Washington State Park Rules

[+hikergps]

Thanks.

[+Byron & Anne]

V. COMPLIANCE

 

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.

 

The Park Manager may close certain park areas or the entire park to geocaching activities if geocaching activities are found to have an adverse impact on park resources or the safety of park visitors.

 

Makes me wonder what would happen if you just plain ignored this whole permit thing.

 

Of course the whole thing makes me think, "mother may I wipe .........."

[Team Misguided]

I just heard from my contact at the parks department. Both he and one of the regional managers will be in attendance at the September meeting at the Federal Way Regional Library. I'm hopeing that we'll have a good turn out with this unique opportunity to have a face to face with the Parks department.

 

For those of you who live to far away to physically attend, we can try to set up a mIRC channel for you to join and ask questions from.

[+The Jester]

This was a very positive meeting. I know while reading the directive it seemed fairly cold and restrictive, but the meeting with the people from the Parks was very inviting and warm. They just need some structure to deal with this new recreation opportunity. They were very open and interested in our questions and comments. In fact, they are very interested in gathering the questions we have so that they can be dealt with. Some of the wording may be changed to make it clearer (such as we can renew the permit as many times as we want, not just once as it seems to read).

 

One other question, that seems to concern many, was about being billed for damages. Their answer was they don't know how or when that would apply - it's never come up, yet. Their main concern seemed to be the native plant life & geotrails.

 

They do want to collect our questions and comments. Here would be as good a place to collect them as any, I think. One comment they shared was that corrections to the language of the directive would be helpful, instead of just asking "what does this mean?" (One example from tonight: In the section on maintaince visits, adding the words "or at the managers discretion".)

[Team Misguided]

They do want to collect our questions and comments. Here would be as good a place to collect them as any, I think. One comment they shared was that corrections to the language of the directive would be helpful, instead of just asking "what does this mean?" (One example from tonight: In the section on maintaince visits, adding the words "or at the managers discretion".)

 

After we got thrown out of the library a few of us went out for a bite to eat and to continue the discussion. It was brought up and agreed to that we should get a few people to do a geocacher tweak of the current directive to try to address some of those issues.

 

The trick here is that right now the directive is just that a directive. It's not part of the WAC (Washington Administrative Code) yet, it will be easier to get changes made before it becomes a WAC so we need to jump on this opportunity to make changes now.

[+hydnsek]

They do want to collect our questions and comments. Here would be as good a place to collect them as any, I think. One comment they shared was that corrections to the language of the directive would be helpful, instead of just asking "what does this mean?" (One example from tonight: In the section on maintaince visits, adding the words "or at the managers discretion".)

 

After we got thrown out of the library a few of us went out for a bite to eat and to continue the discussion. It was brought up and agreed to that we should get a few people to do a geocacher tweak of the current directive to try to address some of those issues.

 

The trick here is that right now the directive is just that a directive. It's not part of the WAC (Washington Administrative Code) yet, it will be easier to get changes made before it becomes a WAC so we need to jump on this opportunity to make changes now.

I think I volunteered to pull together our suggested edits to the Directive, since I'm a writer/editor by trade. If folks post their recommendations here, I can put together an annotated version for review. (Janet, it would be helpful to get a version of the directive in Word format, for easy editing.)

 

I think this was an excellent meeting - too bad more folks couldn't attend - and I echo what The Jester said. I was impressed that three representatives came, and they were very supportive, positive, and open to making some language 'tweaks' based on their improved understanding of our activity. They said this was now an endorsed recreation in their parks and they want it to work, it's a matter of educating them.

 

Kudos to Team Misguided for being an excellent liaison with the State Parks in moving this forward and in arranging this meeting.

[+Right Wing Wacko]

I really wish I could have made the meeting. However I was not feeling very well today and it was a 60 mile drive one way so....

 

I'm glad to hear they are still receptive to revisions.

 

Really my main concerns are:

 

1. The liability rule. Fixing things is usally as simple as leaving the area alone and letting it grow back, however knowing the way the state does things I can just imaging a $10,000 bill to fix a small geotrail that may or may not have been caused by cachers.

 

2. The Mandatory 90 day visit rule. I have two caches in state parks. One is fairly easily accesable and other than being a pain to go there every 90 days it would still be possible. The other is on anb 11 mile long trail that is not accesable in the winter. There is a period exceeding 90 days that there is no way I could go check on the cache. And I really don't want to do that 11 miles four times a year.

[+Prying Pandora]

The State Parks directive is published on the WSGA Website. I can't find a direct link to the page, but you can get there by clicking on Land Use at the left, , then State at the top.

[+superhoser]

they had mentioned doing a power point presentation for them. what about The Complete Guide to Geocaching DVD, ground speak could send them a couple coppies to watch?

[+TotemLake]

A job related event requiring my presence kept me from coming as planned. I'm glad the meeting went well and hope the revisions are added to make it easier to maintain the caches without fear.

[Team Misguided]

A couple of notes on the 90 days. They basically said they had to have 'something' to assure that cachers didn't place a cache and then never return. The 90 days may have even been a recommendation from the original WSGA advocacy group several years ago. They also agreed that many areas where there were closures during the winter made the 90 day rule impossible to meet and that would be something that the cacher and the park manager could come to a mutual agreement on. This is one of the things we need to tweak in the directive.

 

We pointed out how the directive read like there was no extending the permit beyond the extra year and they said that they saw no reason why a cache that had existed for several years and was doing no harm should be pulled. So that is another area of concern we had that got clarified at the meeting.

 

As for the damage, they honestly didn't have an answer. That is part of what is giving us this opportunity to modify the directive. They didn't have answers to many of our questions and realizing that they'd like to see if they can modify the directive before it becomes a WAC. That told me right away that they are committed to working with us on this and welcoming geocachers into the parks.

Edited September 22, 2006 by Team Misguided

[+The Jester]

I really wish I could have made the meeting. However I was not feeling very well today and it was a 60 mile drive one way so....

 

I'm glad to hear they are still receptive to revisions.

 

Really my main concerns are:

 

1. The liability rule. Fixing things is usally as simple as leaving the area alone and letting it grow back, however knowing the way the state does things I can just imaging a $10,000 bill to fix a small geotrail that may or may not have been caused by cachers.

 

2. The Mandatory 90 day visit rule. I have two caches in state parks. One is fairly easily accesable and other than being a pain to go there every 90 days it would still be possible. The other is on anb 11 mile long trail that is not accesable in the winter. There is a period exceeding 90 days that there is no way I could go check on the cache. And I really don't want to do that 11 miles four times a year.

These were two of the points discussed.

 

1. From the comments made about this, I get the feeling this a CYA rule. They don't know how or when this will be used. But if you work with the local manager on placement (as per the directive) this really shouldn't be a problem. One example they used from early on, was a cache in a stump (with bad co-ords) that had every stump in the area torn up.

 

2. This is one where the language will probably be changed. They are aware that some areas are not accessable all year long. Just keep in mind, if you can't access it to check it, they can't access it to pull it. And they are now aware of how maintance is done often - feedback from logs indicating problems and such. Submit your ideas of how this may be changed.

 

As it has been said, they are very interested in making this activity happen in the parks.

[+Team Jac'd]

I really wish I could have made the meeting. However I was not feeling very well today and it was a 60 mile drive one way so....

 

I'm glad to hear they are still receptive to revisions.

 

Really my main concerns are:

 

1. The liability rule. Fixing things is usally as simple as leaving the area alone and letting it grow back, however knowing the way the state does things I can just imaging a $10,000 bill to fix a small geotrail that may or may not have been caused by cachers.

 

2. The Mandatory 90 day visit rule. I have two caches in state parks. One is fairly easily accesable and other than being a pain to go there every 90 days it would still be possible. The other is on anb 11 mile long trail that is not accesable in the winter. There is a period exceeding 90 days that there is no way I could go check on the cache. And I really don't want to do that 11 miles four times a year.

 

I don't recall talking about the liability rule at the meeting, and the only thing in that thread that I did remember is that the cache owner might need to help plant trees or something to help the area come back.

 

And yes, we did talk about the Iron Horse trail and maintainance of it.

 

One other point that I raised is that they had something in there against underground and underwater caches. Hydnseek, can you make sure we raise a question about that? I.e. Obviously it would be a terrain 5 cache if we did something like that.

 

cheers,

Poppa J

[+hydnsek]

1. The liability rule. Fixing things is usally as simple as leaving the area alone and letting it grow back, however knowing the way the state does things I can just imaging a $10,000 bill to fix a small geotrail that may or may not have been caused by cachers.

1. From the comments made about this, I get the feeling this a CYA rule. They don't know how or when this will be used. But if you work with the local manager on placement (as per the directive) this really shouldn't be a problem. One example they used from early on, was a cache in a stump (with bad co-ords) that had every stump in the area torn up.

 

If we work with the local managers on placement, then they are equally responsible for any damage that occurs, since they helped select the location and are on record as having approved it. I think our risk in such situations is extremely low.

 

Fwiw, I've seen this sort of language in most agreements signed with parks for orienteering meets. When I was president of BAOC (Bay Area Orienteering Club), I had to sign off on them myself. It never kept us from holding a meet, and we never had any repercussions. Of course, like most geocachers, we were very self-policing.

 

One reason I mention this is that orienteering meets are MUCH more likely to leave 'elephant trails (as we called them) due to many people taking exactly the same cross-country route over a very short period (hours) than random geocaching activity (cache machines excepted). I've seen some pretty blatant orienteering elephant trails after a meet. We were never held liable.

[+WATreasureHunters]

Its great to see that the meeting went well. I had planned on attending myself then work commitments got in the way. I really wished I had been there.

 

Just a word, when going thru the reservation system to camp at WA state parks, after your stay they send you a survey to fill out; did you enjoy your stay, what brought you to this particular park, etc. On the four surveys I have done this year, for stays at three different parks, I have always put geocaching as a reason I am visiting. Not to say that my four little survey replies have them saying we see geocaching as a legitimate activity in our parks, but every little bit helps. If you camp at state parks, don't automatically delete the survey you will get a few weeks after your stay...

[luckykoi]

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]

 

I wonder if it will be so easy in Potlatch or Twana where th overseeing Ranger hates Geocaching?

[Team Misguided]

My experience is that what the ranger/park managers don't like is being kept in the dark about activities going on in their parks. If we keep them informed and involved from the start they are more likely to say yes. By getting the ranger involved at the beginning of the cache process they are almost like co-hiders and they can share in the fun of watching people hunt for the cache.

 

It may take baby steps with some of the parks but if we are patient they will see the benefit of having geocaches in their parks.

[Team Misguided]

*Bump*

 

I just got an email from James Horan. I'll post an excerpt from it here

 

The language in the proposed WAC for consideration of the Washington State Parks Commission at its November 30th meeting will be changed to authorizing the Park Manager to allow for a 180 day requirement to check the cache rather than a 90 day requirement.

 

They listened and they have adjusted the policy accordingly.

 

Now, lets get the rest of our suggestions wrapped up as soon as we can. It looks like we have a small window of time to get our changes in and considered. I have asked for a firm deadline and will post it here when we have it.