Jump to content

Washington State Parks


Right Wing Wacko

Recommended Posts

The following message was sent to all WSGA members today. I am posting this message in as many venues as I can because

 

1. It applies to ALL cachers in Washington, not just WSGA Members

2. Some of the emails we have on file for our members are incorrect.

3. Not everyone reads the WSGA or Groundspeak Forums.

 

James Horan of the Washington State Parks has asked us to remind our members of the new State Park Policy.

 

If you have already established a cache in a Washington State Park but have not informed the park manager or have written permission to establish a cache PLEASE promptly take steps to get that permission per the new directive as soon as possible.

 

Please note that this applies to Geocaches, TerraCaches, NaviCaches, Letterboxes… etc.

 

More information can be found at: http://www.geocachingwa.org/?DEST=/land-use/state.asp including a link to the current Washington State Park policy and a permit application

Link to comment

C'mon people, give 'em a chance. The policy is still a work in progress. James Horan recently had the whole thing dumped in his lap and he didn't even know what geocaching was. They're working on making the process less cumbersome for us and their biggest concerns for getting things rolling now are legitimate... the rangers need to know where the caches in their parks are located, and that they're not hidden somewhere that is dangerous or causing damage. Those of us that have been around the block a few times can appreciate that caches don't always get placed with good judgement.

Link to comment

Unfortunately it’s a typical government response, make the simplest of things complex, and then overreact to it. The ‘rules’, needed to be maybe one or two lines long; All geocaches hidden in state parks must comply with the accepted guidelines published on the Groundspeak Geocaching website.

 

I don’t agree that they need to know where they are hidden, any more than they need to know where I’m playing frisbee on any given day. Dangerous is very subjective, what’s dangerous to you might not be to me, that’s where judgment comes in. If there is a location in a park that is dangerous, it’s dangerous whether someone puts a cache there or not.

 

Yes, caches do get placed with poor judgment, but the community can police itself.

Link to comment

Any contact info/links yet?

 

I sent an email today to ask for the names/phone numbers of the four regional offices. I hope to have that back shortly.

 

Please don't rush to judgement on this policy until you've talked with the people at the parks. I have, and many people who attended the WSGA meeting last Thursday did. Everyone I talked to after the meeting came away with a good feeling about the future of this policy.

Link to comment

I don’t agree that they need to know where they are hidden, any more than they need to know where I’m playing frisbee on any given day.

Not really analagous, unless you leave the frisbee tucked in a bush for 100 other players to come and find.

 

One of the rangers gave a great example of why knowing where the geocaches are can save time and (taxpayer) money. Some park visitors noticed suspicious activity - individuals going into some bushes for a few minutes, then coming back out. The bushes were not near a trail or feature that would encourage that exploration. They reported it as possible drug activity, and the park staff spent time (and taxpayer money) following up, only to discover it was a geocache. They noted that if they'd known about the geocache, they wouldn't have had to follow up at all, could have spent the time and resources on more important things in our understaffed park system.

 

And "self policing" doesn't always save the day. One of the early negative park encounters with geocaching was with a cache placed with poor coordinates, leading to damage to several stumps in the vicinity of the one it was actually in. Self-policing is usually after the fact - when others visit and notice the issue, it doesn't necessarily stop the initial problem, although education can prevent recurrences.

 

Yes, some people will have problems with any rules, cos they are anti-authority period, but as I said before, I was very impressed with the positive energy and support from the park staff - they WANT to make this work, and have encouraged us to submit recommended changes to the guidelines now that they understand our concerns better. No, I don't want to take the extra steps any more than the next person, but I can see why some regulations are needed.

 

If I were a park manager, I'd want to know about the caches. After all, I'm legally responsible for the park, including maintaining the environment and ensuring the safety of visitors.

 

Rather than automatically assuming the worst, perhaps we should try to see it from their perspective as well. They aren't the enemy, unless we force them into that position through our actions and attitude.

Link to comment

The requirement I really like is the one where you MUST visit your cache and sign your logbook then notify them that you were there! You MUST do this every 90 DAYS or you permit becomes invalid! Have fun finding your cache when it is covered over with 2 feet (or more) of snow.

 

Are they going to waste taxpayer money by sending rangers out (every 90 days) to verify that you signed your logbook?

 

John

Link to comment

The requirement I really like is the one where you MUST visit your cache and sign your logbook then notify them that you were there! You MUST do this every 90 DAYS or you permit becomes invalid! Have fun finding your cache when it is covered over with 2 feet (or more) of snow.

 

Are they going to waste taxpayer money by sending rangers out (every 90 days) to verify that you signed your logbook?

 

John

They know that some places aren't accessible 365 days a year. As I noted in another thread about this - if you can't access it to maintain it, they can't access it to pull it! BTW, that rule is under discussion to change, they are learning about our sport.

Link to comment

Any computer literate types out there (or at WSGA) who could devise an on line form (similar to Turbo Tax, maybe) where we could enter the required info then print out the complete form for submission? We just filled out four forms for our hides in the state park here (Winthrop). A lot of writing.

BTW, those four hides were placed at the REQUEST of the Chief Ranger of the park. The park is expanding and he wants more!

Barnabirdy(s)

Link to comment

Any computer literate types out there (or at WSGA) who could devise an on line form (similar to Turbo Tax, maybe) where we could enter the required info then print out the complete form for submission? We just filled out four forms for our hides in the state park here (Winthrop). A lot of writing.

BTW, those four hides were placed at the REQUEST of the Chief Ranger of the park. The park is expanding and he wants more!

Barnabirdy(s)

There is an electronic form (MS Word) on the WSGA website that can be used, I'd think, to edit and then print what you want.

Link to comment

The requirement I really like is the one where you MUST visit your cache and sign your logbook then notify them that you were there! You MUST do this every 90 DAYS or you permit becomes invalid! Have fun finding your cache when it is covered over with 2 feet (or more) of snow.

 

Are they going to waste taxpayer money by sending rangers out (every 90 days) to verify that you signed your logbook?

 

John

They know that some places aren't accessible 365 days a year. As I noted in another thread about this - if you can't access it to maintain it, they can't access it to pull it! BTW, that rule is under discussion to change, they are learning about our sport.

What Jester said, and as I also previously noted - they have asked us to propose revised language for sections such as these, now that they understand our activity better. Again, they ARE trying to work with us - if we let them! If you folks will post your suggested text changes here, I have already agreed to pull together an annotated version of the rules for their review as a next step.

 

In short, the guidelines are not carved in stone yet, we have a golden opportunity to make some amendments to the problematic portions - let's act on it rather than complaining about it!

 

It's too bad more folks couldn't attend the meeting and see how open and accommodating the parks personnel were trying to be....

Link to comment

Looks like I won't be placing any caches in state parks. Too much work.

Oh, come on, now....

 

I've set two under the current guidelines, and it was a piece of cake. Sure, you have to do a bit of paperwork, but if you use the Word version of the forms, it's a few minutes of typing.

 

The two Park Managers that I have worked with were happy to help, and were obviously as delighted as I was at how smoothly everything went in the process.

 

I think the longest I had to wait for an approval was 3 days for the cache I have at Illahee. It took two days for the cache to be approved by my friendly GC reviewers.

 

My Manchester cache was approved by the Park Department in less than 24 hours.

 

Give the Department a chance, folks. They are trying to work with cachers, here.

Link to comment

I don’t agree that they need to know where they are hidden, any more than they need to know where I’m playing frisbee on any given day.

Not really analagous...snip

I understand the analogy isn’t perfect, however, as far as park activities go, geocaching is pretty innocuous. Of the thousands of geocache related visits to the state parks, there have been very few problems. That much regulation was never required (IMO).

 

I’m also not ‘assuming the worst’ as I read their rules and the ‘worst’ is right there in black and white.

 

Scenarios:

 

A geocacher searching for your cache drops a lit cigarette and burns a few hundred acres of State Park.

 

A geocacher finds your cache, see’s a fake (and perfectly legal) hand grenade someone left in it, and calls the bomb squad. They blow up the cache and damage the site.

 

Someone not looking for your cache finds it and throws it through the window of the park offices before a rainstorm; the subsequent water damage ruins the carpet, computers, etc.

 

Any of those scenarios are certainly possible, and have happened before, albeit without the parts about geocaches. People do burn down the forest and never come forward, people do call the bomb-squad or hazmat teams for things found in parks, and people do vandalize park buildings. The difference is that now, by signing that paper, it appears that you, as the cache hider, have volunteered to pay for all damage and fees (the bomb-squad doesn’t work for free).

 

My point is that they don’t require these procedures for any other activity, even the quad riders don’t have to sign away their homes to enjoy the parks on their quads, neither do the horseback riders or the hikers or….

 

I appreciate the hard work that went into it and the positive attitudes of the officials involved, but very little of what I read was necessary or desirable.

Link to comment

First I've never placed a cache, for a number of reasons, and based on what I've read so far the chances of me placing one has dwindle even more.

I won’t place one on private property because I’m just not comfortable doing that.

I now won’t place one in a state park because I will Not accept the responsibility/liability for something that I have not directly done.

So I guess that leaves…?

Link to comment

First I've never placed a cache, for a number of reasons, and based on what I've read so far the chances of me placing one has dwindle even more.

I won’t place one on private property because I’m just not comfortable doing that.

I now won’t place one in a state park because I will Not accept the responsibility/liability for something that I have not directly done.

So I guess that leaves…?

Once more, I'll note: the parks officials are open to amending the guidelines in the areas that trouble us. The liability section is one that came up, and they agreed that it was discretionary and that perhaps some wording changes could be made.

 

Let's all work on solutions, eh? You've all pointed out the parts that worry you - and each of these sections was pointed out and discussed in the meeting - how about suggesting alternate or amended wording?

 

Given that there will be state park guidelines - not a choice there - that cover geocaching/letterboxing/etc, and that a draft exists - how can we 'tweak' them the in a way that works for us and also for the parks dept?

Link to comment

[... how about suggesting alternate or amended wording?

All geocaches hidden in state parks must comply with the accepted guidelines published on the Groundspeak Geocaching website.

 

That is all that is needed.

Got that, but since it's not an option to have the single sentence - it would be more productive to suggest wording changes to the already drafted parks guidelines. They will be implemented, not retracted, and now's our chance to suggest changes that work in our favor.

Link to comment

[... how about suggesting alternate or amended wording?

All geocaches hidden in state parks must comply with the accepted guidelines published on the Groundspeak Geocaching website.

 

That is all that is needed.

Although I tend to agree more regulation is not necessarily a desirable thing, we both know you can't get past the government's need to spell it out to the nth degree. Geocaching guidelines have changed so putting down a generic phrase doesn't sit well with the legal beagles trying to protect themselves from frivolous liabilities. It isn't as if they don't receive a lot of lawsuits already. The need to limit them is extremely important to them by providing the right wording that holds them harmless to activity that could lead to personal injury on property they manage and helps keep their insurance rates down to cover same.

 

Take a look at home owner's insurance coverage at what you can be liable for. It's incredibly ridiculous, but it happens and that's why it's covered. Tossing a frisbee into the bushes and the recipient getting injured can lead to a personal injury lawsuit against the property manager/owner.

 

I'll echo Hydnsek's request. Instead of digging your heels in and grousing, become a part of the positive solution to ease up the wording in the permit system. This bickering doesn't sit well with me when the WSGA has been working hard to keep this sport from becoming outlawed in yet another park system.

Link to comment

This bickering doesn't sit well with me when the WSGA has been working hard to keep this sport from becoming outlawed in yet another park system.

I agree that we should all be supporting and working with/through WSGA on this issue, but to me, as a WSGA member, it re-raises a question I posed in the other thread (and attempted to pose in the WSGA forum, where my post was never approved): How did we get here? When this directive was announced in that other thread, it was ostensibly final/"official" and presented with the suggestion that we would be "pleasantly surprised." Clearly, many of us weren't and aren't, though the Parks' apparent willingness to tinker does give us hope. But really, what the heck happened? How is it that provisions WSGA thought had been removed were really still there? Did Parks pull a switcheroo? Were we asleep at the switch? I don't mean to accuse or embarass anyone, but have to wonder how this came about.

 

That said, I will try to find time to draft suggested revisions and get them to hydnsek, who if you missed it, has generously volunteered to pull together our collective suggestions.

 

Jeff

Link to comment

[... how about suggesting alternate or amended wording?

All geocaches hidden in state parks must comply with the accepted guidelines published on the Groundspeak Geocaching website.

 

That is all that is needed.

This bickering doesn't sit well with me when the WSGA has been working hard to keep this sport from becoming outlawed in yet another park system.

I don't think anyone is bickering here, it still sounds like a civil discussion to me. I was asked on another venue why I didn't attend the meeting, and someone else asked my opinion of the new rules, so there they are. I'm not too concerned with the threat of geocaches being banned, in the end it's the park that loses the most. If it is preferable, those of us who find this new status quo a little overboard and reactionary will simply keep our mouths shut. Since this is a geocaching forum, it would seem like the best place to have the discussion.

 

I reiterate:

My point is that they don’t require these procedures for any other activity, even the quad riders don’t have to sign away their homes to enjoy the parks on their quads, neither do the horseback riders or the hikers or…

 

Geocaching in the only activity that benefits the visitor and the parks, through CITO, increasing visitor numbers, and populating the park with a clearly better class of people*. Over-regulating us to the exclusion of others (many of whom already violate park rules) is just more bureaucracy.

 

*There is an intangible benefit in having law abiding citizens around, in that people doing illegal things like drugs (dealing, using, or manufacturing), prostitution, etc., prefer to undertake these illicit activities outside the public eye.

Link to comment

those of us who find this new status quo a little overboard and reactionary will simply keep our mouths shut. Since this is a geocaching forum, it would seem like the best place to have the discussion.

 

I reiterate:

My point is that they don’t require these procedures for any other activity, even the quad riders don’t have to sign away their homes to enjoy the parks on their quads, neither do the horseback riders or the hikers or…

 

Geocaching in the only activity that benefits the visitor and the parks, through CITO, increasing visitor numbers, and populating the park with a clearly better class of people*. Over-regulating us to the exclusion of others (many of whom already violate park rules) is just more bureaucracy.

 

*There is an intangible benefit in having law abiding citizens around, in that people doing illegal things like drugs (dealing, using, or manufacturing), prostitution, etc., prefer to undertake these illicit activities outside the public eye.

 

I'm not arguing about the overboard over-regulating response, and neither are the rangers involved thus the invitation to help soften the language to make it more palatable to the geocacher that bristles at more rules.

 

Off-roading is regulated as well as ar other activities. Violation of the "rules of the park" is a separate issue as enforcement. It's the enforcement that's the problem and most people tend to look the other way instead of doing the right thing... whatever that may be.

 

Don't like over-regulation? Then become part of the committee to ensure the wording is taken out that causes the issue or softened to become less of an issue. We (collectively speaking) have a rare opportunity to be a positive force in how this permit system is handled.

 

Maybe bickering was a wrong description for want of a better word... Discuss away. :D

Link to comment

Off-roading is regulated as well as are other activities. Violation of the "rules of the park" is a separate issue as enforcement. It's the enforcement that's the problem and most people tend to look the other way instead of doing the right thing... whatever that may be.

 

Yes it is, however, they aren’t signing away their homes, college funds, savings accounts, etc to do so.

 

Don't like over-regulation? Then become part of the committee to ensure the wording is taken out that causes the issue or softened to become less of an issue. We (collectively speaking) have a rare opportunity to be a positive force in how this permit system is handled.

 

The only real solution I can see is for the parks people to return to the way it has always been done, that is, no regulation whatsoever. If there actually becomes a real and recurring problem in the future, reexamine the need for regulation at that time. Have you ever seen a government entity reduce or eliminate regulation? No, it only grows bigger and more complicated every time they fiddle with it. I should be able to file my taxes on my own using a postcard sized form, right?

Edited by Criminal
Link to comment

And I think everyone is missing the point of the ORIGINAL message at the very top of the thread. This was not ment to debate the new regulations although I agree that debate is a good thing.

 

This thread was to remind everyone that if they already have a cache in a Washington State Park, they need to go and get it approved and a permit issued ASAP!

Edited by Right Wing Wacko
Link to comment

[... how about suggesting alternate or amended wording?

All geocaches hidden in state parks must comply with the accepted guidelines published on the Groundspeak Geocaching website.

 

That is all that is needed.

Although I tend to agree more regulation is not necessarily a desirable thing, we both know you can't get past the government's need to spell it out to the nth degree. Geocaching guidelines have changed so putting down a generic phrase doesn't sit well with the legal beagles trying to protect themselves from frivolous liabilities. It isn't as if they don't receive a lot of lawsuits already. The need to limit them is extremely important to them by providing the right wording that holds them harmless to activity that could lead to personal injury on property they manage and helps keep their insurance rates down to cover same.

 

Take a look at home owner's insurance coverage at what you can be liable for. It's incredibly ridiculous, but it happens and that's why it's covered. Tossing a frisbee into the bushes and the recipient getting injured can lead to a personal injury lawsuit against the property manager/owner.

 

I'll echo Hydnsek's request. Instead of digging your heels in and grousing, become a part of the positive solution to ease up the wording in the permit system. This bickering doesn't sit well with me when the WSGA has been working hard to keep this sport from becoming outlawed in yet another park system.

 

I'm sorry TL and others I have spent years working with state attorneys (AG's office) regarding liability and indemnification issues. I have the scars and bruises to prove it from beating my head against that wall time and time again. The state has to have it clearly stated (or as clearly stated as you can in legalese) that they aren’t responsible if a termite breaks wind causing someone to trip and injure themselves on your Tupperware hidden under a bush. I’m too old and tired to fight these battles on my personal time anymore.

The time that I have left on this earth is too precious to me to spend my time arguing with lawyers or bureaucrats. I’ll just say No thank you.

Link to comment

This thread was to remind everyone that if they already have a cache in a Washington State Park, they need to go and get it approved and a permit issued ASAP!

The lawyer would quibble (not being sure that this "Directive" has the force of law seing as how it apparently hasn't gone through the formal rulemaking process, and suggesting that, even if it did, cache owners are free to remove their caches or just wait and see what happens), but gets your point.

 

I've drafted suggested revisions to the Directive and sent them to hydnsek. If you're interested, you can see my draft.

 

Jeff

Link to comment

I'm sorry TL and others I have spent years working with state attorneys (AG's office) regarding liability and indemnification issues. I have the scars and bruises to prove it from beating my head against that wall time and time again. The state has to have it clearly stated (or as clearly stated as you can in legalese) that they aren’t responsible if a termite breaks wind causing someone to trip and injure themselves on your Tupperware hidden under a bush. I’m too old and tired to fight these battles on my personal time anymore.

The time that I have left on this earth is too precious to me to spend my time arguing with lawyers or bureaucrats. I’ll just say No thank you.

 

You can say yea or nea with no issues from me. That wasn't my point.

 

You did express the point I was making more eloquently at the government's need to have it spelled out regardless of how silly it is to our perception.

Edited by TotemLake
Link to comment

Off-roading is regulated as well as are other activities. Violation of the "rules of the park" is a separate issue as enforcement. It's the enforcement that's the problem and most people tend to look the other way instead of doing the right thing... whatever that may be.

 

Yes it is, however, they aren’t signing away their homes, college funds, savings accounts, etc to do so.

 

Don't like over-regulation? Then become part of the committee to ensure the wording is taken out that causes the issue or softened to become less of an issue. We (collectively speaking) have a rare opportunity to be a positive force in how this permit system is handled.

 

The only real solution I can see is for the parks people to return to the way it has always been done, that is, no regulation whatsoever. If there actually becomes a real and recurring problem in the future, reexamine the need for regulation at that time. Have you ever seen a government entity reduce or eliminate regulation? No, it only grows bigger and more complicated every time they fiddle with it. I should be able to file my taxes on my own using a postcard sized form, right?

 

Yes all and good, but this is an argument against a foregone conclusion of which cannot be changed. I guess this is where I'm getting my feeling of "bickering" (again for want of a better word) from. Considering your vision of a real solution is not at hand, your best energy would be spent at helping with the wording to take away that bankruptcy clause.

 

Your beating your hands against the gate that hasn't been locked and it's time to recognize sometimes the best way to manipulate an issue is from within instead of from without.

Link to comment

[... how about suggesting alternate or amended wording?

All geocaches hidden in state parks must comply with the accepted guidelines published on the Groundspeak Geocaching website.

 

That is all that is needed.

Although I tend to agree more regulation is not necessarily a desirable thing, we both know you can't get past the government's need to spell it out to the nth degree. Geocaching guidelines have changed so putting down a generic phrase doesn't sit well with the legal beagles trying to protect themselves from frivolous liabilities. It isn't as if they don't receive a lot of lawsuits already. The need to limit them is extremely important to them by providing the right wording that holds them harmless to activity that could lead to personal injury on property they manage and helps keep their insurance rates down to cover same.

 

Take a look at home owner's insurance coverage at what you can be liable for. It's incredibly ridiculous, but it happens and that's why it's covered. Tossing a frisbee into the bushes and the recipient getting injured can lead to a personal injury lawsuit against the property manager/owner.

 

I'll echo Hydnsek's request. Instead of digging your heels in and grousing, become a part of the positive solution to ease up the wording in the permit system. This bickering doesn't sit well with me when the WSGA has been working hard to keep this sport from becoming outlawed in yet another park system.

 

If the only reason for the regulations is liability, then the best solution is to have the state pass "indemnification" laws protecting the Parks from lawsuits. Use the same wording for those laws that they used for law enforcment officers.

 

You can not sue an individual officer for failing to protect you! Their responsibility is to society as a whole and not to the individual.

 

The balance of the regulations would then fit under the "It must meet Groundspeaks guidelines".

 

John

Link to comment

Off-roading is regulated as well as are other activities. Violation of the "rules of the park" is a separate issue as enforcement. It's the enforcement that's the problem and most people tend to look the other way instead of doing the right thing... whatever that may be.

 

Yes it is, however, they aren’t signing away their homes, college funds, savings accounts, etc to do so.

 

Don't like over-regulation? Then become part of the committee to ensure the wording is taken out that causes the issue or softened to become less of an issue. We (collectively speaking) have a rare opportunity to be a positive force in how this permit system is handled.

 

The only real solution I can see is for the parks people to return to the way it has always been done, that is, no regulation whatsoever. If there actually becomes a real and recurring problem in the future, reexamine the need for regulation at that time. Have you ever seen a government entity reduce or eliminate regulation? No, it only grows bigger and more complicated every time they fiddle with it. I should be able to file my taxes on my own using a postcard sized form, right?

 

Yes all and good, but this is an argument against a foregone conclusion of which cannot be changed. I guess this is where I'm getting my feeling of "bickering" (again for want of a better word) from. Considering your vision of a real solution is not at hand, your best energy would be spent at helping with the wording to take away that bankruptcy clause.

 

Your beating your hands against the gate that hasn't been locked and it's time to recognize sometimes the best way to manipulate an issue is from within instead of from without.

Well, unless someone with the state parks can explain why an inanimate piece of tupperware needs a permit to be in the park but quads, dirt bikes, mountain bikes, hikers, birdwatchers, baby strollers, baseballs, footballs, golf balls, beach balls, kites, cars, trucks, vans, scooters, skates, picnic baskets, dogs, and all other users of the parks do not, then my answer is to simply choose not to participate in state park geocaches.

 

Let me add, that I find the whole idea of taxpayer money going to the creation and maintenance of a permit for something as simple and harmless as a geocache to be absolutely absurd. How long have there been letterboxes?

Edited by Criminal
Link to comment

How long have there been letterboxes?

 

Letterboxes are covered under this directive, and are subject to the same requirements as geocaches going forward.

 

Also - saying that they should simply reference geocaching.com guidelines isn't a solution.

  • No organization - government, commercial, private - is going to let its policies be dictated by those of another; the risks and potential liability are huge. And, parts of the GC.com guidelines might not apply in the park system, so they can't just subscribe wholesale.
  • GC.com is not the only entity involved in geocaching, nor are these guidelines only about geocaching. Letterboxing is also included, e.g. So, again, simply pointing to the gc.com guidelines is not a solution.

I realize that you will never be happy on this subject, Chris, but it isn't quite as simple as you suggest.

Link to comment

How long have there been letterboxes?

 

I agree, if not for all the trouble those letter boxes caused, geocaches would have gone unnoticed.

 

Darn them to heck! :D

 

Seriously I tend to take the wait and see approach. I not going to rush out and register. It it becomes easy perhaps. If it becomes hard I may pull them or simply let them be confiscated.

Link to comment

Seriously I tend to take the wait and see approach. I not going to rush out and register. It it becomes easy perhaps. If it becomes hard I may pull them or simply let them be confiscated.

 

Thats what this thread is SUPPOSED to be about. We got the notice to register them or face having them confiscated. When that happens it will not be a good thing, and will HURT our efforts to get the rules relaxed.

Link to comment

Honestly, do you see the rules being relaxed? It is my understanding that the WSGA "worked" with the WA Park Serivce to get the process in place initially, so what kept things from being written on more user friendly terms then?

 

Don't get me wrong here. I'm not trying to be argumentative or rain on your parade, but that permit process as written is awful. It appears to be written to make geocaching in state parks as restrictive and discouraging as possible. I have not worked with the WA State Park Service and can't reference them specifically but it has been my experince in working with other government agencies that changing policy and/or proceedure is neither a simple or speedy process. While it may be true that nothing is written in stone, it isn't written in sand either and changing what is there may be more difficult than anticipated. I wish you well.

Link to comment

Honestly, do you see the rules being relaxed? It is my understanding that the WSGA "worked" with the WA Park Serivce to get the process in place initially, so what kept things from being written on more user friendly terms then?

 

Don't get me wrong here. I'm not trying to be argumentative or rain on your parade, but that permit process as written is awful. It appears to be written to make geocaching in state parks as restrictive and discouraging as possible. I have not worked with the WA State Park Service and can't reference them specifically but it has been my experince in working with other government agencies that changing policy and/or proceedure is neither a simple or speedy process. While it may be true that nothing is written in stone, it isn't written in sand either and changing what is there may be more difficult than anticipated. I wish you well.

It's a generic form. That is, one size fits all. Do I see it being relaxed. That's a tough call when it comes to government redtape, but it can happen. I was once involved with a group that was involved with rewriting a checklist for an F4 hot turn around that got approved which in itself is a military rarity. What I do see is an unique opportunity to work with the rangers at their invitation. That means they also agree it's a bit overboard.

Link to comment

Thats what this thread is SUPPOSED to be about. We got the notice to register them or face having them confiscated. When that happens it will not be a good thing, and will HURT our efforts to get the rules relaxed.

I'd like to give a shout out to the Barnabirdy(s), one of the first to bring their caches into compliance (even without proposed amendments to the directive). Here's what one Birdy told me:

 

We were just reading the State Park forum. Wow! Seems pretty simple to us. The Chief Ranger at Pearrygin State Park asked us to hide some in his park a year ago. He said, to the effect, "someday paperwork will come".

We just received a letter saying "That day has arrived". We filled in the forms he mailed us (with a stamped return envelope), attached a cache page to each for good measure and printed a map of the park with the caches plotted for even better measure. We will hand it to him Sunday.

The park is expanding and he has asked that we hide some additional caches.

We hope the year renewal thing will be relatively automatic.

We wonder if the 90 day visit requirement could be "unless a cacher has logged a find within the last 90 days".

 

What a fine example they set! If they can do it without breaking a sweat or fretting about liabilities and renewals, I think the rest of us can manage it. :P

 

Oh, and I've found their 4 caches in Pearrygin - highly recommended. Two are nice little hikes, two are devious little hides. :laughing:

Link to comment

This thread was to remind everyone that if they already have a cache in a Washington State Park, they need to go and get it approved and a permit issued ASAP!

 

Or archive it, as I just did with my Potlatch cache. I'm hardly geocaching at all any more, but that cache was pretty close to self-maintaining. Now that I have to choose between

 

a) archiving it, or

 

b ) meeting with the ranger, requesting a permit, checking on it several times a year, and more stuff I'd need to research that I don't want to do...

 

well, the choice was easy.

Edited by travisl
Link to comment

This thread was to remind everyone that if they already have a cache in a Washington State Park, they need to go and get it approved and a permit issued ASAP!

 

Or archive it, as I just did with my Potlatch cache. I'm hardly geocaching at all any more, but that cache was pretty close to self-maintaining. Now that I have to choose between

 

a) archiving it, or

 

b ) meeting with the ranger, requesting a permit, checking on it several times a year, and more stuff I'd need to research that I don't want to do...

 

well, the choice was easy.

 

Before you archive your caches, please consider this --- Send the rangers a notice that you will no longer have caches in "Their" park and that they MAY (at their discretion) adopt the caches! If they do adopt the caches then they will have to issue themselves a permit and check on them regularly. :laughing:

 

Suggest they (the park) get an account on Groundspeak and adopt the caches.

 

John

Link to comment

This thread was to remind everyone that if they already have a cache in a Washington State Park, they need to go and get it approved and a permit issued ASAP!

 

Or archive it, as I just did with my Potlatch cache. I'm hardly geocaching at all any more, but that cache was pretty close to self-maintaining. Now that I have to choose between

 

a) archiving it, or

 

b ) meeting with the ranger, requesting a permit, checking on it several times a year, and more stuff I'd need to research that I don't want to do...

 

well, the choice was easy.

 

Before you archive your caches, please consider this --- Send the rangers a notice that you will no longer have caches in "Their" park and that they MAY (at their discretion) adopt the caches! If they do adopt the caches then they will have to issue themselves a permit and check on them regularly. :)

 

Suggest they (the park) get an account on Groundspeak and adopt the caches.

 

John

 

Hey that's not a bad idea at all. I like it!

Edited by MarcusArelius
Link to comment

Off-roading is regulated as well as are other activities. Violation of the "rules of the park" is a separate issue as enforcement. It's the enforcement that's the problem and most people tend to look the other way instead of doing the right thing... whatever that may be.

 

Yes it is, however, they aren’t signing away their homes, college funds, savings accounts, etc to do so.

 

Don't like over-regulation? Then become part of the committee to ensure the wording is taken out that causes the issue or softened to become less of an issue. We (collectively speaking) have a rare opportunity to be a positive force in how this permit system is handled.

 

The only real solution I can see is for the parks people to return to the way it has always been done, that is, no regulation whatsoever. If there actually becomes a real and recurring problem in the future, reexamine the need for regulation at that time. Have you ever seen a government entity reduce or eliminate regulation? No, it only grows bigger and more complicated every time they fiddle with it. I should be able to file my taxes on my own using a postcard sized form, right?

 

Yes all and good, but this is an argument against a foregone conclusion of which cannot be changed. I guess this is where I'm getting my feeling of "bickering" (again for want of a better word) from. Considering your vision of a real solution is not at hand, your best energy would be spent at helping with the wording to take away that bankruptcy clause.

 

Your beating your hands against the gate that hasn't been locked and it's time to recognize sometimes the best way to manipulate an issue is from within instead of from without.

Well, unless someone with the state parks can explain why an inanimate piece of tupperware needs a permit to be in the park but quads, dirt bikes, mountain bikes, hikers, birdwatchers, baby strollers, baseballs, footballs, golf balls, beach balls, kites, cars, trucks, vans, scooters, skates, picnic baskets, dogs, and all other users of the parks do not, then my answer is to simply choose not to participate in state park geocaches.

 

Let me add, that I find the whole idea of taxpayer money going to the creation and maintenance of a permit for something as simple and harmless as a geocache to be absolutely absurd. How long have there been letterboxes?

I highlighted two sections above. The time has already come where caches have become a problem in the Parks. The example given at the meeting by Park people of the cache hidden in a stump with bad co-ords where all the stumps in the area were torn apart is part of why they want some regulations in place. So not all caches are "simple and harmless". Part of the mandate of the Park system is keep the lands for future visitors, when caches are causing damage the Park people have to do something. There are sections of parks that are too sensitive for cache, would the reviewers know of all these areas? NO! But the park people do, so they should be the ones controling whether a cache can be placed.

 

As for the extreme examples of damages to charged to the cache hider - they were ridiculous! If the person starting the fire didn't come forward, how can it be proved that they were hunting a cache? A fake grenade isn't "pefectly" legal IN A CACHE. Try taking one thru airport security and use that arguement, or a fake gun and tell them it "perfectly legal" because it fake. Knives are pefectly legal, but NOT in a cache. And a cache thrown thru a window isn't at the place the cache was placed, so the damage wasn't caused by the placement. In this vain (extreme examples) you better not go to any park, someone could break into your car, steal the jack handle, vandalize a building and you as the car owner will be held responsible for all damages.

Link to comment

I highlighted two sections above. The time has already come where caches have become a problem in the Parks. The example given at the meeting by Park people of the cache hidden in a stump with bad co-ords where all the stumps in the area were torn apart is part of why they want some regulations in place. So not all caches are "simple and harmless". Part of the mandate of the Park system is keep the lands for future visitors, when caches are causing damage the Park people have to do something. There are sections of parks that are too sensitive for cache, would the reviewers know of all these areas? NO! But the park people do, so they should be the ones controling whether a cache can be placed.

 

As for the extreme examples of damages to charged to the cache hider - they were ridiculous! If the person starting the fire didn't come forward, how can it be proved that they were hunting a cache? A fake grenade isn't "pefectly" legal IN A CACHE. Try taking one thru airport security and use that arguement, or a fake gun and tell them it "perfectly legal" because it fake. Knives are pefectly legal, but NOT in a cache. And a cache thrown thru a window isn't at the place the cache was placed, so the damage wasn't caused by the placement. In this vain (extreme examples) you better not go to any park, someone could break into your car, steal the jack handle, vandalize a building and you as the car owner will be held responsible for all damages.

You sure went out of your way to misinterpret what I wrote. I never said all geocaches were simple and harmless, I said “…something as simple and harmless as a geocache” referring to the game in general, not any particular geocache. What you seem to be saying is that because some stumps (a dead tree remnant) were torn up, we should all be glad we can now get a permit to place a cache in a state park. Yeah, right, sorry, I don’t agree to march in lockstep just because you or anyone in the state government tells me I should. I have yet to see or hear about any significant damage done to any park, isolated incidents notwithstanding. I have, however, seen many accounts of geocachers policing themselves, with SBA logs or emails to the cache owners, when a cache was causing damage or was placed inappropriately.

 

Do you contend that horses, dirtbikes, quads, etc etc have never done any damage in any state park? That’s some fantasy to be living, but is unfortunately untrue. Funny, those activities require no permits that I’m aware of.

 

I’m not even going to address the whole ‘airport security’ nonsense, it doesn’t apply. Airport security regulations play no part in my swag decisions. If the park people want to know where a cache is located, they can fire up their GPS receiver just like everybody else.

 

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, will be given ten days to reclaim the property from the park, and shall* be responsible for any and all restoration costs.

 

I’m not sure what part of the above direct quote you want to pretend doesn’t exist, but there it is for you to read. At least in my extreme examples, I was using damage and not ‘adverse impacts’, which seems to be even worse than actual damage. Do you know what a Forest Reclamation Specialist (if there even is such a thing) charges to remove a minor trail? You might get to find out.

 

*You might want to look up how, where, and why the government uses the term ‘shall’ as opposed to ‘may’.

 

I don’t understand the hostile tone in your reply, I was discussing the issues as I saw them, not attacking anyone, even the park officials. I’m glad the WSGA is working to change the language, but like TravisL says, ‘the choice is easy’, to which I’ll add, ‘ehh, it’s their loss’.

Edited by Criminal
Link to comment

Add a chapter to the history of letterboxing:

 

…and then one day along came the geocachers. Their game was just like ours, it was played pretty much the same way. We had over one hundred years of history, one hundred years of secreting containers in parks and other public use spaces, and never a problem we couldn’t overcome through the community. But the geocachers weren’t satisfied with the way we played, so they started demanding permission from people who didn’t know or care about either of the games. They demanded and the public land suddenly became not so public anymore. They were so sure they were doing the right thing, so smug and self righteous in obtaining permission to play such a silly little game. You see, if permission is required, the silly little game gains legitimacy, status, and importance. So the officials of the public lands gave them their coveted permission.

 

Well, 100+ plus years was a good run, we knew it couldn’t last forever.

Link to comment

We were just reading the State Park forum. Wow! Seems pretty simple to us. The Chief Ranger at Pearrygin State Park asked us to hide some in his park a year ago. He said, to the effect, "someday paperwork will come".

We just received a letter saying "That day has arrived". We filled in the forms he mailed us (with a stamped return envelope), attached a cache page to each for good measure and printed a map of the park with the caches plotted for even better measure. We will hand it to him Sunday.

. . .

We wonder if the 90 day visit requirement could be "unless a cacher has logged a find within the last 90 days".

 

What a fine example they set! If they can do it without breaking a sweat or fretting about liabilities and renewals, I think the rest of us can manage it. :anitongue:

I don't see from that description that they complied with the full requirements of the directive, including taking the park manager by the hand and showing the exact location of each cache, prior to placement. (Sending a map of the caches after the fact suggests that was not done.) Thus, I think it's a bit misleading to use this as an example of how easy it is to comply with the Directive.

 

As to "not breaking a sweat or fretting about liabilities," no offense, but sometimes ignorance is bliss. Clearly, they had not agreed to the indemnification language when they placed the caches. (I certainly didn't when I placed mine.) Even assuming they did understand what they were agreeing to when they sent in the forms after the fact, some of us must just have a greater tolerance for risk than others. I, personally, will never place a cache in a state park if I am required, as we are under the current Directive, to indemnify the state for the actions of third parties over which and whom I have absolutely no control (e.g., what people do to get to the cache site; what people place into the cache ; what people do with items they find in the cache). In the abstract, the risk of liability may be low, but the potential liability is huge. (Put aside someone going after my assets; I could lose my house just trying to pay for the state's legal defense, which I would have explicitly agreed to do by signing the permit form.) And what do you want to bet my homeowner's insurance - which covers a lot of the stupid things I do and am responsible for - will not cover the stupid actions of third parties that I volunteered to be liable for?

Link to comment

I have yet to see or hear about any significant damage done to any park, isolated incidents notwithstanding. I have, however, seen many accounts of geocachers policing themselves, with SBA logs or emails to the cache owners, when a cache was causing damage or was placed inappropriately.

What you dismiss as "isolated incidents" are what the land managers are concerned about. To them the torn up stumps were a big deal, and it's their opinion on such that affects our use of the parks they are in charge of.

 

And while I agree that we do more good than harm (CITO, SBA, etc), the park officials haven't seen that because caching is new to them.

 

Do you contend that horses, dirtbikes, quads, etc etc have never done any damage in any state park?
What other groups do or don't do has little point with what we have to deal with. We're on their radar and have to deal with that.

 

I’m not even going to address the whole ‘airport security’ nonsense, it doesn’t apply.
Yep, I was using an extreme example to point out your nonsense.
Link to comment

We were just reading the State Park forum. Wow! Seems pretty simple to us. The Chief Ranger at Pearrygin State Park asked us to hide some in his park a year ago. He said, to the effect, "someday paperwork will come".

We just received a letter saying "That day has arrived". We filled in the forms he mailed us (with a stamped return envelope), attached a cache page to each for good measure and printed a map of the park with the caches plotted for even better measure. We will hand it to him Sunday.

I don't see from that description that they complied with the full requirements of the directive, including taking the park manager by the hand and showing the exact location of each cache, prior to placement. (Sending a map of the caches after the fact suggests that was not done.) Thus, I think it's a bit misleading to use this as an example of how easy it is to comply with the Directive.

That's because they worked with him on the placements when they first put out the caches. One of them is even named after him. So, they complied before there was a directive to comply with. ;)

Edited by hydnsek
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...