Washington State Parks

[Team Misguided]

I actually have a psudo deadline for you now. I'd like to see what you've come up with no later than Nov. 10th. That's cutting it close for the deadline they've given us to submit changes before their November meeting where the WAC would be up for a vote.

 

The good news is that, while I'm not comfortable sharing it with you just yet, it looks like the actual WAC will only be a few short paragraphs. What this means is that because the entire directive is not being codified as a WAC it will be easier for the parks department to make changes to the directive down the road. The changes we are suggesting should be something that they can look at and change down the road if we miss the initial deadline for changes before the WAC is finalized.

[+hydnsek]

I actually have a psudo deadline for you now. I'd like to see what you've come up with no later than Nov. 10th. That's cutting it close for the deadline they've given us to submit changes before their November meeting where the WAC would be up for a vote.

 

The good news is that, while I'm not comfortable sharing it with you just yet, it looks like the actual WAC will only be a few short paragraphs. What this means is that because the entire directive is not being codified as a WAC it will be easier for the parks department to make changes to the directive down the road. The changes we are suggesting should be something that they can look at and change down the road if we miss the initial deadline for changes before the WAC is finalized.

Good timing. I found and downloaded the Directive doc yesterday and will pull together the recommended edits in the next couple of days and then get it posted.

[+Renegade Knight]

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....

 

Not with federal money. The feds don't allow their funds to be used to destroy historial resources unless there are no other options. There are almost always other options.

[+Renegade Knight]

I borrowed Criminals version and simplified it. Key items. I removed the need for parks personnell to check each cache. If they know their park they can tell from a map the cache is good without a physical investigation. I removed the permit requirment. The goal is they know where the caches are. Permits require approval. That's work. A cache info sheet wtih contact info and the cache location is enough. I also took out needless repitiont. You don't need to specify whats allowed inside a cache twice. Once does it. A lot of the rules, repeated other rules and laws both state laws and park rules that have nothing whatsoever to do wtih caching and caches. You don't need to do that. Those rules arleady exist and everyone is already subject to them. Repeating them just adds too many words and confusion. The goal is cache specific rules.

 

I. CACHE PLACEMENT GUIDELINES

 

A. The cache location must be submitted to the park manager. (a simple contact info and cache location form or email will do the trick)

 

II. CACHE CONTAINERS AND CONTENTS

 

A. Cache containers may not be glass. (plastic, aluminum and other materials can break, it’s clear their intent is that the container itself doesn’t become a hazard and not so much the breakage).

 

B. Caches may not contain items that are illegal or which children are prohibited from possessing. Log books are required for each cache and are to be provided by the owner of the cache. (simpliefes providing a laundry list of banned items, the existing laws cover it).

 

C. All caches are subject to periodic 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 structures. (The park already has rules in place stating when and where people can be, it does not need to be re-iterated that people can only seek virtual caches or place them where people are allowed). Natural areas need better definition to be added to the first sentence)

 

B. The location of a cache is subject to review by park staff. (Park staff may very well know their parks enough to not need to review each and every cache, however they have the right to review them at any time.).

 

1. Caches may only be placed within 20’ of a defined trail where off trail hiking is not allowed.

 

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

 

3. Caches may not be placed in biologically or culturally sensitive areas, or protected areas and habitats. (This whole section should not be a rule as people should not be allowed in these areas, and if they are then it’s a suitable location for a cache placed with #2 above in mind. The park can’t tell Joe cacher where a culturally sensitive area is even if he askes. Thus the park shouldn’t make a rule and instead rely on it’s own discression in removing a cache from III B above, and from the closing rule about the park manager being able to close some or all parts of the park to caching).

 

4. Caches may not unduly conflict with visitor uses or experiences in the park. (This doesn’t really mean anything and should be removed. If a wedding party rents the park, then you may have a cacher unduly arrive to seek the cache. That’s about it).

 

C. Metal detectors may not be used in cache searches. (This should be stricken. Metal Detecting is likely already banned in the parks. It doesn’t need re-iterated for caching. However the use of a metal detector to find a cache is actually less intrusive than just looking. We can’t bury the cache per III B 2 above. The point of having this rule is to prevent digging…)

 

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 or their proxy at least once every 6 months for an urban park and once a year for non urban parks. Logs from cache finders indicating the continued well being of the cache are acceptable.

 

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. (They already have a policy on caches. This should be stricken. To see it implies that the cache itself is not in compliance with park policy. )

 

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. (This should be stricken. II B above covers it. This just repeats what was already said.

 

3. It is the visitor’s responsibility to orient themselves with policies and rules pertaining to State Parks areas. (This should be stricken. It’s already park policy that people orient themselves to park rules and regulations. The purpose of this policy is rules specific to caching. Repeating other rules leads to confusion, especially if a rule change doesn’t flow to all locations in all regulations where the rule is repeated)

 

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

 

V. COMPLIANCE

 

Caches that do not comply with these guidelines will result in the removal of the cache.

 

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. (This is the appropriate spot for the catch all. The park manager can’t tell Joe Cacher where certain archaeological or traditional cultural locations are and may need to invoke the blanket ban. This lets them do their job while keeping information that they are directed to keep secret, secret.)

[+Renegade Knight]

...my point is we shouldn't blithely accept the current mess just because we don't think it will really be enforced as written.

Well said. It will be enforced as written, and as intrepreted. KISS applies.

[+Lightning Jeff]

... while I'm not comfortable sharing it with you just yet ...

Why? It's a public record. I'm not sure I see a reason to play "hide the ball," especially given the shortness of time before the WAC is adopted.

 

By the way, I can't see from the State Register that the Parks & Recreation Commission has filed a notice of proposed rulemaking, or else I'd just get the draft language that way.

[+k7-wave]

C. Metal detectors may not be used in cache searches. (This should be stricken. Metal Detecting is likely already banned in the parks. It doesn’t need re-iterated for caching. However the use of a metal detector to find a cache is actually less intrusive than just looking. We can’t bury the cache per III B 2 above. The point of having this rule is to prevent digging…)

 

Actually, metal detectors may be used in almost all Washington State Parks. The detectorist need only register with the ranger upon arrival and comply with all posted regulations. If only hiding a cache in a State Park was as streamlined...

[+Renegade Knight]

C. Metal detectors may not be used in cache searches. (This should be stricken. Metal Detecting is likely already banned in the parks. It doesn’t need re-iterated for caching. However the use of a metal detector to find a cache is actually less intrusive than just looking. We can’t bury the cache per III B 2 above. The point of having this rule is to prevent digging…)

 

Actually, metal detectors may be used in almost all Washington State Parks. The detectorist need only register with the ranger upon arrival and comply with all posted regulations. If only hiding a cache in a State Park was as streamlined...

Good information, and a good point.

[+Right Wing Wacko]

Proposed Rule Making.

 

The following four provisions are what the State Parks will most likely be submitting as a proposed rulemaking. Notice that this is only a small portion of the original document. This does not mean that the rest of the document is not in effect, just that these four paragraphs are the only part that will be committed to state law.

 

WAC 352-32-237 Geocache.

 

(1) In order to place a cache on state parks’ property, an individual or organization must obtain a Geocache Placement Permit from state parks. Any cache located on state parks’ property that does not have a permit on file is subject to removal from its location, and after notification of the owner (if known), may be disposed of within 10 days.

 

(2) The geocache owner must check the geocache at least every 90 days unless an extension is approved by the Park Manager not to exceed 180 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.

 

(3) 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.

 

(4) Any violation of this section is an infraction under chapter 7.84 RCW.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Proposed Rule Making.

 

The following four provisions are what the State Parks will most likely be submitting as a proposed rulemaking. Notice that this is only a small portion of the original document. This does not mean that the rest of the document is not in effect, just that these four paragraphs are the only part that will be committed to state law.

 

WAC 352-32-237 Geocache.

 

(1) In order to place a cache on state parks’ property, an individual or organization must obtain a Geocache Placement Permit from state parks. Any cache located on state parks’ property that does not have a permit on file is subject to removal from its location, and after notification of the owner (if known), may be disposed of within 10 days.

 

(2) The geocache owner must check the geocache at least every 90 days unless an extension is approved by the Park Manager not to exceed 180 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.

 

(3) 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.

 

(4) Any violation of this section is an infraction under chapter 7.84 RCW.

 

1) So much for abandoned property laws. 10 whole days to retrieve your cache.

 

2) Back to the 90 days. And you need to sign the logbook as well.

 

3) Logbooks for virtuals too? A state law to make it illegal to put illegal substances in a cache?

 

All the other discussed rules will be at the discretion of the park manager?

 

It appears as though they just condensed what they had to begin with, and nothing else changed.

 

John

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Proposed Rule Making.

 

(3) 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.

 

(4) Any violation of this section is an infraction under chapter 7.84 RCW.

 

I just have to ask....

 

Does the prohibition on personal hygiene include biodegradable Kleenex and biodegradable potty paper?

 

Who will decide what is a "Weapon of any type"? Hopefully not the same people who decided what was forbidden on an airline!

 

What is considered inappropriate or offensive and by whom?

 

Glad we don't have to deal with the system in your state.

 

I believe that your state park system does NOT want Geocaching in Their parks.

 

Just what will the penalty be for "an infraction under chapter 7.84 RCW"? Sounds serious!

 

 

John

[+TotemLake]

 

Glad we don't have to deal with the system in your state.

 

Would you like a bigger spoon?

[+Recdiver]

 

Glad we don't have to deal with the system in your state.

 

Would you like a bigger spoon?

you kill me TL.

[+hikergps]

Just what will the penalty be for "an infraction under chapter 7.84 RCW"? Sounds serious!

 

RCW 7.84

 

RCW 7.84 just defines what an infraction is and how they are handled by the courts. There are seperate chapters under RCW for catagorized offenses. An infraction is like a sppeding ticket, monetary fines only. A criminal citation is different. That is when you start talking about visiting "The Sheriff's 3 Hots and a Cot B&B".

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Here is a link that you might wish to have the Washington State Park officials check out.

 

Geocaches placed by Colorado Parks

 

If you look on the left side at the green column, about the 5th item from the bottom is "Geocache". These are Geocaches (the caches) that the Parks have placed to draw people to their parks. They even rent GPSrs to make it easier for people to enjoy their parks by caching.

 

Here is a good example of how the park system can have control of geocaching in the parks and have the least impact on the park employees & Geocachers! Friendly Caching Rules

 

Will they accept how other parks are doing the cache monitoring or will they insist on doing what they started out to do?

 

Just something for you to ponder.

 

John

 

edited to add the CA. link.

Edited November 4, 2006 by 2oldfarts (the rockhounders)

[+Renegade Knight]

....WAC 352-32-237 Geocache.

 

(1) In order to place a cache on state parks’ property, an individual or organization must obtain a Geocache Placement Permit from state parks. Any cache located on state parks’ property that does not have a permit on file is subject to removal from its location, and after notification of the owner (if known), may be disposed of within 10 days.

 

(2) The geocache owner must check the geocache at least every 90 days unless an extension is approved by the Park Manager not to exceed 180 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.

 

(3) 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.

 

(4) Any violation of this section is an infraction under chapter 7.84 RCW.

 

1) Needed if you are going to require a permit. More work for the park than they need to accomplish their goals though.

 

2) 90 Days is ok for Urban. It's too short of a time frame for remote caches. It's also not needed if the parks folks monitor the caches. The only reason for a permit is to monitor the caches...If they don't want to formally montor the caches then you don't need the permit. They already have the ability to spot check cache placment, and they have the ability to remove them if they don't like them. They can read the cache logs and monitor the caches as well. If parks had this much ability to monitor all the other activities that take place in their parks they would be estatic. They have this with caching without doing a thing.

 

3) Not needed. The park already has rules in place for legal items. They may wish to track the caches, but why would they want to be in the business of regulating cache contents? They have the ability to remove any item that is against the rules. But only if they are going to take the time to inspect caches for compliance.

 

4) Eh? Criminalizing caching? This creates the need for lawyers. Who's responsible if Joe Dirtbag takes a dump in my cache and the parks staff finds it before I get word and replace it? Since caches have both owners and seekers there are too many people interacting with the cache. If they are going to issue cache tickets they need to drop #3 as it's beyond my control after the cache is placed.

 

5) Since this is now criminalized and has a fine attached and is now a potential revenue source for the states the rules should build in some time frames for parks staff.

5a) Cache Permit Applications will be reviewed within 30 days or approval is automatic.

5b) Failure to notify the cache owner of an infracion and allowing a reasonable time (30 days...you will find the governments like to have 30 days to review and respond, they should provide the same courtesy to cachers) shall relieve the permit holder of all responsiblity under 7.84RCW

5c) The Parks staff has 5 days to notify the cache owner of any non compliance or other issues.

5d) etc.

 

6) Don't forget the appeals process.

 

Rules create a few things.

They create the need to enforce them.

They crate the need to monitor them.

They create the need for punishments if they are not followed.

They create an obligation for staff to understand them.

They create an obligation for the staff to follow due process.

They create an obligation for the staff to develop procedures to follow in enforcing the rules.

They create an opportunity for abuse.

They create the need for an appeals process.

 

Bottom line the rules have to have a net beneifit that everyone understands and that benefit needs to be greater than the issues and problems that the rules will create just by having them.

 

If the parks can use existing methods to accomplish their goals and those methods do the job, they do not need to create additional rules and regulations.

 

If all they want to do is monitor caches. They can do that via a couple of websites.

If they want to control cache contents...nothing short of actual cache inspections is going to do the job. That's because Joe Dirtbag is the problem not Joe Cacher.

[+hydnsek]

Update: I have handed off a marked-up version of the directive and the proposed rule with our recommended changes to Team Misguided for review and discussion with the WSGA board and the State Parks.

 

Thanks to Lightning Jeff for sending me a mark-up doc that contained very thoughtful edits in the spirit of cooperation with the work already done by the State Parks, but amending it to address our concerns.

 

Thanks also to MarcusArelius, The Jester, and (yes, even) Criminal for additional great input, all of which was incorporated in one way or another.

 

Fingers crossed!

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Hopefully you used the Santa Clara County Parks & Recreation Departments rules (seen here) as your guide for the new write up you are offering the Washington State Parks people.

 

John

[+Lightning Jeff]

Just what will the penalty be for "an infraction under chapter 7.84 RCW"? Sounds serious!

The Supreme Court has the authority to set default fines for infractions, but it's unlikely they ever will for these. The maximum is $500 and a court could certainly impose that. Note that while portions of the Directive are not explicitly carried through in the WAC, the 90-day/180-day check is, so failure to check your cache (regardless of whether there is any indication of problems) could result in a fine of hundreds of dollars. I know, theoretical and unlikely, but it's there in black and white.

 

I hope people don't take the relative brevity of this WAC as a reason not to continue to lobby against the Directive as written. Parks can and will implement the Directive as written unless we can get the thing formally changed. While I might be able to comply with the terms of the WAC alone (as it's written, I don't think it makes the cache placer responsible for items placed in the cache by others), I would never agree to the terms of the Directive as it currently exists (e.g., responsibility for the actions of others) and so unless and until that is changed, I am still out of the State Parks cache-placing business.

 

Thanks to Hydnsek for pulling the various edits to the Directive together. Any chance of seeing the collective draft that was submitted?

[+hydnsek]

Hopefully you used the Santa Clara County Parks & Recreation Departments rules (seen here) as your guide for the new write up you are offering the Washington State Parks people.

 

John

Nope, sorry. Not sure why you'd assume this. We made amendments to the existing draft created by the State Parks in consultation with WSGA. Those who attended the September meeting on this subject with the Parks officials are familiar with the document, the areas we want to address, the timeline involved, what's feasible, etc.

[+hydnsek]

Any chance of seeing the collective draft that was submitted?

That's up to Right Wing Wacko (WSGA president) and Team Misguided (Parks liaison), who now have the document in their capable hands. I'm just the scribe.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Hopefully you used the Santa Clara County Parks & Recreation Departments rules (seen here) as your guide for the new write up you are offering the Washington State Parks people.

 

John

Nope, sorry. Not sure why you'd assume this. We made amendments to the existing draft created by the State Parks in consultation with WSGA. Those who attended the September meeting on this subject with the Parks officials are familiar with the document, the areas we want to address, the timeline involved, what's feasible, etc.

 

 

Perhaps, because it is geocaching friendly.

 

John

[+hydnsek]

Hopefully you used the Santa Clara County Parks & Recreation Departments rules (seen here) as your guide for the new write up you are offering the Washington State Parks people.

 

John

Nope, sorry. Not sure why you'd assume this. We made amendments to the existing draft created by the State Parks in consultation with WSGA. Those who attended the September meeting on this subject with the Parks officials are familiar with the document, the areas we want to address, the timeline involved, what's feasible, etc.

 

 

Perhaps, because it is geocaching friendly.

 

John

Understood, but not realistic at this point. We have to work with the existing document, as it's pretty far down the path toward finalization. The State Parks folks have been very supportive in giving us an opportunity to make some revisions to a doc they already spent time and resources putting together. It wouldn't facilitate the relationship, or get this finalized so we can move forward, to tell them we want to toss it all out and start over. There's the ideal, and then there's reality.

[+Criminal]

Did anyone send them a link to this thread so they can hopefully realize how asininely idiotic the whole permission-permit-regulation thing is?

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Hopefully you used the Santa Clara County Parks & Recreation Departments rules (seen here) as your guide for the new write up you are offering the Washington State Parks people.

 

John

Nope, sorry. Not sure why you'd assume this. We made amendments to the existing draft created by the State Parks in consultation with WSGA. Those who attended the September meeting on this subject with the Parks officials are familiar with the document, the areas we want to address, the timeline involved, what's feasible, etc.

 

 

Perhaps, because it is geocaching friendly.

 

John

Understood, but not realistic at this point. We have to work with the existing document, as it's pretty far down the path toward finalization. The State Parks folks have been very supportive in giving us an opportunity to make some revisions to a doc they already spent time and resources putting together. It wouldn't facilitate the relationship, or get this finalized so we can move forward, to tell them we want to toss it all out and start over. There's the ideal, and then there's reality.

 

Since the document has NOT been finalized you should appeal to their pocketbook! If you read the document for Santa Clara County, then you saw that the responsibility for the caches is removed from the park and given to 'Cache Volunteers' who are cachers already. Their system frees up the park people from doing "caching" on company time to doing other things the park needs to have done.

 

Their expense becomes a phone call to a cache monitor to handle whatever the problem with the cache might be.

 

No legal hassles involved for any of the parties.

 

What they view as a problem can now be seen as a community cooperative operation for the benefit of the park visitors.

 

At least show them there is a better alternative than to threaten park visitors with permits and fines and lawsuits, etc.

 

It's worth a try, they may even agree with the idea.

 

John

[+Renegade Knight]

....Understood, but not realistic at this point. We have to work with the existing document, as it's pretty far down the path toward finalization. The State Parks folks have been very supportive in giving us an opportunity to make some revisions to a doc they already spent time and resources putting together. It wouldn't facilitate the relationship, or get this finalized so we can move forward, to tell them we want to toss it all out and start over. There's the ideal, and then there's reality.

 

Do you guys even know what the parks are trying to accomplish? What their real concerns are? If you did you could easily toss out the entire document, retain the formating, flavor and style, then start over. You would get the job done, save them time, money and effort and have geocaching be better off. Win Win is entirly possible.

 

It would facilitate the relationship to put the document down and talk to them about their concerns. Learn what they know, what they think caching is, what their mission is, what they are protecting and why. The policy reflects their concerns but may very well not capture how to best address them when it comes to caching. They know parks, we know caching.

Edited November 7, 2006 by Renegade Knight

[Team Misguided]

Do you guys even know what the parks are trying to accomplish? What their real concerns are? If you did you could easily toss out the entire document, retain the formating, flavor and style, then start over. You would get the job done, save them time, money and effort and have geocaching be better off. Win Win is entirly possible.

 

Their concern is to know what is going on in their parks, to prevent caches & cachers from doing damage to the natural resources that they manage and to ensure the safety of park visitors.

 

It would facilitate the relationship to put the document down and talk to them about their concerns. Learn what they know, what they think caching is, what their mission is, what they are protecting and why. The policy reflects their concerns but may very well not capture how to best address them when it comes to caching. They know parks, we know caching.

 

The directive is SIGNED & APPROVED. It is a formal policy as of July. There is no going back. The WAC is being formalized soon. The WAC will be pretty much set in stone and very hard to change, but the directive is something that can be modified. Because the WAC makes specific reference to the Geocaching Directive we have to work with the current document.

 

The parks people we are working with acknowledge that they are not familiar with geocaching. That is why they are willing to work with us to modify the existing directive AS WE MOVE FORWARD. hydnsek has done a great job taking a document that was written by someone who doesn't understand geocaching and making it more geocacher friendly.

 

This is only the first step in a journey. It'll be bumpy for a bit, but I think it will be worth the trip.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Their concern is to know what is going on in their parks, to prevent caches & cachers from doing damage to the natural resources that they manage and to ensure the safety of park visitors.....

 

That's a generic answer that applies in a generic sence to every park and every public land in the country. It's not specific to their parks, their resources and perhaps most importantly to their take on why they are worried about geocaching to begin with.

 

I'm unclearn on the difference between The Directive and the WAC. I'm not sure it matters much since it's part of the Washington Parks process which would be one of the first things you guys figured out when the whole issue came up. Geocachers are one of the parks stakeholders. That means you have a voice. An organized voice as well since your state group is active. Not so long ago there was no policy, now there is. That means it's not tried and true, it's not set in stone, it's subject to major revision, it's going to be evaluated against the goals that they hoped the policy would accomplish (which is why you need to know more than the generic park mission). Bottom line while you guys are telling me how set it is, and how little influence you have on it, with knowledge you can influence more than you think. A bad policy can go away. With help it can go away faster.

 

Some questions.

Who drafted the Directive? Why

Who drafted the WAC? Why?

Did the order to draft these come from a key person? Who? Why?

 

Why is this important? The key person thought it was time to tackle geocaching. They wanted the policy to happen and perhaps delegated it to somone else who googled geocaching and took a stab at the policy based on what they read, or another policy they found. Had they known someone who was a cacher or known of the Washington State group they may have taken that route. Based on what I read they went the google route. Had someone talked to that person, shown them the ropes, what caching is, shown them the impacts first hand this policy would have played out much differently. If you get a random policy review person and work with them, you won't be all that effective.

 

There is a key person to work with. Everone else will listen but you won't get nearly as much acomplished. not unless one of the people who do listen has some power. That's not likley as the public usually works with Flappers. (see the Alternative usage of Flapper)

Edited November 7, 2006 by Renegade Knight

[+Criminal]

I think I understand a little of what RK is asking here, however, I don’t think it was anyone in the Parks who initiated this, I think it was someone in the geocaching community pushing them to create a policy.

 

I hate to keep beating this analogy, but geocaching does no more (and probably much less) damage to any of the park’s ‘natural resources’ than Frisbee football or playing catch with a baseball.

 

I want to stand up and scream at the top of my lungs, ”IT’S JUST A STOOPID SILLY GAME!!!” IMHO we should tell them that the entire rule set as written is unacceptable and that we will not comply. If they don’t like it we start writing letters to the higher ups pointing out the absurdity of the rules they've created. If the parks end up off limits, so what? Like I said previously, they stand to lose as much or more than we do by banning the game.

 

Frankly, I’m appalled that tax money was spent on any of this nonsense.

[+Lightning Jeff]

...Their concern is to know what is going on in their parks, to prevent caches & cachers from doing damage to the natural resources that they manage and to ensure the safety of park visitors.....

That's a generic answer that applies in a generic sence to every park and every public land in the country. It's not specific to their parks, their resources and perhaps most importantly to their take on why they are worried about geocaching to begin with.

. . .

Some questions.

Who drafted the Directive? Why

Who drafted the WAC? Why?

Did the order to draft these come from a key person? Who? Why?

Good questions. Given the limited info we're getting from WSGA folks (including the earlier refusal to share the draft WAC language with us), I filed a Public Records Act request about a week ago, requesting everything they have relating to geocaching, including documentation of complaints, problems, etc. I am told that the materials are in the mail to me. If there's anything of note, I'll share.

[+hydnsek]

Good questions. Given the limited info we're getting from WSGA folks (including the earlier refusal to share the draft WAC language with us)

This seems unfair and uncalled for. Best I can tell (not being on the 'inside' of WSGA), they've done a great job of keeping us informed.

• RWW and Team Misguided have provided detailed information in several messages, including the history of the State Parks relationship, current status of the guidelines, etc.
  
• Team Misguided arranged a meeting with the State Parks folks in September, in which there were very open discussions about every section of the proposed Directive. I note that the folks carping here were not at that meeting. Very easy to not get involved and then be a back-seat driver. Folks who attended that meeting seem pretty positive about the relationship and proposed guidelines, including amendments. Huh.
  
• The proposed directive has been posted on the WSGA site for a while now, for all members to review. The proposed revisions from our side will presumably be posted on the WSGA site when they are done.
  
• Paul posted the proposed text of the WAC a few messages above this, as soon as he had something to share. I think most folks will appreciate he didn't want to publish a rough draft (which is not public or final) that could change before it was ready for review.
  

In return, instead of being thanked for their hard work (not just recently but over the past couple of years with the State Parks folks), they have patiently endured a lot of very negative carping by folks who have waited till the end of the process to get involved, may not know all the history, didn't attend the meetings, and -heck- some of whom don't even live in the Northwest but want to stir the pot.

 

It's not a geocaching conspiracy, and we might occasionally say "thanks" to RWW, TG, and others who've spent the past couple of years working to build relationships and ensure continued acceptance and support for geocaching in our state parks.

 

And for those who keep whining "why do we need guidelines, WSGA must have started this, it's all your fault...." At the September meeting, we heard how some state parks had early bad experiences with geocaches. They wanted to ban them, but WSGA worked to build relationships, educate the parks folks, and ensure geocaching would continue. (Some of that has been recounted in this and other threads.) To claim otherwise insults the work the WSGA did to get us where we are today. Due to their earlier experiences, the State Parks folks are not going to forego guidelines, but what we can do is ensure the guidelines are as cacher-friendly as possible.

 

Edit: And if you don't feel you're getting enough info from the WSGA officers - I hear there's an election coming up. Run for office and then you'll have all the scoop and be directly involved in making it happen.

Edited November 8, 2006 by hydnsek

[+TotemLake]

Well said Hydnsek.

[+Criminal]

Boy this is a minefield.

 

There are a couple points I think everyone needs to remember.

First, this is a game. It’s only slightly more sophisticated than a group of children playing hide-and-seek, and no more important. It is not a ‘way of life’ or so significant that we need to write volumes of rules.

Second, the WSGA is an organization that has members and officers. As such, not all the geocachers in Washington are members of the WSGA, nor does the WSGA speak for all of the Washington geocachers. I have nothing but the utmost respect for the officers in the organization, and consider several to be very good friends.

 

I find it objectionable that to express dissent is to be labeled a whiner or to be said to be negatively carping. If anyone from within the WSGA or without is going to project a “shut up and don’t ask questions” message, which seems to be the message I’m hearing, there can only be an assumption of secrecy or conspiracy. The game is far too insignificant for any of that.

 

I have stated as eloquently as possible why I think the whole rule set is a waste of time and money. The only reason geocachers are going to be singled out from all other park users for permits is because we are organized and seemingly willing to accept them. If dirt-bikers or quad riders organized themselves into an association, then the parks people would approach them demanding they get permits and accept financial responsibility for the (real) damage they do. Letterboxing has been around since 1854 (152 years!) and suddenly in 2006 the damage became so overwhelming it needs to be eradicated? Sorry, I’m calling bullsh*t.

 

It is my humble opinion that our (WSGA and non-WSGA geocachers) approach has been wrong from the beginning. Instead of trying to convince the Parks that geocaching can be acceptable and we need only some fresh rules and permits to make it manageable, we should have been pointing out the inescapable fact that is just a stupid little game. We should have pointed out the obvious fact that geocaching has far more benefits to any park than it does damage. Yes, I understand there have been problems, however if you combine all the damage that every geocache did to every state park together, it is only a fraction of the harm done by other park users, legal or otherwise, who are not subject to this nonsense. We should have worked on convincing the parks that permits and rules are a tempest in a teapot.

 

The guidelines don’t need to be cacher friendly, they don’t need to be written. Unfortunately, that message won’t get passed.

Edited November 8, 2006 by Criminal

[+Lightning Jeff]

Good questions. Given the limited info we're getting from WSGA folks (including the earlier refusal to share the draft WAC language with us)

This seems unfair and uncalled for. Best I can tell (not being on the 'inside' of WSGA), they've done a great job of keeping us informed.

 

I'm referring to this:

 

... while I'm not comfortable sharing it with you just yet ...

Why? It's a public record. I'm not sure I see a reason to play "hide the ball," especially given the shortness of time before the WAC is adopted.

My message received no response - no explanation as to why the draft WAC would not be shared with us. If I wanted it, I apparently had to make a Public Records Act request to the state - which I did.

The proposed directive has been posted on the WSGA site for a while now, for all members to review. The proposed revisions from our side will presumably be posted on the WSGA site when they are done.

I think I was quite clear that I was referring to the WAC, not the Directive - which of course was already FINAL when it was shared with us. (But note, my previous question about whether WSGA got hoodwinked or bait-and-switched in the Directive - it includes provisions that RWW asserted had been removed - has gone unanswered.)

Paul posted the proposed text of the WAC a few messages above this, as soon as he had something to share. I think most folks will appreciate he didn't want to publish a rough draft (which is not public or final) that could change before it was ready for review.

What good would sharing anything BUT a draft do? And if the draft had been shared outside the agency - and it had, as TM had it by 10/25, at least a week before it was posted here - it WAS public, as a matter of law.

I find it objectionable that to express dissent is to be labeled a whiner or to be said to be negatively carping. If anyone from within the WSGA or without is going to project a “shut up and don’t ask questions” message, which seems to be the message I’m hearing, there can only be an assumption of secrecy or conspiracy. The game is far too insignificant for any of that.

What he said.

[+Recdiver]

Speaking for myself and only myself I'm of the firm belief that if they want to regulate us above and beyond how the regulate others playing in their parks then we as geocachers should say screw em and not play in their parks.

[+Recdiver]

Speaking as a member of the WSGA board I just want to say that I’m really feeling the love here. Makes me want to reconsider running for office again since I don’t need this kind of carp.

 

edit to add - you may not be hearing much from RWW since he has recently started a new job and his working hours will keep him from responding in the forums as much as he has in the past.

Edited November 8, 2006 by Recdiver

[+Renegade Knight]

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...mp;qpid=2558197

 

…

[*] Team Misguided arranged a meeting with the State Parks folks in September, in which there were very open discussions about every section of the proposed Directive. I note that the folks carping here were not at that meeting. Very easy to not get involved and then be a back-seat driver…

… I think most folks will appreciate he didn't want to publish a rough draft (which is not public or final) that could change before it was ready for review.

In return, instead of being thanked for their hard work (not just recently but over the past couple of years with the State Parks folks), they have patiently endured a lot of very negative carping by folks who have waited till the end of the process to get involved, may not know all the history, didn't attend the meetings, and -heck- some of whom don't even live in the Northwest but want to stir the pot. …

 

Regulations that are developed here will become what Idaho looks at if our parks start wanting to regulate geocaching. States tend to look at what other states are doing to see what they should be doing. On the caching front, IGO is not as organized as WSGA. We haven’t needed to be. When our turn comes IGO may be looking to WSGA. Keep that in mind. I am very interested.

 

It’s easy to blame people for not being around at the beginning of something. It’s not so easy to make sure that all interested are involved from the beginning. Is it the fault of WSGA for not notifying all interested parties, or the fault of all interested parties for not participating before they finally did learn of things? I say neither but if blame is important you can pick which you like. In my job I find it very hard to get public input early on and from all interested and relevant parties. On top of that I have an advertising budget and staff at my disposal that probably dwarf WSGA resources. You do your best with what you have.

 

Rough Drafts should be public and for a few good reasons. First while something is a DRAFT it’s the best time to suggest change. Second the people it’s going to impact deserve as much notice as they can get. Also by the time it’s not a rough draft it’s normally too late for much change. Else it would still be a draft.

 

When you say “we are going to get some kind of regulation” maybe that’s true. Who’s the champion? Regulations seldom magically appear as the result of organizational consensus. They have a champion, someone who is behind them and pushing them through the organization. Email me if you want better insight as to why this question is important.

 

It would have been nice to attend the meeting with State Parks folks in September. You know dang well it’s not practical for every geocacher in WA to attend even if they would have liked too, let alone others who see regulation creeping close to home. At least by posting in an open forum you can get input on the rules. You did mention wanting input didn’t you?

 

Normally the thanking for all the hard work comes when the job is done or burn out is setting in. While the sleeves are rolled up everone should be too busy to look around and call people to task for trying to provide input instead of passing out kudos. However here are some Kudos.

 

Kudos for posting this to the forums so it could be discussed.

Big Kudos for open and honest feedback from those who have provided it.

Kudos for those who have taken time to post links to relevant outside discussion.

Kudos for everyone taking time to participate. Even poorly worded feedback is feedback that can be used.

Kudos for those who are not taking posts personally and getting defensive. Since those feelings can get in the way of constructive discussion, it’s important to just not go there.

 

Jeers to everyone who had the ability to answer a question and didn’t. The lack of information makes good feedback harder to provide. It also leads to suspicion, speculation, and distrust. Lectures about whining and carping don’t help. Trite answers also don’t help.

[+Allanon]

Speaking for myself and only myself I'm of the firm belief that if they want to regulate us above and beyond how the regulate others playing in their parks then we as geocachers should say screw em and not play in their parks.

This is my opinion as well. I may search for a cache in a State Park, but I'll certainly never place one...it's just not worth my time and effort.

[+Renegade Knight]

Speaking as a member of the WSGA board I just want to say that I’m really feeling the love here....

 

Need a hug? Ya won't find it in this thread, but I'd give you one if it would help, or a beer, or both. I'd drink with you until we both solved all the problems geocaching faces only to forget when we woke up with hangovers. Still don't take what's in the thread personally. It's frustration, lack of understanding, lack of information and all that working it's magic. I don't hold it against Team Misguided or hydensek when they start calling people whinners and opinions carp.

[+Recdiver]

Speaking as a member of the WSGA board I just want to say that I’m really feeling the love here....

 

Need a hug? Ya won't find it in this thread, but I'd give you one if it would help, or a beer, or both. I'd drink with you until we both solved all the problems geocaching faces only to forget when we woke up with hangovers. Still don't take what's in the thread personally. It's frustration, lack of understanding, lack of information and all that working it's magic. I don't hold it against Team Misguided or hydensek when they start calling people whinners and opinions carp.

Sure and I would drink with you any time if for no other reason then there was beer available.

I rarely take what I read too personally and those that know me wouldn’t take anything I post to seriously as well.

I have been on the periphery of most of these discussions and since I’ve yet to hide a cache have had little input. Sorry if I came across as petulant.

I do know that the WSGA board is in the process of drafting a letter to the state and I for one would be in favor of posting it since I believe in full disclosure to the unwashed masses.

[+Criminal]

Speaking as a member of the WSGA board I just want to say that I’m really feeling the love here....

 

Need a hug? Ya won't find it in this thread, but I'd give you one if it would help, or a beer, or both. I'd drink with you until we both solved all the problems geocaching faces only to forget when we woke up with hangovers. Still don't take what's in the thread personally. It's frustration, lack of understanding, lack of information and all that working it's magic. I don't hold it against Team Misguided or hydensek when they start calling people whinners and opinions carp.

Sure and I would drink with you any time if for no other reason then there was beer available.

I rarely take what I read too personally and those that know me wouldn’t take anything I post to seriously as well.

I have been on the periphery of most of these discussions and since I’ve yet to hide a cache have had little input. Sorry if I came across as petulant.

I do know that the WSGA board is in the process of drafting a letter to the state and I for one would be in favor of posting it since I believe in full disclosure to the unwashed masses.

Then it’s unanimous, Fudge the new rules and let’s all have a beer or two. Ajet and Shop99er both brew some pretty good beers, we just need to draft a resolution getting them to part with a few.

[+runhills]

Speaking as a member of the WSGA board I just want to say that I’m really feeling the love here....

 

Need a hug? Ya won't find it in this thread, but I'd give you one if it would help, or a beer, or both. I'd drink with you until we both solved all the problems geocaching faces only to forget when we woke up with hangovers. Still don't take what's in the thread personally. It's frustration, lack of understanding, lack of information and all that working it's magic. I don't hold it against Team Misguided or hydensek when they start calling people whinners and opinions carp.

Sure and I would drink with you any time if for no other reason then there was beer available.

I rarely take what I read too personally and those that know me wouldn’t take anything I post to seriously as well.

I have been on the periphery of most of these discussions and since I’ve yet to hide a cache have had little input. Sorry if I came across as petulant.

I do know that the WSGA board is in the process of drafting a letter to the state and I for one would be in favor of posting it since I believe in full disclosure to the unwashed masses.

Then it’s unanimous, Fudge the new rules and let’s all have a beer or two. Ajet and Shop99er both brew some pretty good beers, we just need to draft a resolution getting them to part with a few.

 

Count me in on the beers.....just make sure the resolution to part with the beers does not hold anybody accountable for actions while under the influence

Edited November 8, 2006 by runhills

[+TotemLake]

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...mp;qpid=2558197

 

…

[*] Team Misguided arranged a meeting with the State Parks folks in September, in which there were very open discussions about every section of the proposed Directive. I note that the folks carping here were not at that meeting. Very easy to not get involved and then be a back-seat driver…

… I think most folks will appreciate he didn't want to publish a rough draft (which is not public or final) that could change before it was ready for review.

In return, instead of being thanked for their hard work (not just recently but over the past couple of years with the State Parks folks), they have patiently endured a lot of very negative carping by folks who have waited till the end of the process to get involved, may not know all the history, didn't attend the meetings, and -heck- some of whom don't even live in the Northwest but want to stir the pot. …

 

Regulations that are developed here will become what Idaho looks at if our parks start wanting to regulate geocaching. States tend to look at what other states are doing to see what they should be doing. On the caching front, IGO is not as organized as WSGA. We haven’t needed to be. When our turn comes IGO may be looking to WSGA. Keep that in mind. I am very interested.

 

It’s easy to blame people for not being around at the beginning of something. It’s not so easy to make sure that all interested are involved from the beginning. Is it the fault of WSGA for not notifying all interested parties, or the fault of all interested parties for not participating before they finally did learn of things? I say neither but if blame is important you can pick which you like. In my job I find it very hard to get public input early on and from all interested and relevant parties. On top of that I have an advertising budget and staff at my disposal that probably dwarf WSGA resources. You do your best with what you have.

 

Rough Drafts should be public and for a few good reasons. First while something is a DRAFT it’s the best time to suggest change. Second the people it’s going to impact deserve as much notice as they can get. Also by the time it’s not a rough draft it’s normally too late for much change. Else it would still be a draft.

 

When you say “we are going to get some kind of regulation” maybe that’s true. Who’s the champion? Regulations seldom magically appear as the result of organizational consensus. They have a champion, someone who is behind them and pushing them through the organization. Email me if you want better insight as to why this question is important.

 

It would have been nice to attend the meeting with State Parks folks in September. You know dang well it’s not practical for every geocacher in WA to attend even if they would have liked too, let alone others who see regulation creeping close to home. At least by posting in an open forum you can get input on the rules. You did mention wanting input didn’t you?

 

Normally the thanking for all the hard work comes when the job is done or burn out is setting in. While the sleeves are rolled up everone should be too busy to look around and call people to task for trying to provide input instead of passing out kudos. However here are some Kudos.

 

Kudos for posting this to the forums so it could be discussed.

Big Kudos for open and honest feedback from those who have provided it.

Kudos for those who have taken time to post links to relevant outside discussion.

Kudos for everyone taking time to participate. Even poorly worded feedback is feedback that can be used.

Kudos for those who are not taking posts personally and getting defensive. Since those feelings can get in the way of constructive discussion, it’s important to just not go there.

 

Jeers to everyone who had the ability to answer a question and didn’t. The lack of information makes good feedback harder to provide. It also leads to suspicion, speculation, and distrust. Lectures about whining and carping don’t help. Trite answers also don’t help.

I think what it was coming down to is there were folks berating the fact we didn't need regulation. Agreed, however albeit a bit late as the park system with or without WSGA input was already afoot at writing up the regulation.

 

Then there came the questioning of WSGA's intent amid all the above noise. Yes it was noise. Feedback good or bad is one thing. Railing against it when the action was started by the state regardless of our action or inaction is nothing more than that. Call it carp if you will. That's my opinion and I'll stick by it, but I digress. WSGA's intent the entire time was to keep the state parks from being completely closed out. We lost ground to wilderness and national parks. Should the WSGA just idly sit on their hands and do nothing about it? They chose not to and are ending up being criticized for starting something that didn't need to be. See my bolded statement in this paragraph.

 

The state's original intent was to outlaw it and make it a criminal action at the same level as littering. WSGA's effort changed that level of thinking... no small feat when you talk about bureaucratic momentum.

 

The input and feedback requested was to help draft what the state had already started. This thread derailed into veiled statements of suspicion and more railing of what isn't needed amid real attempts to contribute to the rewrite of the proposed directive that was going to become policy... with or without our input.

 

You mentioned outside entities (states) look to other states on the policy making. That's the macro. The micro is so do local county and city entities. This was the downward slope that had to be addressed now, to define the future actions of others if they chose to do so.

Edited November 8, 2006 by TotemLake

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Hopefully you used the Santa Clara County Parks & Recreation Departments rules (seen here) as your guide for the new write up you are offering the Washington State Parks people.

 

John

Nope, sorry. Not sure why you'd assume this. We made amendments to the existing draft created by the State Parks in consultation with WSGA. Those who attended the September meeting on this subject with the Parks officials are familiar with the document, the areas we want to address, the timeline involved, what's feasible, etc.

 

 

Perhaps, because it is geocaching friendly.

 

John

Understood, but not realistic at this point. We have to work with the existing document, as it's pretty far down the path toward finalization. The State Parks folks have been very supportive in giving us an opportunity to make some revisions to a doc they already spent time and resources putting together. It wouldn't facilitate the relationship, or get this finalized so we can move forward, to tell them we want to toss it all out and start over. There's the ideal, and then there's reality.

 

Since the document has NOT been finalized you should appeal to their pocketbook! If you read the document for Santa Clara County, then you saw that the responsibility for the caches is removed from the park and given to 'Cache Volunteers' who are cachers already. Their system frees up the park people from doing "caching" on company time to doing other things the park needs to have done.

 

Their expense becomes a phone call to a cache monitor to handle whatever the problem with the cache might be.

 

No legal hassles involved for any of the parties.

 

What they view as a problem can now be seen as a community cooperative operation for the benefit of the park visitors.

 

At least show them there is a better alternative than to threaten park visitors with permits and fines and lawsuits, etc.

 

It's worth a try, they may even agree with the idea.

 

John

 

Again, since it has not been finalized there is still time to offer alternative solutions to the perceived problems.

 

Going from getting a ticket for littering to getting a ticket for doing nothing (Not checking on a cache that hasn't been found in 6 months!) is losing ground it seems.

 

John

[+Renegade Knight]

...Sure and I would drink with you any time if for no other reason then there was beer available.

I rarely take what I read too personally and those that know me wouldn’t take anything I post to seriously as well.

I have been on the periphery of most of these discussions and since I’ve yet to hide a cache have had little input. Sorry if I came across as petulant.

I do know that the WSGA board is in the process of drafting a letter to the state and I for one would be in favor of posting it since I believe in full disclosure to the unwashed masses.

Then it’s unanimous, Fudge the new rules and let’s all have a beer or two. Ajet and Shop99er both brew some pretty good beers, we just need to draft a resolution getting them to part with a few.

 

I'm in.

[+The Jester]

One of the main reasons WSGA was organized was so we could deal with a State Park system that wanted to ban geocaching. As TL said above, this was action started by the State, not (as some have said) by geocachers going to the State. So by repeating the old (by now) saw that "we don't need this" (while true, we geocachers don't, but the State Parks do) doesn't help anything. We've tried to educate them as to the realities of our game and are working to get the best set of regulation we can. No it's not going to be 'perfect' (by whatever definition you want to use), but we need to keep at it. But at this point there is no way we are going to get a regulation-free acceptance of our sport in the State Parks. If you can't accept that, don't hide caches in State Parks. If you don't like all the regulations, don't hide caches in State Parks. But don't get in the way of us who do, and are working to keep them open to us.

[+TotemLake]

Hopefully you used the Santa Clara County Parks & Recreation Departments rules (seen here) as your guide for the new write up you are offering the Washington State Parks people.

 

John

Nope, sorry. Not sure why you'd assume this. We made amendments to the existing draft created by the State Parks in consultation with WSGA. Those who attended the September meeting on this subject with the Parks officials are familiar with the document, the areas we want to address, the timeline involved, what's feasible, etc.

 

 

Perhaps, because it is geocaching friendly.

 

John

Understood, but not realistic at this point. We have to work with the existing document, as it's pretty far down the path toward finalization. The State Parks folks have been very supportive in giving us an opportunity to make some revisions to a doc they already spent time and resources putting together. It wouldn't facilitate the relationship, or get this finalized so we can move forward, to tell them we want to toss it all out and start over. There's the ideal, and then there's reality.

 

Since the document has NOT been finalized you should appeal to their pocketbook! If you read the document for Santa Clara County, then you saw that the responsibility for the caches is removed from the park and given to 'Cache Volunteers' who are cachers already. Their system frees up the park people from doing "caching" on company time to doing other things the park needs to have done.

 

Their expense becomes a phone call to a cache monitor to handle whatever the problem with the cache might be.

 

No legal hassles involved for any of the parties.

 

What they view as a problem can now be seen as a community cooperative operation for the benefit of the park visitors.

 

At least show them there is a better alternative than to threaten park visitors with permits and fines and lawsuits, etc.

 

It's worth a try, they may even agree with the idea.

 

John

 

Again, since it has not been finalized there is still time to offer alternative solutions to the perceived problems.

 

Going from getting a ticket for littering to getting a ticket for doing nothing (Not checking on a cache that hasn't been found in 6 months!) is losing ground it seems.

 

John

Respectfully, you have it wrong. There is not any time to provide alternative solutions. There is only time to soften the blow of the WAC which is already drafted. Alternative solutions have been provided and rejected early on in the negotiations mainly due to the problems first encountered with some stubborn geocachers unwilling to work with a ranger or two.

 

Let this be a lesson to those that may have to repeat these steps elsewhere. The actions of one or two or even a handful will affect many with long lasting consequences. I've said it early on in my membership with this sport and many times since then. Peer pressure is the best educator. It is the geocaching community's responsibility to keep wayward geocachers in check. Otherwise, the end result can be what you see happening in this State.

[+Lightning Jeff]

I received and have reviewed the documents State Parks sent in response to my record request. Here's what I requested:

· All policies, whether draft or final, relating to geocaching. As used in this request, the term “geocaching” includes all similar activities, including without limitation terracaching and letterboxing. The term “policy” includes without limitation proposed or adopted administrative regulations, directives and operating procedures.

· Copies of any public notices, including notices published or to be published in the State Register, pertaining to any such policies or otherwise pertaining to geocaching.

· All documents collected, consulted, referred to, or otherwise used in the development, consideration or adoption of any such policies.

· All correspondence (whether internal or including persons outside the agency) pertaining to geocaching, from January 1, 2003 to present.

· Documentation of any kind, including without limitation incident reports, pertaining to damage to public resources, or costs or damages incurred by the State of Washington attributable in whole or in part to geocaching.

No documents were withheld under claim of exemption - meaning, ostensibly, I received everything responsive to the above requests. Of note, and for what it's worth:

 

1. There is no reference in any of the documents to banning geocaching in state parks.

 

2. WSGA suggested that Parks adopt a policy in or around July 2003 in a message to Parks: "Why Establish Guidelines? As with any activity, there is a certain amount of regulation that must be in place. The WSGA recognizes that WSPRC as well as local park agencies must establish guidelines that will protect their assets. Since geocaching is a relatively new activity, the members of the WSGA thought it important to take the first step in establishing a set of rules." (The "rules" suggested by WSGA at that time are essentially the same as the guidelines on WSGA's web site.)

 

3. The current Directive is largely unchanged from a draft prepared in June 2004 by Mike Zimmerman of Fort Flagler State Park. When it was first sent to Team Misguided on July 7, 2006, it was already final. There is no evidence of input or suggested revisions to the Directive by WSGA prior to its adoption. (Suggestions made in these forums that WSGA had submitted and expected changes to the Directive prior to its adoption find no evidence in these documents.) A geocacher named David did receive a "draft" of the Directive on July 5, 2006, and submitted good comments - including a suggestion that nothing be adopted - that same day, only to be told by James Horan two days later that the Directive was already signed and final.

 

4. There is no documentation of any damage attributable to geocaching, or costs incurred by Parks as a result of geocaching.

 

5. The draft WAC I received indicates it is set for adoption at the Commission's 1/11/07 meeting.

 

Again, the foregoing observations assume that, as required by law, Parks sent me every document responsive to my request. My previous questions regarding how this all came about remain unanswered.

[+Criminal]

Do you know what I find disturbingly ironic about all this? It’s easier to get a concealed handgun permit than a geocache permit.

 

Sheesh.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

2. WSGA suggested that Parks adopt a policy in or around July 2003 in a message to Parks: "Why Establish Guidelines? As with any activity, there is a certain amount of regulation that must be in place. The WSGA recognizes that WSPRC as well as local park agencies must establish guidelines that will protect their assets. Since geocaching is a relatively new activity, the members of the WSGA thought it important to take the first step in establishing a set of rules." (The "rules" suggested by WSGA at that time are essentially the same as the guidelines on WSGA's web site.)

 

3. The current Directive is largely unchanged from a draft prepared in June 2004 by Mike Zimmerman of Fort Flagler State Park.

 

John

Edited November 12, 2006 by 2oldfarts (the rockhounders)