also, since the library has wi-fi I'll bring my laptop and have an open mIRC chat session going so anyone from around the state who can't make the meeting can ask questions via chat.

[+Ambrosia]

I looked at the document, and I probably just skimmed it and didn't read it very well.

 

I have a question that was sparked from a comment in the main forums about state park caches. I have a cache that is a virtual multi through the state park that ends in a physical final outside the state park. Would that need a permit? My local park person knows about the cache and verbally approved of it. This was a couple years ago, of course.

 

My first thought would be no, the physical cache is outside the park. But I'll put that down on the list of questions to ask. Also, since the library has wi-fi I'll bring my laptop and have an open mIRC chat session going so anyone from around the state who can't make the meeting can ask questions via chat.

Ooooh!!! Hi-tech. Thanks, I appreciate the answer. Mentally, I don't see the problem, because the cache just takes you to the informational plaques in the park where everyone else goes, and you do math with what's on the plaques. Does not affect the park at all, but sometimes land managers can still be strict about that.

[+Allanon]

Yes.... You'll need Microsoft Word to read them... sorry. I'll see if I can fix that soon but I want to get these out there so you can see them and comment on them.

I can distill it into a PDF doc at work on Monday if you don't get it done before then.

 

You might be able to do a more professional version but I patched a pdf version together today. It's on our website here.

TM, I downloaded your version and it was a whopping 4 Meg file, so I took the original Word doc and used the distiller here at work and that 40KB file/ document is ready to be used, if you so desire.

 

I'll send it to both you and RWW.

[Team Misguided]

TM, I downloaded your version and it was a whopping 4 Meg file, so I took the original Word doc and used the distiller here at work and that 40KB file/ document is ready to be used, if you so desire.

 

I'll send it to both you and RWW.

 

You're an Apple!!!!!!! I know the term is peach but I prefer Apples!

 

The program I have is crude but it does the trick in a pinch. I'll update my site with that one when I get home. Thanks again!

[+Ambrosia]

TM, I downloaded your version and it was a whopping 4 Meg file, so I took the original Word doc and used the distiller here at work and that 40KB file/ document is ready to be used, if you so desire.

 

I'll send it to both you and RWW.

 

You're an Apple!!!!!!! I know the term is peach but I prefer Apples!

 

The program I have is crude but it does the trick in a pinch. I'll update my site with that one when I get home. Thanks again!

Umm, I thought I was the apple. *TM isn't spending enough time in Cheers*

Edited July 10, 2006 by Ambrosia

[Team Misguided]

TM, I downloaded your version and it was a whopping 4 Meg file, so I took the original Word doc and used the distiller here at work and that 40KB file/ document is ready to be used, if you so desire.

 

I'll send it to both you and RWW.

 

You're an Apple!!!!!!! I know the term is peach but I prefer Apples!

 

The program I have is crude but it does the trick in a pinch. I'll update my site with that one when I get home. Thanks again!

Umm, I thought I was the apple. *TM isn't spending enough time in Cheers*

 

Well if Allanon is an apple then you are like a big huge helping of steaming hot apple crisp.

[+Right Wing Wacko]

I have posted both the DOC (word) and PDF versions on the WSGA site.

 

Go to Land Management | State and there will be a like for both documents as well as a proposed "notice" to be put on cache pages (copied directly from the requirements in the State Park directive).

 

One more question that might be helpful if they could provide it:

 

Contact information (phone or email) for the various park rangers. I already have a cache in a state park, and I will want to go down and take care of the paper work as soon as practical. However its just far enough away I would prefer to call ahead and make sure that the person I need to speak to is going to be available.

[+Lightning Jeff]

I see that the regulations have led mohai to archive all of his caches in Wallace Falls State Park.

That's unfortunate, but I can't really blame him. The directive is silent as to grace period, so my assumption is any existing cache in a state park that hasn't already complied with this process (including review by not one or two, but three beaurocrats, and physical inspection of the actual cache by the park manager) is "illegal." (I use that term in quotes because I haven't yet checked to see whether formal rule-making procedures were followed in the development of this directive and/or whether violation carries any penalty.)

 

In order to bring the caches into compliance, he would need to go out, gather them all up, take them to the park manager for inspection (II.C), describe the precise location of each (I., make the applications(I.A), then take the caches home and wait for approval by all 3 (I, III.. Then he would have to go back out and replace them. Then he would have to go out and check on each one every 90 days (even if logs indicated no problems) (IV.A), sign the cache log as proof (IV.A), and send proof to the park manager (IV.A). Then he would have to seek renewal in a year (unless the permits issued were for a shorter period, given their predating the directive) (I.D). He would have to continue visiting them every 90 days, and ultimately, remove them after another year (regardless of their impact) (I.E). Through all of this, he would be "responsible for any and all restoration costs" if any damage should occur (apparently without regard to fault) (I.G), and would have to agree to "hold harmless, defend and indemnify the state . . . from and against all claims, suits or actions arising from the placement, movement [by whom?] or removal of the geocache, resulting from the contents of the geocache, or the use or misuse of said contents." (Permit Form). As to that last - who here is willing to risk their house to place a cache in a state park?

 

No offense to the WSGA folks involved in working with the state on this - I appreciate the effort - but I am not "pleasantly surprised." "Effectively deterred" is more like it.

 

[Edited to add citations to Directive 06-01, dated July 6, 2006, for those who thought I was referring to an older draft.]

Edited July 11, 2006 by Lightning Jeff

[+Ambrosia]

TM, I downloaded your version and it was a whopping 4 Meg file, so I took the original Word doc and used the distiller here at work and that 40KB file/ document is ready to be used, if you so desire.

 

I'll send it to both you and RWW.

 

You're an Apple!!!!!!! I know the term is peach but I prefer Apples!

 

The program I have is crude but it does the trick in a pinch. I'll update my site with that one when I get home. Thanks again!

Umm, I thought I was the apple. *TM isn't spending enough time in Cheers*

 

Well if Allanon is an apple then you are like a big huge helping of steaming hot apple crisp.

[Team Misguided]

Thanks for the clarification mohai. I do hope there will be some kind of 'grace' period while everyone gets adjusted to the new policy.

 

Keep the comments coming, I was asked to keep track of how this policy is being received. The Washington State Parks director was given the WSGA website address and I'm sure he'll read this thread as well. So please keep questions and comments coming.

 

Don't get me wrong, almost as much as you I'd prefer no policy at all. I just don't see it being realistic to think we'd never have a State Parks policy. On a scale of 0 - 10 with 0 being a complete ban on caching and 10 being no policy at all, I think this is about an 8. It could be better, it could be a lot worse.

[+Right Wing Wacko]

BTW... from Jeff's response... it appears he is reading the old (2004) version of the policy. Many of the things he cites have been removed from the 2006 version.

[+Lightning Jeff]

BTW... from Jeff's response... it appears he is reading the old (2004) version of the policy. Many of the things he cites have been removed from the 2006 version.

No, it's from "Directive 06-01" dated July 6, 2006 - downloaded from your link at the very top of this thread. I just edited to add citations to the directive sections.

Edited July 11, 2006 by Lightning Jeff

[+TotemLake]

I see that the regulations have led mohai to archive all of his caches in Wallace Falls State Park.

Is that what his beef was? It seemed very relaxed in comparison to the previous version.

 

Someone e-mailed me that I was being talked about here.

 

For the record, I don't have a "beef."

 

According to the e-mail I received from Team Misquided, which I posted on the affected cache pages, and according to the new policy, which I did read after Team Misquided directed me to it in that e-mail, my caches at Wallace Falls had become illegal. There was no mention in the policy about any grandfathering. At this time the new policy involves more work than I personally want to do, so I chose to archive them so that I would be in compliance with the new policy. That's my choice. It is not a beef. I respect anyone who volunteers their time--Team Misquided, RWW, and anyone else who negoitates and works on these issues. It is often a thankless job and I appreciate what they do.

Bad choice of words on my part. Contention would have been better suited.

[+runhills]

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

 

2. Caches may not be buried or attached to trees, nor may any structure, vegetation or stones be disturbed when placing a cache.

 

I have tried but see no way to meet these two requirements under placement and yet not have the cache visible. I will go back to lurking mode till I see a post of somebody that actually gets to the point of placing an approved cache.

[+TotemLake]

I see that the regulations have led mohai to archive all of his caches in Wallace Falls State Park.

That's unfortunate, but I can't really blame him. The directive is silent as to grace period, so my assumption is any existing cache in a state park that hasn't already complied with this process (including review by not one or two, but three beaurocrats, and physical inspection of the actual cache by the park manager) is "illegal." (I use that term in quotes because I haven't yet checked to see whether formal rule-making procedures were followed in the development of this directive and/or whether violation carries any penalty.)

 

In order to bring the caches into compliance, he would need to go out, gather them all up, take them to the park manager for inspection, describe the precise location of each, make the applications, then take the caches home and wait for approval by all 3. Then he would have to go back out and replace them. Then he would have to go out and check on each one every 90 days (even if logs indicated no problems), sign the cache log as proof, and send proof to the park manager. Then he would have to seek renewal in a year (unless the permits issued were for a shorter period, given their predating the directive). He would have to continue visiting them every 90 days, and ultimately, remove them after another year (regardless of their impact). Through all of this, he would be "responsible for any and all restoration costs" if any damage should occur (apparently without regard to fault), and would have to agree to "hold harmless, defend and indemnify the state . . . from and against all claims, suits or actions arising from the placement, movement [by whom?] or removal of the geocache, resulting from the contents of the geocache, or the use or misuse of said contents." As to that last - who here is willing to risk their house to place a cache in a state park?

 

No offense to the WSGA folks involved in working with the state on this - I appreciate the effort - but I am not "pleasantly surprised." "Effectively deterred" is more like it.

As with any government entity, everything gets spelled out and is usually an addendum to something else. In this case, "Then he would have to go out and check on each one every 90 days (even if logs indicated no problems)" is simply an addendum to this from here.

Cache Maintenance

 

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings.

 

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

 

As the cache owner, you are also responsible for physically checking your cache periodically, and especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.). You may temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to hunt for it until you have a chance to fix the problem. This feature is to allow you a reasonable time – normally a few weeks – in which to arrange a visit to your cache. In the event that a cache is not being properly maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an extended period of time, we may archive or transfer the listing.

 

Also, as I read the current document (unless I missed it while re-reading the doc several times): responsible for any and all restoration costs has been replaced with Failure to comply with these guidelines will result in the revocation of the Geocache Placement Permit. Continued failure to comply with these guidelines will prevent the issuance of any further geocaching permits to the non-compliant group or individual.

 

Furthermore, the indemnification and hold harmless is the same as geocaching.com has in place for itself, yet you don't complain about that. You as the cache owner before this permit system was already held responsible for any liability issues. The hold harmless that gets quoted on your cache page does not apply to the cache owner unless the cache owner adds to it and makes it clear the seeker holds the owner harmless and assumes all liability for choosing to hunt the cache. Even then, you can still be taken to court to defend yourself. You either misunderstood geocaching.com's hold harmless or it wasn't an issue to you until the government spelled it out in the permit system but it does coincide with any activity you choose to do in the park system.

[+EraSeek]

 

The hold harmless that gets quoted on your cache page does not apply to the cache owner unless the cache owner adds to it and makes it clear the seeker holds the owner harmless and assumes all liability for choosing to hunt the cache.

 

Um. Does this work?

"Cache seekers (holds harmless the cache owner) and assumes all risks and responsibilities involved in seeking this and any cache."

"May also encounter HOT coffee ~D (which may be HOT) while driving to and from cache."

[+TotemLake]

 

The hold harmless that gets quoted on your cache page does not apply to the cache owner unless the cache owner adds to it and makes it clear the seeker holds the owner harmless and assumes all liability for choosing to hunt the cache.

 

Um. Does this work?

"Cache seekers (holds harmless the cache owner) and assumes all risks and responsibilities involved in seeking this and any cache."

"May also encounter HOT coffee ~D (which may be HOT) while driving to and from cache."

 

Yah I know. Some things are so common sense it has become uncommon for common sense to be used. You can thank the get the quick buck society for that.

[+Lightning Jeff]

As with any government entity, everything gets spelled out and is usually an addendum to something else. In this case, "Then he would have to go out and check on each one every 90 days (even if logs indicated no problems)" is simply an addendum to this from here.

Cache Maintenance

 

. . .

 

As the cache owner, you are also responsible for physically checking your cache periodically, and especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.). . . .

I don't think the two are the same. Checking a cache "periodically, and especially when someone reports a problem" is not the same as a rigid requirement to check it no less than every 90 days, regardless of indications of problems. Further, the former are guidelines; the latter are directives.

 

Also, as I read the current document (unless I missed it while re-reading the doc several times): responsible for any and all restoration costs has been replaced with Failure to comply with these guidelines will result in the revocation of the Geocache Placement Permit. Continued failure to comply with these guidelines will prevent the issuance of any further geocaching permits to the non-compliant group or individual.

No. See section I.G - it's there. You are looking at section V.

 

Furthermore, the indemnification and hold harmless is the same as geocaching.com has in place for itself, yet you don't complain about that.

Also not true. Groundspeak's indemnification language reads:

You agree to indemnify and hold Groundspeak, its officers, employees, agents and volunteer administrators harmless against any and all losses, claims, damages, and expenses (including reasonable attorneys’ fees) that Groundspeak may incur in connection with: (a) Your breach of any of the terms of this Agreement; or (Your use of the Site.

The state's provision is much more broad, extending explicitly to the actions of others with respect to finding your cache, moving it, placing contents in it and misuse of contents others may have placed in it.

 

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

 

2. Caches may not be buried or attached to trees, nor may any structure, vegetation or stones be disturbed when placing a cache.

 

I have tried but see no way to meet these two requirements under placement and yet not have the cache visible. I will go back to lurking mode till I see a post of somebody that actually gets to the point of placing an approved cache.

I noticed the same thing. I guess you could tuck a cache under a log or in a stump, but apparently could not use anything to cover it.

[+TotemLake]

I don't think the two are the same. Checking a cache "periodically, and especially when someone reports a problem" is not the same as a rigid requirement to check it no less than every 90 days, regardless of indications of problems. Further, the former are guidelines; the latter are directives.

Generally speaking they are the same. One is flexible, the other is rigid and that is the only difference. On this our perspectives will probably remain different.

 

No. See section I.G - it's there. You are looking at section V.

 

Thanks... I did miss it for some DA reason.

 

Furthermore, the indemnification and hold harmless is the same as geocaching.com has in place for itself, yet you don't complain about that.

Also not true. Groundspeak's indemnification language reads:

You agree to indemnify and hold Groundspeak, its officers, employees, agents and volunteer administrators harmless against any and all losses, claims, damages, and expenses (including reasonable attorneys’ fees) that Groundspeak may incur in connection with: (a) Your breach of any of the terms of this Agreement; or (Your use of the Site.

The state's provision is much more broad, extending explicitly to the actions of others with respect to finding your cache, moving it, placing contents in it and misuse of contents others may have placed in it.

 

The state's provision will always be more broad regardless of the activity. It is consistent to all activities on park lands. However, again, in general it is the same. Our perspectives here will also be in disagreement. The difference between the two is you will have recourse to chase after the individual that caused you financial harm.

 

=-=-edited to add-=-=

I'll add both entities do what they must to protect themselves from financial harm. Groundspeak separated themselves from you the cache owner in case your cache is not what you advertised it to be, and if it is, separated themselves from you on any harm or damage to the locality or seeker.

 

The difference the park did, is they hold you reponsible for your game piece and the area it is in. If you're too clever, that just may cost you. If you're in accord with the ranger on location and hide specifics, this is probably minimized. Not only is your game piece being watched by the local authorities now, but they ensure it isn't abandoned by hiders quitting the game and leaving their geotrash out there. You can't say that doesn't happen. We all know it does. Thank them for the way the permit reads the next time you see them eh?

Edited July 11, 2006 by TotemLake

[nw_slug]

I am going to try to set up a WSGA meeting for September at one of the Southend Library meeting rooms with the Parks directors. That is when we can discuss this new policy with them directly.

 

I have to say that I respectfully disagree, SilentNW. I think this gives us our control back. The WSGA was founded because some state parks were pulling caches and disposing of them. After four years we now have a policy that says Geocaching is an acceptable use of the State Parks. This opens the door for us to go back into some areas we have been shut out of in the past.

 

IMHO, I - for one - absolutely refuse to indemnify the State of Washington - as the form requires. I'd recommend that no one take that huge leap of faith. You never know when some klutz is gong to injure themself while looking for your cache and then sue the state, and then you're stuck - as a minimum - with paying lawyers to defend yourself. And, if some jury decides to "share the blame" which is getting more common these days (joint and several liability) then you might be stuck with a judgement of hundreds of thousands of $$ just because you're pursueing your hobby.

 

Notwithstanding that the state probably spent hundreds of thousands of your tax $$ to come up with this policy - which - imho - is overkill, and just how many more thousands are they going to spend of your tax $$ to review each application.

 

It is good to have a policy rather than having them removing our caches, but we must argue for a realistic policy that doesn't penalize us.

 

nw_slug

[+Lightning Jeff]

BTW... from Jeff's response... it appears he is reading the old (2004) version of the policy. Many of the things he cites have been removed from the 2006 version.

No, it's from "Directive 06-01" dated July 6, 2006 - downloaded from your link at the very top of this thread. I just edited to add citations to the directive sections.

It's been over a month, and not having seen a response that explains an apparent disconnect between what we got and what WSGA seems to have thought we were getting, I'm left to wonder: Did WSGA get hoodwinked? If this is not what was expected, is WSGA following up with the state?

[Team Misguided]

We have a WSGA meeting scheduled in September that we hope to have at least one or two State Park representatives at. I'm in contact with the gentleman at the parks department who is overseeing the new policy and we are working together to iron out some of the initial kinks in the implementation of the new policy.

[+hikergps]

How will the new policy effect the reviewal/approval process of caching? Will the cache hider now have to provide a copy of the permit, or make some mention of it in their cache submission page? Just a curious question.

[Team Misguided]

How will the new policy effect the reviewal/approval process of caching? Will the cache hider now have to provide a copy of the permit, or make some mention of it in their cache submission page? Just a curious question.

 

This reminds me I need to call my contact at the parks department about a verification process. But typically after you fill out the form and have the park manager sign off on it you will need to check back in a week or so to see if they've received the form back from district. When that happens you just put the info into a reviewer note.

 

P.S. I've stopped asking for the district managers names. Only the Park managers name & contact info.

[+Shop99er]

We have a WSGA meeting scheduled in September that we hope to have at least one or two State Park representatives at. I'm in contact with the gentleman at the parks department who is overseeing the new policy and we are working together to iron out some of the initial kinks in the implementation of the new policy.

 

Where and when?

 

Never mind--I found it. You just have to have this when I'm in Wisconsin, don't you?

 

[edit--added kvetching]

Edited August 23, 2006 by Shop99er

[+Shop99er]

How will the new policy effect the reviewal/approval process of caching? Will the cache hider now have to provide a copy of the permit, or make some mention of it in their cache submission page? Just a curious question.

 

When I submitted my cache in Manchester State Park right after the new policy took affect, I posted a reviewer note at that time stating that I had the permit in my hand. That seemed to satisfy the reviewer.

 

The cache was approved 2-3 days later.

 

[edit--can't speel]

Edited August 23, 2006 by Shop99er