Washington State Parks

[+Criminal]

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.

Actually, it has everything to do with it. Those are the groups that actually DO damage and yet they require no permits. Why is that? Maybe it’s because they aren’t asking for permission and permits?

 

The nonsense is your parking lot analogy, I have never (and would never) sign a contract that has me agreeing to assume all costs for damages for the privilege of parking my car in their lot.

 

Again:

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.

 

You can hem and haw and throw insults at me all you like, you cannot get past the very plain language in the (proposed) contract. So far, none of your arguments have held water. I’m reminded of the Pied Piper, and like rats, we’re all supposed to fall in line behind these fabulous new rules.

 

If I’m wrong on any of my points, please point them out, I’d like nothing more than to see the State Parks open to us. But if what you’ve said so far is the best you can do to support your position, it sounds like the parks are more bother and risk than they’re worth for me and many others.

[+FunnyNose]

Pennsylvania seems to have a reasonable set of guidelines.

Geocaching Guidelines

Maybe Keystone could give us some guidance.

[MarcusArelius]

FN, now remeber the section 3.C rule "Metal detectors may not be used in cache searches."

[+ironman114]

Pennsylvania seems to have a reasonable set of guidelines.

Geocaching Guidelines

Maybe Keystone could give us some guidance.

 

 

I read that link and saw this:

 

"A cache may remain at the approved site for no more than three years at which time it must be removed, the site restored to its original condition, and the Park Manager / District Forester informed in writing of the removal. This will control cache abandonment and assist in preventing renegade trail development to the site. "

 

Since trails can develope in just a matter of months on a popular cache, the only way I see that it assists in "renegade trail development" is to have the cache owner pay to have the land restored to pre-cache conditions. That and discourage people from placing caches for fear of liabilities.

 

A construction company where I work had some kids cut some alder trees down along the road right of way. That company paid thousands of dollars to replace those trees to repair the damage. This is in the state of WA. and I fear that the same may happen to a cacher in a state park also since it is also state land

[MarcusArelius]

Ok here’s my wording feed back to Hydnsek. In order to comply I would also need to know who to contact in the first place.

 

Section I.D - “All permits will be in effect for a period not to exceed 12 months. The exact starting and ending dates will be recorded on the Geocache Placement Permit. The permit may be extended for up to 12 months upon the request by the cache owner, subject to approval of the Park Manager or designee”

 

Rational - This is not clear if they are limiting placements to a maximum of two years, or if they mean the permit must be extended annually (e.g. no limits on the number of extensions).

 

Suggestion - “The permit may be extended for up to 12 months at a time upon the request by the cache owner, subject to approval of the Park Manager or designee”

 

Section I.G - “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.”

 

Rational - Since section 1.B requires that the Park manager to pre-approve the cache location there should not be any damage to restore. If there is damage the Parks department allowed it so they should be legally responsible for restoration.

 

Suggestion - Strike the words “, and shall be responsible for any and all restoration costs ”. At a very minimum (which will not satisfy everyone) change the word “shall” to “may”.

 

Section III.A - “Physical caches are prohibited inside any State Parks’ building, facility, or structure and are not allowed in designated natural areas, natural forest areas, natural area preserves, or heritage areas. Virtual caches are permitted in public areas of park buildings, facilities or structures, when such areas are open to the public, as long as use of the GPS unit does not disturb other park visitors or disrupt state park programs. Outdoor virtual caches are only permitted in natural areas, natural forest areas, natural area preserves or heritage areas to the extent that such areas are open to public access.”

 

Rational - The last line appears to restrict virtual cache locations to a limited set of outdoor locations. However, physical caches are not similarly limited. You would think virtual cache locations would be less restrictive.

 

Suggestion - Strike the last sentence.

 

Section III.B.2 - “Caches may not be buried or attached to trees, nor may any structure, vegetation or stones be disturbed when placing a cache.”

 

Rational - It is very hard not to disturb vegetation or stones when placing a cache unless you want it to be in plain view.

 

Suggestion - Change the word “disturbed” to “damaged”.

 

Section III.C - “Metal detectors may not be used in cache searches.”

 

Rational - This is just silly. Section 3.B.2 and 3 already say the cache can’t be buried or placed underground. Are they worried about someone sweeping a detector through vegetation would damage it? Besides I doubt a cache searcher would ever read this directive anyway.

 

Suggestion - Strike section III.C.

 

Section IV.B.1-4 - “Notice on geocache web site must state the following information:

1. The geocache may be placed on Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission managed property only by written permission from the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission.

2. The following items shall not be placed in the geocache: Food items; illegal substances; medications; personal hygiene products, pornographic materials; inappropriate, offensive, or hazardous materials or weapons of any type. Log books are required for each cache and are to be provided by the owner of the cache.

3. It is the visitor’s responsibility to orient themselves with policies and rules pertaining to State Parks areas.

4. Report any incident, problem, or violation to State Parks staff.”

 

Rational - If this is text for a web page word it so it can be cut/pasted. Add URL and contact information. There is no value added by telling a searcher that log books are provided by the cache owner.

 

Suggestions - Reword as “1. Placement on Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission managed property authorized by permit number: ________.”

 

Strike the logbook line in section 2. Have parks department provide a URL to rules in section 3. Have parks department provide contact information (URL or phone numbers) in section 4.

[+The Jester]

Actually, it has everything to do with it. Those are the groups that actually DO damage and yet they require no permits. Why is that? Maybe it’s because they aren’t asking for permission and permits?

 

It sounds more like you are complaining about them because they are getting away with it. WAC 352-20-020 prohibits the use of motor vehicles off of roads, parking lots and trails designed for them. So if they are causing damage elsewhere they are breaking the law. Again, how is that affecting us?

 

WAC 352-32-090 (below) says our little game could/should be prohibitied, but the state is trying to allow it by setting up rules/laws that specifically permit it.

"Playing games and/or engaging in activities in a manner and/or location which subjects people or personal property, the park resource or facilities to risk of injury or damage shall be prohibited."

 

The nonsense is your parking lot analogy, I have never (and would never) sign a contract that has me agreeing to assume all costs for damages for the privilege of parking my car in their lot.

I'm just using your example. If some takes a legally placed geocache and does damage elsewhere in the park, it's the same as if some takes your tire iron from a legally parked car and does damage elsewhere in the park. It's the person doing the damage, not the box. The "cache" is more than just the box, it is the site it is located at. Consider virtual caches (still called a "cache"), if the sign I used as a virtual is torn out and thrown thru said window, am I liable for damages? My "cache" did the damage. Your examples are hypothetical and thereby nonsense. How about suggesting valid changes, not just complaining about what you don't like.

 

I do find it amusing that you are arguing so strongly against rules, with all the threads you've started about others not following the rules about logging and such.

[+Criminal]

Actually, it has everything to do with it. Those are the groups that actually DO damage and yet they require no permits. Why is that? Maybe it’s because they aren’t asking for permission and permits?

 

It sounds more like you are complaining about them because they are getting away with it. WAC 352-20-020 prohibits the use of motor vehicles off of roads, parking lots and trails designed for them. So if they are causing damage elsewhere they are breaking the law. Again, how is that affecting us?

 

WAC 352-32-090 (below) says our little game could/should be prohibitied, but the state is trying to allow it by setting up rules/laws that specifically permit it.

"Playing games and/or engaging in activities in a manner and/or location which subjects people or personal property, the park resource or facilities to risk of injury or damage shall be prohibited."

 

The nonsense is your parking lot analogy, I have never (and would never) sign a contract that has me agreeing to assume all costs for damages for the privilege of parking my car in their lot.

I'm just using your example. If some takes a legally placed geocache and does damage elsewhere in the park, it's the same as if some takes your tire iron from a legally parked car and does damage elsewhere in the park. It's the person doing the damage, not the box. The "cache" is more than just the box, it is the site it is located at. Consider virtual caches (still called a "cache"), if the sign I used as a virtual is torn out and thrown thru said window, am I liable for damages? My "cache" did the damage. Your examples are hypothetical and thereby nonsense. How about suggesting valid changes, not just complaining about what you don't like.

 

I do find it amusing that you are arguing so strongly against rules, with all the threads you've started about others not following the rules about logging and such.

No, not the same. Again, there is no signed paper saying you are responsible for your car in the lot. Not so with the new rules about your geocache.

 

There are no rules about logging caches, I never said there was. We don't need rules to tell the truth and we don't need these new rules to hide a cache.

[+The Jester]

Ok here’s my wording feed back to Hydnsek. In order to comply I would also need to know who to contact in the first place.

 

Section I.D - “All permits will be in effect for a period not to exceed 12 months. The exact starting and ending dates will be recorded on the Geocache Placement Permit. The permit may be extended for up to 12 months upon the request by the cache owner, subject to approval of the Park Manager or designee”

 

Rational - This is not clear if they are limiting placements to a maximum of two years, or if they mean the permit must be extended annually (e.g. no limits on the number of extensions).

 

Suggestion - “The permit may be extended for up to 12 months at a time upon the request by the cache owner, subject to approval of the Park Manager or designee”

I agree, this is how the state people meant it.

 

Section I.G - “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.”

 

Rational - Since section 1.B requires that the Park manager to pre-approve the cache location there should not be any damage to restore. If there is damage the Parks department allowed it so they should be legally responsible for restoration.

 

Suggestion - Strike the words “, and shall be responsible for any and all restoration costs ”. At a very minimum (which will not satisfy everyone) change the word “shall” to “may”.

I'd change it to "... may be responsible for resonable restoration costs." Which puts it into mediation as to what those may be.

 

Section III.A - “Physical caches are prohibited inside any State Parks’ building, facility, or structure and are not allowed in designated natural areas, natural forest areas, natural area preserves, or heritage areas. Virtual caches are permitted in public areas of park buildings, facilities or structures, when such areas are open to the public, as long as use of the GPS unit does not disturb other park visitors or disrupt state park programs. Outdoor virtual caches are only permitted in natural areas, natural forest areas, natural area preserves or heritage areas to the extent that such areas are open to public access.”

 

Rational - The last line appears to restrict virtual cache locations to a limited set of outdoor locations. However, physical caches are not similarly limited. You would think virtual cache locations would be less restrictive.

 

Suggestion - Strike the last sentence.

I think there was a mis-wording here. I think it should be "Outdoor virtual caches only, are permitted..."

 

Section III.B.2 - “Caches may not be buried or attached to trees, nor may any structure, vegetation or stones be disturbed when placing a cache.”

 

Rational - It is very hard not to disturb vegetation or stones when placing a cache unless you want it to be in plain view.

 

Suggestion - Change the word “disturbed” to “damaged”.

Good thought/suggestion.

 

Section III.C - “Metal detectors may not be used in cache searches.”

 

Rational - This is just silly. Section 3.B.2 and 3 already say the cache can’t be buried or placed underground. Are they worried about someone sweeping a detector through vegetation would damage it? Besides I doubt a cache searcher would ever read this directive anyway.

 

Suggestion - Strike section III.C.

I think this was included because WAC 352-32-235 limits where metal detectors can be used in state parks, and those places my not always overlap where caches can go. Also remember these rules cover more than GC caches.

 

Section IV.B.1-4 - “Notice on geocache web site must state the following information:

1. The geocache may be placed on Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission managed property only by written permission from the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission.

2. The following items shall not be placed in the geocache: Food items; illegal substances; medications; personal hygiene products, pornographic materials; inappropriate, offensive, or hazardous materials or weapons of any type. Log books are required for each cache and are to be provided by the owner of the cache.

3. It is the visitor’s responsibility to orient themselves with policies and rules pertaining to State Parks areas.

4. Report any incident, problem, or violation to State Parks staff.”

 

Rational - If this is text for a web page word it so it can be cut/pasted. Add URL and contact information. There is no value added by telling a searcher that log books are provided by the cache owner.

 

Suggestions - Reword as “1. Placement on Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission managed property authorized by permit number: ________.”

 

Strike the logbook line in section 2. Have parks department provide a URL to rules in section 3. Have parks department provide contact information (URL or phone numbers) in section 4.

I believe the WSGA site has boilerplate html for adding to cache pages. BTW, I not sure the permits will be numbered, I asked/suggested this at the meeting and they didn't seem to warm to the idea. I'm not sure how they are going to track the permits.

[+The Jester]

We don't need rules to tell the truth and we don't need these new rules to hide a cache.

Re-read WAC 352-32-235 quoted above. Without rules allowing it, it will/can be banned. Which is your choice? Rules or no caches in state parks?

[+hydnsek]

Thanks to MarcusArelius, The Jester, and Lightning Jeff for the input they've provided for revisions to the directive. Really good, constructive suggestions.

 

Because I'm on deadline for a work project, it will be a couple weeks before I can do an edited version for y'all to see. Also was wondering if Janet has an idea on a date for when we might present this to the parks folks, or what the next steps would be.

[Team Misguided]

I let James Horan know that we were working on a revision. I'll see if we can get a time frame, I know that he was checking into when it might come up for vote or committee or what ever it is that is the next step to change it from a directive to a WAC. It sounded like it would be soon but he wasn't sure how soon.

 

I also need to send another email asking about the four regional offices to make sure we get that contact info posted somewhere.

[MarcusArelius]

I let James Horan know that we were working on a revision. I'll see if we can get a time frame, I know that he was checking into when it might come up for vote or committee or what ever it is that is the next step to change it from a directive to a WAC. It sounded like it would be soon but he wasn't sure how soon.

 

I also need to send another email asking about the four regional offices to make sure we get that contact info posted somewhere.

 

I think the contact information should be included in the directive. At this point I wouldn't even know where to start. Maybe I'm just lazy but I'm not going to spend a lot of time searching for contact info (even with good ol' Google).

 

To address Jester's reply about the metal detector. There are a lot of things that are prohibited that are not germain to geocaching or this specific directive. Let's not list them all in the geocaching directive. For example, "it is prohibited to coat the cache container with DDT" or "it is prohibited to cut down trees while searching for a cache".

 

This should be a cache placement directive, not cache search rules.

Edited October 5, 2006 by MarcusArelius

[+The Jester]

To address Jester's reply about the metal detector. There are a lot of things that are prohibited that are not germain to geocaching or this specific directive. Let's not list them all in the geocaching directive. For example, "it is prohibited to coat the cache container with DDT" or "it is prohibited to cut down trees while searching for a cache".

 

This should be a cache placement directive, not cache search rules.

Good point. I wasn't saying if it should or shouldn't be included, just why they did.

[+The Jester]

A couple of other suggestions for changes:

 

Section I. B. and Section III. B. are almost the same. They should be combined, probably in III. B.

 

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

 

Section IV. A. The geocache must be checked by the geocache owner at least every 90 days. Proof of the check ...

 

Change this to:

 

Section IV. A. The geocache must be physically checked by the owner at least once a year. More fequent visits by the owner may be required by the Park Manager or designee at the time the permit is approved or renewed. Proof of the check ...

 

This gets around the 'some caches aren't available year round' problem, and still allows the Park controll over the check-ups. Primarily I see this used in the first year to more closely monitor the affect a cache has, but then less frequently as the number of visits tends to diminish as the cache is around longer and longer. We geocachers can monitor the health of the cache by the logged visits, but letterboxes (which fall under these regs) don't all have online logging.

[+Criminal]

A couple of other suggestions for changes:

 

Section I. B. and Section III. B. are almost the same. They should be combined, probably in III. B.

 

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

 

Section IV. A. The geocache must be checked by the geocache owner at least every 90 days. Proof of the check ...

 

Change this to:

 

Section IV. A. The geocache must be physically checked by the owner at least once a year. More fequent visits by the owner may be required by the Park Manager or designee at the time the permit is approved or renewed. Proof of the check ...

 

This gets around the 'some caches aren't available year round' problem, and still allows the Park controll over the check-ups. Primarily I see this used in the first year to more closely monitor the affect a cache has, but then less frequently as the number of visits tends to diminish as the cache is around longer and longer. We geocachers can monitor the health of the cache by the logged visits, but letterboxes (which fall under these regs) don't all have online logging.

 

Why do we want to agree to any of that? It's a geocache, not fruit, it isn't going to just spoil.

 

Change that part to:

 

The geocache should be checked periodically by the cache owner as needed.

[+Renegade Knight]

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.

 

The only reason it's cumbersome is because they made it that way. If the state parks ignored geocaches or met once a month at a breakfast with some local foks they would be just as well served as all the paperwork. More so if they met for breakfast or beer actually. Better still get the parks folks into caching. Then they would just know.

[+Renegade Knight]

....Again:

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.

 

You can hem and haw and throw insults at me all you like, you cannot get past the very plain language in the (proposed) contract. So far, none of your arguments have held water. I’m reminded of the Pied Piper, and like rats, we’re all supposed to fall in line behind these fabulous new rules.

 

If I’m wrong on any of my points, please point them out, I’d like nothing more than to see the State Parks open to us. But if what you’ve said so far is the best you can do to support your position, it sounds like the parks are more bother and risk than they’re worth for me and many others.

 

Well hell, that's a load of crap. If a dirt biker tears up my cache and the park ranger assumes it's a finder, I sure don't want to be paying. If the finders have a string of morons, or a cache maggot attacks just to make me pay a fee...these are all beyond my control. I won't be responsible for what's beyond my control. Assuming the liability for others actions is a deal breaker. This is why we have park managers to assume and manage the risk that happen when you create a park.

[+Renegade Knight]

....I'm just using your example. If some takes a legally placed geocache and does damage elsewhere in the park, it's the same as if some takes your tire iron from a legally parked car and does damage elsewhere in the park. It's the person doing the damage, not the box. The "cache" is more than just the box, it is the site it is located at. Consider virtual caches (still called a "cache"), if the sign I used as a virtual is torn out and thrown thru said window, am I liable for damages? My "cache" did the damage. Your examples are hypothetical and thereby nonsense. How about suggesting valid changes, not just complaining about what you don't like.

 

I do find it amusing that you are arguing so strongly against rules, with all the threads you've started about others not following the rules about logging and such.

 

The thing about rules it's that it's what they say and not the intent. Thus your car won't get you in trouble if someone throws it throw a window unless you are in it and driving at the time. However the same issue for your cache and you are liable regardless of who threw the cache. By the rules if someone steals some spray paint (not that it's a good item) and vandalizes or someone takes a dump in the cache and the park calls in a contamination crew to deal with the fecal matter along with massive testing to ensure that zone is ecoli safe, you are financially responsible. It's an open ended responsibility for people who are beyond your control. The rule can be used to bankrupt any cacher the park so chooses to make an example of.

[+Criminal]

OK, you asked, so here’s my re-write of the proposed rules. Note that my version is significantly less costly and bureaucratically cumbersome for the Parks and staff, as well as less invasive to geocachers.

 

I. CACHE PLACEMENT GUIDELINES

 

Delete all permit requirements

 

II. CACHE CONTAINERS AND CONTENTS

 

A. Cache containers must be non-breakable, have some form of latch or other closing mechanism to prohibit exposure of the contents to wildlife, and must be approved by the Park Manager or designee.

 

B. Caches may not contain inappropriate or dangerous items. Such items include, but are not limited to, food items; illegal substances; medications; personal/hygiene products; pornographic materials; or weapons of any type. Log books are required for each cache and are to be provided by the owner of the cache.

 

C. All caches are subject to initial inspection prior to placement and subsequent random inspections by State Parks’ staff, who have the authority to immediately remove any item held in a cache deemed unacceptable or that is in violation of these guidelines.

 

III. CACHE LOCATIONS

 

A. Physical caches are prohibited inside any State Parks’ building, facility, or structure and are not allowed in designated natural areas*, natural forest areas*, natural area preserves*, or heritage areas*. *Define these Virtual caches are permitted in public areas of park buildings, facilities or structures, when such areas are open to the public, as long as use of the GPS unit does not disturb other park visitors or disrupt state park programs. Outdoor virtual caches are only permitted in natural areas, natural forest areas, natural area preserves or heritage areas to the extent that such areas are open to public access.

 

B. The location of a cache must be pre-approved by the Park Manager or designee, the Regional Programs and Services Manager, and the Regional Stewardship Manager in accordance with the following conditions:

 

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

 

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

 

3. Caches may not be placed in dangerous locations, biologically or culturally sensitive areas, inappropriate or protected areas and habitats, on cliffs, or underground or underwater.

 

4. Caches may not unduly conflict with visitor uses or experiences in the park.

 

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

 

IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR GEOCACHE OWNERS

 

Once approved for placement, the geocache owner must meet the following requirements. Violation of any of these requirements will result in immediate removal of geocache by State Parks’ personnel.

A. The geocache must be checked by the geocache owner at least every 90 days. Proof of the check will be by e-mail, letter, or personal communication by the owner with the Park Manager or designee, and the owner’s entry in the cache log book indicating the date of inspection. The cache owner may consider the cache ‘checked’ if it is found and no adverse notes or comments are logged by another player.

 

B. Notice on geocache web site must state the following information:

 

1. The geocache may be placed on Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission managed property only by written permission from the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission.

 

2. The following items shall not be placed in the geocache: Food items; illegal substances; medications; personal hygiene products, pornographic materials; inappropriate, offensive, or hazardous materials or weapons of any type. Log books are required for each cache and are to be provided by the owner of the cache.

 

3. It is the visitor’s responsibility to orient themselves with policies and rules pertaining to State Parks areas.

 

4. Report any incident, problem, or violation to State Parks staff.

 

V. COMPLIANCE

 

Failure to comply with these guidelines will result in the revocation of the Geocache Placement Permit authorization. Continued failure to comply with these guidelines will prevent the issuance of any further geocaching permits authorization 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.

 

VI. ATTACHMENT

Not Needed

Edited October 6, 2006 by Criminal

[+bumblingbs]

I complied before there was a directive to comply with. And there was paperwork, there was also a $10 fee.

 

I did it because I thought I was building good will for the future. So much for good will. The administrater at my state park was one of the most vocal against geocaching. There are two caches in the park now, and I'm sure he doesn't know where one of them is. It's a multi, and they only have a couple of GPS units for the Olympic peninsula. The other one, which has been there for years, he is threatening to move because "it is killing a tree".

 

I produced an arborist and asked TPTB if I could take him there. They asked me not to, said it was too confrontational. I figured if the cache were truly killing a tree, it ought to be moved, and if wasn't killing a tree, I'd have a tree expert to say so.

 

Now its apparently too late to save this park for caching. It is a beautiful park and I don't want to give it up.

I will say about the $10 fee that I used more than $10 worth of their time talking. But my geocache, which I later archived- I'm 99% sure they had no idea where it was. So much for protecting the park and the public from me. If anyone from that park can walk me out and show me where my cache was, I'll pay 'em double.

 

I have asked Jeremy, and I will ask anyone from TPTB to join me when I go talk with them again. I'm figuring that the state park is there for me, and that this is pretty ridiculous.

Edited October 9, 2006 by bumblingbs

[+bumblingbs]

Criminal, you go guy. I lke your style.

[+bumblingbs]

You know, what bothers me is that my town used to seem to be effective at community action, and I'm not sure that's true any more. This state park in question is apparently going to raze a few historic buildings and put in a up-scale hotel to make it attractive to conventioneers.

 

The property the boy scout house was on was purchased. The boy scout house is gone, the property was carved up into expensive homesites.

 

I went walking in a local wood, thinking about hiding a local cache, and met the neighbors. They were getting ready for the bulldozers. The same boyscout developer guy had bought the wood and was ready to put in his signature cookie cutter houses.

 

Pretty wood, goodbye.

 

I keep seeing one loss after another, and want to somehow help to make it stop. I am not engaging, not attractive, not a good speaker.....I could use some GC help for the area they know, but I'm going in regardless.

Edited October 9, 2006 by bumblingbs

[+EraSeek]

This is why I pulled my Reverse World cache long ago. I am very disappointed with the State Park system! It began when they extorted an exorbiant fee from the public for day use of their own parks. And yes, as the above post points out, I too am frieghtened by the level of mindless development these days! It's killing our quality of life and will eventually choke us all.

 

....Again:

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.

 

You can hem and haw and throw insults at me all you like, you cannot get past the very plain language in the (proposed) contract. So far, none of your arguments have held water. I’m reminded of the Pied Piper, and like rats, we’re all supposed to fall in line behind these fabulous new rules.

 

If I’m wrong on any of my points, please point them out, I’d like nothing more than to see the State Parks open to us. But if what you’ve said so far is the best you can do to support your position, it sounds like the parks are more bother and risk than they’re worth for me and many others.

 

Well hell, that's a load of crap. If a dirt biker tears up my cache and the park ranger assumes it's a finder, I sure don't want to be paying. If the finders have a string of morons, or a cache maggot attacks just to make me pay a fee...these are all beyond my control. I won't be responsible for what's beyond my control. Assuming the liability for others actions is a deal breaker. This is why we have park managers to assume and manage the risk that happen when you create a park.

[+bumblingbs]

......There was a lovely little hill in my town called Madrona Hill. They are putting up office buildings there now. Of course, to do so, they had to remove a good chunk of the hill and chop down most of the Madrona trees. When I drive by and see the sign advertising Madrona Hill I want to cry.

 

Those who care are losing bit by bit by bit, and it looks as if we are losing Fort Worden too. I do not know political actvism, but I've seen enough. Is there anyone who will help me, or shall I go with my first inclination, which is to show up at Fort Worden with a group of children?

[Team Misguided]

Let's keep this back on the original topic of the guidelines for Washington State Parks and suggestions for improving them.

[+bumblingbs]

Have e-mailed Team Misguided privately. Have always appreciated her work.

[+Lightning Jeff]

Let's keep this back on the original topic of the guidelines for Washington State Parks and suggestions for improving them.

Sure. However, it's perfectly natural that discussion of this directive would lead directly into a discussion of some Washington State Parks administrators'/staff's arrogance. If it weren't for so many other examples, I'd call the directive "Exhibit A." As it is, it bugs the heck out of me that we give park managers and employees so much deference:

 

I will say about the $10 fee that I used more than $10 worth of their time talking.

It's not "their" time. It's yours. You already paid for it and shouldn't have had to pay again - and certainly shouldn't feel bad about using it.

 

The Chief Ranger at Pearrygin State Park asked us to hide some in his park a year ago.

It's not "his" park. It's yours. He just works there. (Yes, I know, this is just shorthand. I still don't like the connotation.)

 

I don't mean to be dismissive of the work parks staff do. However, we should resist at every turn the mentality of the administrator who acts like he owns the place, lest we get locked out of them all because, why, that's so much easier for them. Sadly, the cynic in me suspects we already missed that opportunity in this case, and "pride of authorship" (as sorely misplaced as it may be) will win the day with this directive.

[+bumblingbs]

Thank you. Some people see things so much more clearly than I do. Which is why I am asking for help here.

[+Right Wing Wacko]

While filling out the permit for one of the caches I have in a state park, I noticed one other thing that I would like to see changed.

 

It has become common practice, especially for those special caches, to have a cache be adopted by another user should the original owner no longer be able to maintain it.

 

However; in the language of the permit itself (not in the guidlines):

 

3. Any rights granted or implied under this permit are non-exclusive and State Parks reserves the right to issue other permits simultaneously with this permit on any lands under control of State Parks. However, this permit may not be assigned by the Permittee to any other party.

 

I would like to see some way for the cache owner to be able to assign the cache to someone else

 

EDIT: to add

 

The permit process was pretty painless on the cache I have at Kanasket Palmer. Talked to the Ranger, spent about 5 minutes in the office and that was it.

Edited October 11, 2006 by Right Wing Wacko

[Syn]

Wow I am glad I dont live in Washington. My recommendation is to yank all your caches you have placed on state land and thumb your nose at them. Stick to federal land.

 

I am reading about stump damage....how is a stump that is rotting out in the woods and getting eaten up by termites being damaged?

 

I find it utterly ridiculous, absurd, shocking, and downright discpicable (sp) that they would require permission for geocaches and then charge for it on top of that. After reading how a geocacher would be liable for whatever happens to the area after the cache is placed made my jaw hit the floor.

 

With all the ambulance chaser attorneys out there and all the free payday mcdonalds coffee spilling people.....I would never place a cache in Washington or ever consider doing it again.

 

I think the rangers are forgetting who they serve...the public...the entire public, and geocachers are more than just geocachers in the state parks...they are hikers, atv'ers, bikers, etc etc and whatever.

 

I also liked some of the writing....they reserve the right to ban placement of caches if their resources dont allow it......their resources dont allow them to do allot of things........Like they have the funds available to have someone go around checking caches all year long all over the state. Shouldnt they be doing other things with their time..or do they just sit around all day wishing they had more work on their plates.

 

This is just an attempt to distance themselves from any liability ......it is barely falling short of requiring anyone that steps foot on state land to sign a waiver which is what they should do to apply this ridiculous rules across the board.

 

Seems to me from what I have read that the organization of geocachers in washington pushed for this...should have just left it alone.

 

When you go and seek approval from the state or fed's for something that you dont need it for in the first place (since it is public lands and can be used for public use)..then this would have never even have come up.

 

They have always had a dont ask dont tell policy, dont bother me and we wont bother you...

 

afraid you have opened up a can of worms that can never be closed.

 

So while your all pulling your caches because you dont want to be sued (which is the reason a private property owner puts up a fence) .....remember....WSGA opened pandora's box for you.

 

Sure I will get flamed big time over this...but oh well.....I never was known for not pulling punches.

[+Prying Pandora]

Sure I will get flamed big time over this...but oh well.....I never was known for not pulling punches.

 

Interesting choice of words, because your entire post looks like a big kneejerk flame of the WSGA to me. The dialogue between the WSGA and WA State Park system began to stop them from following the lead of the National Park system and some other state park systems that ban geocaching altogether.

 

The directive is a work in progress and the WA state park system is working cooperatively with us to make the process as simple as they can for us. Cachers who think it's OK to tear apart a stump because it's being eaten up by termites anyway are a legitimate concern for park managers and for responsible geocachers as well.

 

Perhaps you should do your homework before throwing punches?

[+Criminal]

I am reading about stump damage....how is a stump that is rotting out in the woods and getting eaten up by termites being damaged?

Cachers who think it's OK to tear apart a stump because it's being eaten up by termites anyway are a legitimate concern for park managers and for responsible geocachers as well.

 

I think these are both examples of hyperbole. The parks people don’t know it was geocachers that tore up any stumps, we usually won’t even look for a cache when there’s an audience, so they don’t have any (even circumstantial) evidence it was. Geocachers don’t destroy the cache hiding spot looking for it, that would just make it harder for them to re-hide it afterward.

 

I have a cache in the National Forest along a trail where dirt bikes are allowed. When the trail was blocked by several deadfalls, the dirt bikers carved big ruts in the forest floor driving around them.

 

My point all along has been that we shouldn’t be so quick to accept the new rules. The parks people will give us permits because, as a group, we’re easy to pin down and apparently quite willing to accept liability.

 

I don’t think any of us are against reasonable rules as a fall-back for the few times when common sense fails, but I will never accept restrictive rules, permits, and liability while the parks turn a blind eye to all the other, more destructive, users. If they don’t want us, we pull our caches and start writing letters. They would have a hard time justifying a ban on geocaches (a really silly and harmless game if you think about it) to their superiors given our impact verses the impact of almost every other user.

[Syn]

I am reading about stump damage....how is a stump that is rotting out in the woods and getting eaten up by termites being damaged?

Cachers who think it's OK to tear apart a stump because it's being eaten up by termites anyway are a legitimate concern for park managers and for responsible geocachers as well.

 

I think these are both examples of hyperbole. The parks people don’t know it was geocachers that tore up any stumps, we usually won’t even look for a cache when there’s an audience, so they don’t have any (even circumstantial) evidence it was. Geocachers don’t destroy the cache hiding spot looking for it, that would just make it harder for them to re-hide it afterward.

 

I have a cache in the National Forest along a trail where dirt bikes are allowed. When the trail was blocked by several deadfalls, the dirt bikers carved big ruts in the forest floor driving around them.

 

My point all along has been that we shouldn’t be so quick to accept the new rules. The parks people will give us permits because, as a group, we’re easy to pin down and apparently quite willing to accept liability.

 

I don’t think any of us are against reasonable rules as a fall-back for the few times when common sense fails, but I will never accept restrictive rules, permits, and liability while the parks turn a blind eye to all the other, more destructive, users. If they don’t want us, we pull our caches and start writing letters. They would have a hard time justifying a ban on geocaches (a really silly and harmless game if you think about it) to their superiors given our impact verses the impact of almost every other user.

 

I have hunted allot of caches...more than my account says I have (big mess awhile back where allot of my finds were lost by the system, and I dont even log them all anyway).

 

I have searched thousands of stumps and have never tore one apart. It is pretty easy to look in a stump without ripping it apart and I seriously doubt any cachers go around breaking stumps apart to find a geocache. You look inside, if there is something covering something then lift it up..poke with a stick.

 

You know I think it is just ridiculous that we are supposed to go out with the kid gloves on into the forests.

 

They are forests...I have seen more damage done by non geocachers..dumping, spiking trees, cutting down trees, 4x4'ing......even animals themselves make trails.

 

Geocachers for the most part are responsible people that hike in, find something, pick up some trash from other people that cause more damage to the woods, and then leave. Are they going to reimburse us for our time and liability of picking up the trash of others?

 

I just dont understand, maybe I spend too much time in the woods and see places where they have grown back over trails etc......I have never negatively iimpacted the woods....things grow over, grow back, restore themselves.

 

ALl I know is Lewis and Clark are problably rolling over in their graves over this fee to do what we do in the woods thing.....

 

This is the same government that allows industries to pollute, and dadgum up the rivers and wreak havoc on the environment.....WHich coincidentally, Lewis and CLark are problably still rolling in their graves over Memaloose Island.

[Syn]

Sure I will get flamed big time over this...but oh well.....I never was known for not pulling punches.

 

Interesting choice of words, because your entire post looks like a big kneejerk flame of the WSGA to me. The dialogue between the WSGA and WA State Park system began to stop them from following the lead of the National Park system and some other state park systems that ban geocaching altogether.

 

The entire post...no I dont get to the WSGA until the second half of the post...the first post is criticizing the decision of a government agency to try and limit people's activities on Public and People owned land. It's obviously apparent that the entire thing was created by an attorney for them and has so much red tape attached to it....it is not even worth placing a cache there. You wait and see...there will be stories of people that have to pay restoration costs and it will ruin them financially.

 

 

The directive is a work in progress and the WA state park system is working cooperatively with us to make the process as simple as they can for us. Cachers who think it's OK to tear apart a stump because it's being eaten up by termites anyway are a legitimate concern for park managers and for responsible geocachers as well.

 

The directive is a bunch of BS. The parks are owned by the public and their salaries are paid by the public. I could see justifying a directive for permission for things that are done in the woods for obvious threats to the woods such as 4x4'ing, but for geocachers....OH no...we walk in find something and walk out.

 

Perhaps you should do your homework before throwing punches?

 

Seems to me like I dont need to do my homework since my entire premise is based upon my feelings that the lands are owned by the public and that geogachers dont negatively impact the environment as a whole.

 

We already have enough rules and regulations to go by from jeremy...last thing we need is more layers of beauracracy (sp) on top of that.

 

I am wondering if the people at day use or parking permit areas have to apply for an application to get one and sign a ton of forms in triplicate to assure the park service they will pay for any damages or liability before they are allowed to go into the woods.

 

*edit by moderator to fix broken quotes. They annoy me.*

Edited October 11, 2006 by Team Misguided

[+MissJenn]

Pennsylvania seems to have a reasonable set of guidelines.

Geocaching Guidelines

Maybe Keystone could give us some guidance.

I read that link and saw this:

 

"A cache may remain at the approved site for no more than three years at which time it must be removed, the site restored to its original condition, and the Park Manager / District Forester informed in writing of the removal. This will control cache abandonment and assist in preventing renegade trail development to the site."

 

I recently moved from PA to WA, and so I'd like to add my personal experience here. Maybe it can shed a slightly different perspective on the discussion. One of hindsight.

 

I have owned caches in PA State Parks, and complied with the PA guidelines. My experience was easy and painless. When the time came to adopt some of them out since I was moving away, it was also easy. In one case, a cache that had been there since March 2001 (way before the policy) had been adopted by me. Then I wanted someone else to adopt it. That was also easily granted permission.

 

I had initial angst and reservations before I actually did any of this. In the end, it turned out to be quite easy. Enjoyable, even. Those French Creek State Park people were always so nice to me!

 

The Pennsylvania DCNR (i.e. the State Park people) likes geocaching. They have even created their own version of the big green "This is a GeoCache" sticker, just because it was cheaper for them to do that rather than keep buying them from Groundspeak. They have found a way to welcome us into the parks. We (Pennsylvanians in general; I was not part of the initial group who crafted this policy) have found a way to geocache in the state parks.

 

I know that the letter of that PA policy gets ignored here and there by both the customers and the staff (I did not restore those sites to their exact original condition, for example), but the SPIRIT of the policy is in good health with the general community: again, with both the customers and the staff. The spirit, just in case anyone missed it, is that the parks want the geocahers to come and play safely and the geocachers want to go and play safely.

 

Yes, of course, specific examples can always be found to rebut anyone's point. In general, I'm quite happy with the way it has worked out in PA.

 

edit for spelling and clarity

Edited October 11, 2006 by MissJenn

[+TotemLake]

 

Seems to me like I dont need to do my homework since my entire premise is based upon my feelings that the lands are owned by the public and that geogachers dont negatively impact the environment as a whole.

 

You still need to do your homework. Part of the reason WSGA came about was to counter a certain political groundswell that began at a local park after a geocacher and ranger had personality conflicts.

 

As much as a permit system is distasteful, it would be even more distasteful to have the entire park system banning the sport because of an initial animosity between two individuals, one whom was in a position to start something against the sport, and one whom did nothing to be less antagonistic.

 

There's something else to be said about the permit system that everybody seems to be ignoring. Now you have leverage with the ranger of the park whom would otherwise not allow it based on personal opinion rather than official. The permit makes it so (s)he has to work with you as an accepted use of the park.

 

Edited to add...

We all know once the government gets involved, they don't like to let go usually over regulate. If the community is involved in the beginning, the impact can be far less damaging than without that involvement. This community got involved early enough there is a good working relationship with the club and the rangers across the state. There's nothing wrong with that.

Edited October 11, 2006 by TotemLake

[+Lightning Jeff]

There's something else to be said about the permit system that everybody seems to be ignoring. Now you have leverage with the ranger of the park whom would otherwise not allow it based on personal opinion rather than official. The permit makes it so (s)he has to work with you as an accepted use of the park.

Nothing in the Directive suggests that's true. The Directive plainly states that the park manager must approve the location of the cache. The Directive provides some guidelines for where caches cannot be placed, but nowhere grants anyone a right to place a cache in a state park even if they meet the intent of the guidelines. The park manager is not required to state reasons for denial. There is no appeal process. I have no doubt that if you attempt to appeal to a higher-up, you will get nowhere because in the public sector, upper-level administrators are extremely hesitant to second-guess and countermand the decisions of subordinate administrators. If a park manager determines that "his" entire park is just too sensitive for caches, anywhere, there will be no (legal) caches in that park.

 

Which raises an interesting question about the history and future of this activity: Has it ever been legal? Is it legal for me to knowingly leave personal property in a public park, just because I, subjectively, think I have a good reason for doing so? Is that littering? (It's not clear to me, from the state law definition of that term, but I think part of my sense of "secrecy" when I'm out caching stems from a nagging feeling that maybe this isn't quite legal.) In five years, will those of us still caching all look like this: ?

[+runhills]

There's something else to be said about the permit system that everybody seems to be ignoring. Now you have leverage with the ranger of the park whom would otherwise not allow it based on personal opinion rather than official. The permit makes it so (s)he has to work with you as an accepted use of the park.

Nothing in the Directive suggests that's true. The Directive plainly states that the park manager must approve the location of the cache. The Directive provides some guidelines for where caches cannot be placed, but nowhere grants anyone a right to place a cache in a state park even if they meet the intent of the guidelines. The park manager is not required to state reasons for denial. There is no appeal process. I have no doubt that if you attempt to appeal to a higher-up, you will get nowhere because in the public sector, upper-level administrators are extremely hesitant to second-guess and countermand the decisions of subordinate administrators. If a park manager determines that "his" entire park is just too sensitive for caches, anywhere, there will be no (legal) caches in that park.

 

Which raises an interesting question about the history and future of this activity: Has it ever been legal? Is it legal for me to knowingly leave personal property in a public park, just because I, subjectively, think I have a good reason for doing so? Is that littering? (It's not clear to me, from the state law definition of that term, but I think part of my sense of "secrecy" when I'm out caching stems from a nagging feeling that maybe this isn't quite legal.) In five years, will those of us still caching all look like this: ?

 

EVERYTHING is legal till you get caught...........or ask permission

[+Lightning Jeff]

While filling out the permit for one of the caches I have in a state park, I noticed one other thing that I would like to see changed.

. . .

I would like to see some way for the cache owner to be able to assign the cache to someone else

 

EDIT: to add

 

The permit process was pretty painless on the cache I have at Kanasket Palmer. Talked to the Ranger, spent about 5 minutes in the office and that was it.

Being able to assign a permit is pretty unlikely, and to me, an extremely low priority given all of the other problems with this Directive. But my question is, did the ranger at Kanaskat-Palmer previously visit your cache? If not, to my mind, the clear wording of the Directive has not been complied with (e.g., "the exact location of the cache must be pre-approved by the Park Manager;" "All caches are subject to initial inspection prior to placement and subsequent random inspections at any time by State Parks’ staff;" etc.). I'm not talking about the "prior to placement" business - I assume existing caches can be brought into compliance, though the Directive isn't clear on that - but rather the suggestion here that the park manager or other staff will need to view the cache, its contents, and actual hiding place prior to approval.

 

(I hope we - and especially WSGA - are not agreeing to/accepting a Directive that requires "A, B, C, D, and E" just because we suspect - or find - that most park managers will only require "A".)

[+Lightning Jeff]

EVERYTHING is legal till you get caught...........or ask permission

So maybe we should just get used to asking for forgiveness (when necessary)!

[+AndrewRJ]

While filling out the permit for one of the caches I have in a state park, I noticed one other thing that I would like to see changed.

. . .

I would like to see some way for the cache owner to be able to assign the cache to someone else

 

EDIT: to add

 

The permit process was pretty painless on the cache I have at Kanasket Palmer. Talked to the Ranger, spent about 5 minutes in the office and that was it.

Being able to assign a permit is pretty unlikely, and to me, an extremely low priority given all of the other problems with this Directive. But my question is, did the ranger at Kanaskat-Palmer previously visit your cache? If not, to my mind, the clear wording of the Directive has not been complied with (e.g., "the exact location of the cache must be pre-approved by the Park Manager;" "All caches are subject to initial inspection prior to placement and subsequent random inspections at any time by State Parks’ staff;" etc.). I'm not talking about the "prior to placement" business - I assume existing caches can be brought into compliance, though the Directive isn't clear on that - but rather the suggestion here that the park manager or other staff will need to view the cache, its contents, and actual hiding place prior to approval.

 

(I hope we - and especially WSGA - are not agreeing to/accepting a Directive that requires "A, B, C, D, and E" just because we suspect - or find - that most park managers will only require "A".)

Ok not a lawyer but here is my interperatation. It says "the exact location of the cache must be pre-approved by the Park Manager;" How exact? exact is a subjective term. this could mean that I say by the river not in the west half of the park. In RWW case the ranger could have assumed that was close enough for him. Its vague but I don't see anyone asking for anything better then seeing the site or asking for coordinates.

 

Then it says "All caches are subject to initial inspection prior to placement and subsequent random inspections at any time by State Parks’ staff;" now according to the definition I looked up it looks like that the cache is required to be inspected, but if the permit was approved without an inspection then the ranger made a decision that it wasn't neccessary.

[+The Jester]

It seems to me that some of you are arguing from a misconception. The parks aren't owned by the "public", they are owned by the state, which also pays the salaries of the park employees. Yes, we all pay taxes that go into the fund that is used. That doesn't mean they work for you in any way, shape or form. They are responsible to the Park Commission, which was is a legal entity set up by the Legislature. Take a look at RCW 79A.05.030:

The commission shall:

 

(1) Have the care, charge, control, and supervision of all parks and parkways acquired or set aside by the state for park or parkway purposes.

 

(2) Adopt policies, and adopt, issue, and enforce rules pertaining to the use, care, and administration of state parks and parkways. The commission shall cause a copy of the rules to be kept posted in a conspicuous place in every state park to which they are applicable, but failure to post or keep any rule posted shall be no defense to any prosecution for the violation thereof.

 

(3) Permit the use of state parks and parkways by the public under such rules as shall be adopted.

 

Does anyone see anything in there that let's us do whatever our hearts desire? Nope, we have to follow the rules and regulations that they adopt. Wether real damage, or just perceived, they need to have some control and a way to allow us to play our game:

WAC 352-32-090 "Playing games and/or engaging in activities in a manner and/or location which subjects people or personal property, the park resource or facilities to risk of injury or damage shall be prohibited."

 

Face facts, people. Some rules are going to be adopted - no matter how much grousing, bitching, whinning, complaining, moaning, groaning or gnashing of teeth you do. Yes, the directive isn't perfect, we need to work with the Parks, educating them about our game and have some input on changes. If we just dig our heels in, we'll be stuck with it as written.

 

BTW, Syn, there are no fees associtated with these rules. In one park there was, for a time, a special use fee charged, but that doesn't apply anymore.

[+runhills]

Without "grousing, bitching, whinning, complaining, moaning, groaning or gnashing of teeth" I figure these great rules will also be applied sooner or later by other states, counties and cities.

[+Right Wing Wacko]

While filling out the permit for one of the caches I have in a state park, I noticed one other thing that I would like to see changed.

. . .

I would like to see some way for the cache owner to be able to assign the cache to someone else

 

EDIT: to add

 

The permit process was pretty painless on the cache I have at Kanasket Palmer. Talked to the Ranger, spent about 5 minutes in the office and that was it.

Being able to assign a permit is pretty unlikely, and to me, an extremely low priority given all of the other problems with this Directive. But my question is, did the ranger at Kanaskat-Palmer previously visit your cache? If not, to my mind, the clear wording of the Directive has not been complied with (e.g., "the exact location of the cache must be pre-approved by the Park Manager;" "All caches are subject to initial inspection prior to placement and subsequent random inspections at any time by State Parks’ staff;" etc.). I'm not talking about the "prior to placement" business - I assume existing caches can be brought into compliance, though the Directive isn't clear on that - but rather the suggestion here that the park manager or other staff will need to view the cache, its contents, and actual hiding place prior to approval.

 

(I hope we - and especially WSGA - are not agreeing to/accepting a Directive that requires "A, B, C, D, and E" just because we suspect - or find - that most park managers will only require "A".)

 

In my case, we already had verbal permission two years ago when the cache was placed. Even at that time, all they seemed to want was my verbal description of the location.

[+Lightning Jeff]

(I hope we - and especially WSGA - are not agreeing to/accepting a Directive that requires "A, B, C, D, and E" just because we suspect - or find - that most park managers will only require "A".)

Ok not a lawyer but here is my interperatation. It says "the exact location of the cache must be pre-approved by the Park Manager;" How exact? exact is a subjective term. this could mean that I say by the river not in the west half of the park. In RWW case the ranger could have assumed that was close enough for him. Its vague but I don't see anyone asking for anything better then seeing the site or asking for coordinates.

 

Then it says "All caches are subject to initial inspection prior to placement and subsequent random inspections at any time by State Parks’ staff;" now according to the definition I looked up it looks like that the cache is required to be inspected, but if the permit was approved without an inspection then the ranger made a decision that it wasn't neccessary.

RWW:

In my case, we already had verbal permission two years ago when the cache was placed. Even at that time, all they seemed to want was my verbal description of the location.

 

Precisely what I'm talking about above - we seem to be saying "look how easy it is to comply" when the example is one of the park manager not enforcing the actual Directive. I don't think "exact" is subjective; I think it means showing the manager where the box will be (e.g., in this stump; under this log). If they had meant something less, they would have said "provide coordinates" or "describe the general location." They used the word "exact" for a reason. It bugs me that we're apparently already to the point of saying, "Sure, the Directive is onerous, but it looks like it's not really being enforced." That may be true, until it isn't. To my mind, the policy ought to be one that makes sense in the real world and can be and is complied with by its terms.

[+TotemLake]

That may be true, until it isn't. To my mind, the policy ought to be one that makes sense in the real world and can be and is complied with by its terms.

My advise to you, then, is to not have anything to do with the government...period. It's all onerous and it never makes sense no matter how they go about what they do.

[+Lightning Jeff]

That may be true, until it isn't. To my mind, the policy ought to be one that makes sense in the real world and can be and is complied with by its terms.

My advise to you, then, is to not have anything to do with the government...period. It's all onerous and it never makes sense no matter how they go about what they do.

I understand that's probably just hyperbole, but I gotta respond. All of my clients are government entities. Among many other things, I draft city ordinances, school district board policies, implementing procedures, contracts, etc. My clients never adopt something with the intention of not implementing it. Agencies that are well-advised and well-run are able to adopt policies and procedures that make sense, implement them, and accomplish their purpose without going off the deep end. Not saying that applies to State Parks, but my point is we shouldn't blithely accept the current mess just because we don't think it will really be enforced as written.

[+TotemLake]

Yes it was hyperbole... sort of.

 

However, you raised the very thing the rangers gave us... the invite to help rewrite. Two pages of this and we're right at the beginning. This conversation has come full circle.

 

Post 8:

they WANT to make this work, and have encouraged us to submit recommended changes to the guidelines now that they understand our concerns better.

[+Criminal]

Yes it was hyperbole... sort of.

 

However, you raised the very thing the rangers gave us... the invite to help rewrite. Two pages of this and we're right at the beginning. This conversation has come full circle.

 

Post 8:

they WANT to make this work, and have encouraged us to submit recommended changes to the guidelines now that they understand our concerns better.

I re-wrote it! Give them that!

[+Lightning Jeff]

Thanks to MarcusArelius, The Jester, and Lightning Jeff for the input they've provided for revisions to the directive. Really good, constructive suggestions.

 

Because I'm on deadline for a work project, it will be a couple weeks before I can do an edited version for y'all to see. Also was wondering if Janet has an idea on a date for when we might present this to the parks folks, or what the next steps would be.

Anything new on this front?