Washington State Parks

[+TotemLake]

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

That may be the official report, that's not how it started. If at anytime you truly believe certain officials will include everything in a report, there's a bridge that can be sold.

[+Criminal]

I think part of the problem for me is the whole ‘appearance of secrecy’ and the ‘don’t ask questions’ attitude I’ve seen in this thread. Being given a negative label for not accepting these new rules sent up huge flags for me.

 

Something doesn’t smell right, I and some others are asking “what stinks about this?” and we’re being told it’s the rosy fragrance of new rules.

 

As a geocacher, I’m wondering why I can’t seem to get caught up in the new and (apparently) legitimizing wave the status having ‘rules’ would give the game. As a taxpayer I find all of this to be a monumentally wasteful use of my money. I’ll start working on my letters as soon as I compile a list of who’s in charge.

[+Right Wing Wacko]

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.

 

Those dates cannot be right! I joined the WSGA in May 2003, and remember Seth! and Misguided One explaining the results of their meetings with the state parks commission at a meeting that was held at the redmond library. They had already been working on this for some time.

Edited November 13, 2006 by Right Wing Wacko

[+TotemLake]

Where are the minutes to the meetings? You'll need those to put the documents that were received in real context. Otherwise they are out of focus.

 

The request for internal memos is a little bit of a stretch without a court order. Just because you didn't receive it doesn't mean it isn't there.

 

With the announcement of meetings in this forum regarding this entire issue, everyone that didn't go had an opportunity that each chose not to take up. Anybody who sat on their fingers before the start of this thread chose not to take up that chance until it was too late. So I'm not entirely sure where the allegation to secrecy is coming from with the exception of refusal to post one draft before it was completed.

[+Criminal]

Part of the problem:

 

In short, the guidelines are not carved in stone yet…

…the parks officials are open to amending the guidelines…

I let James Horan know that we were working on a revision…

The directive is a work in progress…

Some rules are going to be adopted - no matter how much grousing, bitching, whinning, complaining, moaning, groaning or gnashing of teeth you do.

…no later than Nov. 10th. That's cutting it close for the deadline they've given us to submit changes before…

…pretty far down the path toward finalization…

 

Which all seem to contradict this:

The directive is SIGNED & APPROVED. It is a formal policy as of July. There is no going back.

 

Why is ‘working with them’ the default position? Why didn’t we say from the beginning, “No, we do not accept the rules you proposed.” I say let them ban geocaching, then let them justify to their superiors why they are taking such draconian measures against a silly game while at the same time ignoring the activities, both legal and illegal, that really are damaging the parks. I’m of a mind to start leaving ammo cans full of dog crap on the front stoop of their offices.

[+Lightning Jeff]

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.

 

Those dates cannot be right! I joined the WSGA in May 2003, and remember Seth! and Misguided One explaining the results of their meetings with the state parks commission at a meeting that was held at the redmond library. They had already been working on this for some time.

As noted, I offered what I was given for what it is worth. Information not appearing in documents was not provided to me. If meetings happened before/during/after, and there is no record of them, I don't know about them. But the dates reflected above were taken from copies of the actual communications I was provided and I believe them to be correct (if not complete for the reasons stated).

[+Lightning Jeff]

Where are the minutes to the meetings? You'll need those to put the documents that were received in real context. Otherwise they are out of focus.

I believe minutes are within the scope of my request, and I was provided none. I will ask Parks to clarify that no such records exist, or else to disclose them.

The request for internal memos is a little bit of a stretch without a court order.

With respect, no it is not. Public disclosure is a key area of my practice and I have no qualms about stating that I am an expert in this area. Internal memos are still public records (much to the chagrin of many a public employee who thinks their email is somehow private). Internal memos containing policy drafts or suggestions are exempt from public disclosure, but ONLY UNTIL the policy is adopted, then they lose their exemption. The Directive is final, so policy drafts and related memos are no longer exempt (and, consistent with that legal fact, Parks provided them to me).

Just because you didn't receive it doesn't mean it isn't there.

That's true. However, the Public Records Act clearly requires agencies to identify records that are withheld and to explain the claimed basis for exemption. Every public records officer in the state knows this by now. Parks did not indicate that any records were withheld under claim of exemption. However, I will ask them to clarify this fact. As of now, I have no reason to believe that additional responsive documents exist because if they do Parks has violated the law and is subject to mandatory monetary sanctions.

With the announcement of meetings in this forum regarding this entire issue, everyone that didn't go had an opportunity that each chose not to take up. Anybody who sat on their fingers before the start of this thread chose not to take up that chance until it was too late. So I'm not entirely sure where the allegation to secrecy is coming from with the exception of refusal to post one draft before it was completed.

Again with respect, this is to some extent a red herring. People are able to make meetings or they aren't, and the inability to do so on one occasion (the September meeting in Federal Way is what I assume you are talking about; of course, the Directive was already final at that time) should not preclude open discussion of the topic here. (How many of us can make the trip to Stevenson for the Parks & Rec Commission's 11/30 meeting? I'm in trial that day or else I'd try to make it.) How this all came about and what was the impetus behind it seems like a fair topic to this WSGA member.

 

Of all of the items I noted, most telling to me is that Parks has apparently documented no damage to public resources or costs incurred as a result of geocaching, yet felt the need to adopt a policy that, as is made clear from the emails I was provided, is intended to mirror the process required when someone wants to undertake a research project within a park. Criminal's frisbee comparison just keeps coming to mind.

[MarcusArelius]

I would like to thank Lightning Jeff for the free legal support. Too bad it didn't come last year.

 

Still I think it will be good for the Parks folks to realize that the people that play this little game have real lives and may be lawyers, politicians, co-workers and bosses. But most of all we are their customers. If you don't satisfy your customers you go out of business. It just takes longer for the government equivalent. I would allude to the recent elections but that will just start a flame war.

[+TotemLake]

edited for brevity...

 

I won't beat every point because you went over the things I was driving at. There will always be attempts to cover what is considered confidential regardless of the (il)legalities behind it. You being the expert know that better than I do.

 

There were more meetings that were announced. I realize some folks can't come to any or all. I myself haven't gone to any except some WSGA meetings when I can. My point being there are some that choose to voice a complaint when they deliberately chose not to attend. It's akin to complaining about a vote result when they didn't vote. So let's get past the red herring bit.

 

Now for the alleged damage that wasn't mentioned.

 

"If it's done right, it's actually a pretty good tool to introduce people to hiking and learning navigational skills," said the U.S. Forest Service's Gary Walker, lead climbing ranger on Mount St. Helens. "But I've also seen caches put on private property and people tromping all around looking for them."

 

Resouce: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/busi...5194_gps10.html

 

Let's also get past the fact this is or isn't being said shall we? It's publicly documented even if it isn't officially documented and it is an apparent long standing opinion and has been the issue all along on why the WSGA even got involved. To turn that opinion, official or not.

[+Criminal]

Now for the alleged damage that wasn't mentioned.

 

"If it's done right, it's actually a pretty good tool to introduce people to hiking and learning navigational skills," said the U.S. Forest Service's Gary Walker, lead climbing ranger on Mount St. Helens. "But I've also seen caches put on private property and people tromping all around looking for them."

 

Resouce: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/busi...5194_gps10.html

I highly doubt he’s speaking factually in that statement. To do so would require us to believe he stood idly by and observed this happening and then took no action. It also begs the question, what the hell was he doing on someone’s private property?

Edited November 13, 2006 by Criminal

[+TotemLake]

 

Again with respect, this is to some extent a red herring. People are able to make meetings or they aren't, and the inability to do so on one occasion (the September meeting in Federal Way is what I assume you are talking about; of course, the Directive was already final at that time) should not preclude open discussion of the topic here. (How many of us can make the trip to Stevenson for the Parks & Rec Commission's 11/30 meeting? I'm in trial that day or else I'd try to make it.) How this all came about and what was the impetus behind it seems like a fair topic to this WSGA member.

 

Something about this comment bugged me and it took me just a little bit to realize why. You picked up the cause at this time and for whatever reason, this has not been in your focus until now.

 

I was made aware of this issue in 2004. I was part of this discussion in 2005 as an officer of the WSGA club. I've been aware of the ongong discussion through this year as a member of WSGA.

 

WSGA has been involved on this from the onset to change the mindset against geocaching in the state parks based on incidents that happened early on. It doesn't matter if you can find an official statement on it or not, it's there and it's real. It took at least 2 years of meetings to educate and bring a change on that negative mindset, and yet it still prevails itself on the news whenever a ranger has the chance.

 

From the beginning, WSGA worked at the grassroots level on the dry and wet side to build a mindset for geocaching among the rangers whom have not yet developed a personal opinion one way or the other; to a level of success which is growing each time we make contact with another park not yet involved.

 

Through a source. we had already heard of meetings where geocaching had been discussed in one form or another through impromptu unofficial discussions as well as official discussions. So far until recent events set this thread in motion, it had been an unofficial statewide opinion of how to come to grips with it, but there was a background agenda on the table by the state to make it official. That being said, we did have some inside information on it becoming a permit process. The rules (we were told) that it was being based on, were were on WSGA's website which at that time reflected the same guidelines as Groundspeak's. The guideline including gaining a permit was not added until I believe late spring this year (I'll have to go through my archived e-mail), even though we were told to expect it since fall of last year.

 

Certain members of the WSGA had a large hand in making sure this did not become outlawed in state parks. It's not a perfect system, and it certainly isn't making some folks happy but it was coming down whether we wanted it or not. Can changes be made on the 30th? I don't know.

 

When there were updates to pass on to WSGA members, this information was disseminated at club meetings and when permissable, put in print on the web.

[+TotemLake]

Now for the alleged damage that wasn't mentioned.

 

"If it's done right, it's actually a pretty good tool to introduce people to hiking and learning navigational skills," said the U.S. Forest Service's Gary Walker, lead climbing ranger on Mount St. Helens. "But I've also seen caches put on private property and people tromping all around looking for them."

 

Resouce: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/busi...5194_gps10.html

I highly doubt he’s speaking factually in that statement. To do so would require us to believe he stood idly by and observed this happening and then took no action. It also begs the question, what the hell was he doing on someone’s private property?

I'm not arguing that. I'm merely indicating the mindset is there.

[+TotemLake]

Lightening Jeff,

 

It occurred to me after re-reading my post to you the discussion going on with the rangers resembled a home owners association meeting. Nothing is brought up that hasn't been discussed unofficially between members over a cup of coffee. Anything new is not brought up in the official meeting until there is an unofficial concensus among the members to vote for or against the issue. Thus no minutes, no formal or informal documentation until an official discussion. The exception is the newbie who hasn't learned those inside politics. I suspect this may be the case here with the parks department and the lack of documentation.

Edited November 13, 2006 by TotemLake

[+Lightning Jeff]

Something about this comment bugged me and it took me just a little bit to realize why. You picked up the cause at this time and for whatever reason, this has not been in your focus until now.

In fairness, TL, I don't think I'm the only one. Until this post, I wasn't aware that a directive was being developed - and certainly not that we as a caching community were involved in it. In comparison to many here, sure, I'm a newcomer. I didn't start caching actively until early 2005. Since then, though, I don't recall a lot of forum discussion about a State Parks policy under development, either here or on the WSGA forums. It's absolutely possible I missed something, and certainly true that I have not attended WSGA meetings.

 

All of that acknowledged, so what? I'm not sure why you have such a negative reaction to what I've posted. I asked questions and requested that something be posted; requested relevant documents from Parks when my questions went unanswered; and posted what I learned from the records I received. I haven't attacked or accused anyone of anything.

 

I occasionally have naive clients (or rather, individuals working for my clients) who appear to resent public record requests and question the motives of those who submit them. There seems to be a sense with some that someone looking for information must be on the attack and should be resisted. To me, that reaction instills suspicion where none might otherwise exist.

 

I would like to thank Lightning Jeff for the free legal support. Too bad it didn't come last year.

Ouch. But again, I don't recall seeing discussion of this prior to the Directive becoming final. Again, I could be wrong. (Of course, this isn't a legal issue. Parks almost certainly has the authority to ban or regulate our activity on land they administer, as long as they comply with the rulemaking requirements of state law. This is a policy/lobbying issue.)

 

Hey, I don't mean to stir things up and I certainly don't mean to point the finger at anyone. There may still be an opportunity to improve on the Directive, or there may not be. If nothing else, maybe there is something to be learned here for next time.

[+TotemLake]

Excellent post. I don't know about the others, but that's the first time I felt like the intent by WSGA was not being attacked.

[+hydnsek]

Excellent post. I don't know about the others, but that's the first time I felt like the intent by WSGA was not being attacked.

Agreed, and I'd also like to reiterate my thanks to Lightning Jeff for providing a thoughtfully edited version of the directive to help me with proposed revisions for the WSGA officers to use in their next round of talks with the state parks.

 

TotemLake, I've learned a lot from your posts, since I was not involved prior to attending the September meeting (therefore, I am a jillie-come-lately); thanks for taking time to write them. I don't want state regulations on geocaching any more than the next person, but understand that we have to work with the hand that's been dealt at this point.

[+Prying Pandora]

Why is ‘working with them’ the default position? Why didn’t we say from the beginning, “No, we do not accept the rules you proposed.” I say let them ban geocaching, then let them justify to their superiors why they are taking such draconian measures against a silly game while at the same time ignoring the activities, both legal and illegal, that really are damaging the parks. I’m of a mind to start leaving ammo cans full of dog crap on the front stoop of their offices.

 

[+Criminal]

Why is ‘working with them’ the default position? Why didn’t we say from the beginning, “No, we do not accept the rules you proposed.” I say let them ban geocaching, then let them justify to their superiors why they are taking such draconian measures against a silly game while at the same time ignoring the activities, both legal and illegal, that really are damaging the parks. I’m of a mind to start leaving ammo cans full of dog crap on the front stoop of their offices.

 

I think I hear you saying "Please put my name on one of those crap filled caches"

 

Will do.

[+hydnsek]

I don't know why, but this quote runs through my head everytime I read this thread:

 

None so deaf as those that will not hear. None so blind as those that will not see.

 

[+Renegade Knight]

I don't know why, but this quote runs through my head everytime I read this thread:

 

None so deaf as those that will not hear. None so blind as those that will not see.

 

 

That sword is doubled edged and a few 'insiders' are bleeding as a result.

 

More than a few took things personally that were not intended as such. Is that the blind or deaf part? Perhaps you had others in mind? A funny thing about mud and blame. There is always enough to go around but it never gets the job done.

 

I've posted a bunch of questions. There has not been one answer either posted or emailed. That could mean several things. The best of the possiblities is that the key person that WSGA has, their ace in the hole has never seen this thread. If the truth is close to nobody knowing you are playing with a weak hand.

Edited November 14, 2006 by Renegade Knight

[+TotemLake]

I don't know why, but this quote runs through my head everytime I read this thread:

 

None so deaf as those that will not hear. None so blind as those that will not see.

 

 

That sword is doubled edged and a few 'insiders' are bleeding as a result.

 

More than a few took things personally that were not intended as such. Is that the blind or deaf part? Perhaps you had others in mind? A funny thing about mud and blame. There is always enough to go around but it never gets the job done.

 

I've posted a bunch of questions. There has not been one answer either posted or emailed. That could mean several things. The best of the possiblities is that the key person that WSGA has, their ace in the hole has never seen this thread. If the truth is close to nobody knowing you are playing with a weak hand.

The why's were answerd. The who's doesn't matter.

[Team Misguided]

I've been watching from a distance for a while because, frankly, I felt like the one under attack. We've been deeply involved since the beginning of this whole journey. We were part of the discussion that sprung up in the wake of the caches being pulled from state parks. We were there at the first WSGA meeting. When the advocacy committee was formed to look into how best to get our positive message to the parks Mr. Misguided volunteered. He attended one of the regional directors meetings and gave a brief geocaching presentation. Which I might add included a demo of various type of containers and which is what convinced them NOT to ban ammo cans in favor of clear containers.

 

I've spoken to rangers at several parks about geocaching and their experiences. Some of the stories I've heard made me embarrassed to be a cacher. Sure they were extreme cases that caught the attention of the rangers and I'm sure for every one there are hundreds or thousands of cache experiences that went unnoticed by the parks. Unfortunately it only takes a few bad experiences for rangers to take action. At the time the WSGA formed we already had two parks where geocaching and geocachers were unwelcome. We had heard grumblings that other parks were starting to have concerns and wonder if they should take a similar stance. That was the birth of the WSGA, here's a quote from the WSGA website: The Washington State Geocaching Association was founded on September 8, 2002. A group of interested geocachers met to discuss the formation of a statewide organization, in part because of a common goal to preserve Geocaching in state parks.

 

That goal has been accomplished. Four years later we finally have a policy that's not perfect but it does establish geocaching as an approved activity for state parks. The alternative was to sit back and slowly watch as park after park banned geocaching. Instead we now have a cache in one of the two parks that started this whole ball rolling, WITH THE RANGERS BLESSING. The other park has also agreed to review permit applications for new geocaches with no indication that they will be denied.

 

More than any of you, I would prefer that there were no guidelines. Think about it, you only have to worry about a permit if you choose to place a cache in a state park. I now have a policy that I have to add to the list of things I need to check when reviewing a cache. This creates more work for me as a cache reviewer to make sure that new caches comply with this new policy. This can add days to every cache review while I wait for verification.

 

No, it's not perfect. Yes we could have done things differently from the beginning. No, that does not mean that would would not still have a permit policy, I still feel it was going to happen sooner or later. Yes, it's late and I'm starting to ramble.

 

We are submitting our revisions to the State Parks so, contrary to what may or may not have been said previously, we have not given up trying to revise the current guidelines. But we don't want to 'throw the baby out with the bathwater' and so we need to be cautiously optimistic as we move forward. I hope the state parks will like the revision that Abby has put together, I don't see how they could have a problem with it. If they don't accept it in it's entirety however, I am prepared to continue to work out the differences until we have a document we can both live with.

[+Criminal]

I've been watching ...we can both live with.

Thanks for the post TMG, despite my feelings on this issue, I certainly DO appreciate all your hard work.

[+Lightning Jeff]

We are submitting our revisions to the State Parks so, contrary to what may or may not have been said previously, we have not given up trying to revise the current guidelines. But we don't want to 'throw the baby out with the bathwater' and so we need to be cautiously optimistic as we move forward. I hope the state parks will like the revision that Abby has put together, I don't see how they could have a problem with it. If they don't accept it in it's entirety however, I am prepared to continue to work out the differences until we have a document we can both live with.

We all appreciate that. Looking forward, I have a couple of suggestions. Can the combined edit that Abby prepared be shared with us? I hope so, because I think we all ought to be making our voices heard on this issue. If we can all get behind one draft, that's most effective.

 

I mentioned the 11/30 Parks Commission meeting in Stevenson. It looks to me like the WAC is to be discussed at that meeting, then set for adoption at the Commission's 1/11 meeting in SeaTac (at which it may be too late to expect any change in course). A list of the Commission's meetings is here. It includes agendas, but the agendas for these two meetings have not been posted yet. I don't know how "connected" the WAC and the Directive are in the Commission's thinking, but I am inclined to weigh in on the WAC by way of pointing to the collective suggested edits to the Directive and explaining why I think they are reasonable changes. Given my schedule that will have to be done in writing. I hope others will say something too. A list of Commission members is here. The Commission's mailing address is:

 

Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission

7150 Cleanwater Drive S.W., P.O. Box 42650

Olympia, WA 98504-2650

[MarcusArelius]

I would like to thank Lightning Jeff for the free legal support. Too bad it didn't come last year.

Ouch. But again, I don't recall seeing discussion of this prior to the Directive becoming final. Again, I could be wrong. (Of course, this isn't a legal issue. Parks almost certainly has the authority to ban or regulate our activity on land they administer, as long as they comply with the rulemaking requirements of state law. This is a policy/lobbying issue.)

 

Hey, I don't mean to stir things up and I certainly don't mean to point the finger at anyone. There may still be an opportunity to improve on the Directive, or there may not be. If nothing else, maybe there is something to be learned here for next time.

 

Sorry, that wasn't meant to be a jab. The thank you was indeed a thank you. I was just lamenting the sense that a bunch of work was done in vain.

 

Sometimes I just wish I never found out about the forums. Ignorance is bliss, or at least it makes playing the game more fun.

[+Lightning Jeff]

Can the combined edit that Abby prepared be shared with us?

So, that's a "no" then?

 

Like I said, it would be nice if we could all write/comment in support of a single draft, but we can't do that if we don't know what's in it. Time is short.

Edited November 16, 2006 by Lightning Jeff

[+TotemLake]

Can the combined edit that Abby prepared be shared with us?

So, that's a "no" then?

 

Like I said, it would be nice if we could all write/comment in support of a single draft, but we can't do that if we don't know what's in it. Time is short.

I support this request providing the feedback energy is directed towards creating a positive document that correctly addresses our concerns.

[+Renegade Knight]

....The why's were answerd. The who's doesn't matter....

 

The why's were not answered at all. Who matters very much.

 

You can't negotiate or even be effective if you don't know what you are doing. All I can see is that some people have an idea of what they would like to do. They have imposed self limiting rules on how they will go about it. Meaning minimal impact and influence on the rules. As for those who feel attacked...when everone is passionate about something it's hard not to show those feelings. That's a world of difference from an attack. Gads, it's not like I wouldn't shake the hands of each and every person, in person and tell them thanks for all the hard work. The topic of the thread is rules which invokes the passion.

 

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

 

Why who matters. Rules come from somewhere. Joe Employee or Joe Bossman as two examples. Each can cause rules to happen but hwo they happen is different. Joe Moron Employee and Joe Star Employee also have different rules when it comes to how they can cause rules. Joe Wise Boss and Joe Jackass Boss...again different means and methods. I've kept it simple but it impacts strategy. Joe Bossman often delegates to another who.

 

Why matters. "To protect our parks". That's generic tripe. "On Tuesday Joe Bossman saw a trampled weed and thought "gee that weed was trampled and this caching thing could get out of hand..." That's different from "Well I recon we need to regulate caching..." If you know the real why, you can solve the real problem . If the real problem can be solved within the existing rules framework all the better. That would mean no new rules. Again I've kept it simple.

 

As for the self limiting rules, ever wonder why some people know how to push the rules? They learn when to keep to them and when they can break them. Plus they know the real boundaries. You will find that some of the most effective people are both likable and know the rules they can break, push, bend, fold, staple and hold the line on.

 

My questions were meant to allow for the gaining of better information. Better information means better better strategy. Nothing more was ever intended. It's not like I can armchair negotiate this even if I was forced to the job at gunpoint. That's one of those rules that's not written that you have to hold too.

[+TotemLake]

Am I just being dense? I'll admit it's possible.

 

I don't even know where to begin with what you just said to relate it to our current phase. It gives me the gut feeling you're agonizing over points no longer salient to the current phase.

 

My perception of your points are these are good for the beginning of this type of negotiation to steer it where you need it. It's like affecting a ballistic toss. An early correction means big results, a late correction is almost useless.

[+hydnsek]

The why's were not answered at all.

Wow. Are we reading the same thread? Team Misguided and TotemLake, in particular, have provided extensive details on the "why," including a long note from TM a few posts above this. Maybe you don't like the "why's," but they've very patiently provided them, repeatedly. I know I've learned a lot, since I knew very little of the history before this thread and the Sept. meeting.

 

Oh, and for those wanting "Abby's edited version of the directive" to be posted - not up to me. The WSGA officers are managing the process, and the document is now in their hands. I was just a scribe who volunteered to do the edits. But I support the call for openness in the process, as is practical without jeopardizing it.

[+Renegade Knight]

The why's were not answered at all.

Wow. Are we reading the same thread? Team ...

 

Reading the same thread, yes. Thinking of the same why? We are not on the same page at all. Proposed policies don't just appear on someones desk on an idle tuesday afternoon. If you know why and how it got there and who's behind it that's good info.

 

Totem Lake:

I work for the State of Idaho. My section has an unofficial motto. "Stay Loose and Be Flexable". The reason is simple. At any moment anything we are doing can change. A project can be dropped instantly. Another can move foward. A landslide or flood can change all your priorites. Some person can make a single comment that derails months of work and changes everthing. As big a beauracracy as I work for it's amazing how fast things can change and why they do. If you as the public know the who, what, when, why, where, and how of how something came into existance you would then have the ability to ask that question or make that comment that changes everything.

 

On one of my projects, one that has roots that goes back to the 60's. A local person wrote a single letter to the right person. It stalled out my project for the last 6 months and I'm still working to get the project back into gear.

 

We as cachers know caching. Parks don't. That's where goofy rules come from. If we did know parks and more importatnly the parks staff and people and politics almost as well as caching....even at the 11th hour good things can happen.

[+TotemLake]

RK wrote me in greater detail what he's been trying to say... simply put knowing the right person at the right moment using the right nudge can give a much better result; even at this late stage... in retrospect and in context it looks like that's what Lightning Jeff was trying to say too. I think this is where Team Misguided is at with their years of working on this issue.

 

Using my ballistic toss analogy, it's using the laser shot at the right moment for greatest effect even at the far end of the toss.

 

If I forgot to say it before, LJ and RK, thanks for your input.

 

I think a lot of this needs to be boilerplated for future use by other organizations.

[+Lightning Jeff]

Like I said, it would be nice if we could all write/comment in support of a single draft, but we can't do that if we don't know what's in it. Time is short.

I support this request providing the feedback energy is directed towards creating a positive document that correctly addresses our concerns.

I support the call for openness in the process, as is practical without jeopardizing it.

Positive is my intent. I can certainly support my draft, and if necessary, that is the one I will support when I write to the Parks Commission. I would like to be able to say I support the collective edit submitted by WSGA. More importantly, it would be most effective if the Commission were to see a lot of us supporting that one edit. As of now though, I can't do that because I haven't seen it. I assume the same applies to others here. So we may end up with different drafts being thrown around, and how effective do you think that will be?

 

Really, what is the problem here? The Commission is meeting on 11/30 - less than two weeks from today. I plan on submitting substantial explanations and justifications for the changes proposed, and the sooner that is in the Commissioners' hands, the better. If they get it the day of their meeting, some will not read it. And while action on the WAC is planned for 1/11, the 11/30 meeting is almost certainly where Commissioners will make up their minds. So can we get access to the edit or not?

[luckykoi]

Ok so when can I start hiding caches in State Parks? Politics boggle my mind, (or is it the rhubarb

wine?) someone let me know when I can go out and play in the woods again.

Edited November 20, 2006 by luckykoi

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Ok so when can I start hiding caches in State Parks? Politics boggle my mind, (or is it the rhubarb

wine?) someone let me know when I can go out and play in the woods again.

 

Any time you'd like. Just check in with the park ranger's office to see what rules are currently in place.

 

John

[luckykoi]

Ok so when can I start hiding caches in State Parks? Politics boggle my mind, (or is it the rhubarb

wine?) someone let me know when I can go out and play in the woods again.

 

Any time you'd like. Just check in with the park ranger's office to see what rules are currently in place.

 

John

 

The park I have in mind has a Ranger that does not allow caches so I'm waiting for the official change of rules to see if he will have to follow them.

[+Right Wing Wacko]

The park I have in mind has a Ranger that does not allow caches so I'm waiting for the official change of rules to see if he will have to follow them.

 

If the Ranger for your park is Anti-Geocaching, these rules may or may not help you. Approval of the caches is still at the descretion of the Park Ranger.

 

The good news is that at least one park that was in the Anti-GC column now has a fully permitted cache in it!

[+Prying Pandora]

I just received the PROPOSED changes to the Washington State Parks geocaching directive, and published it on the WSGA Website.

 

I emphasize that it is a DRAFT with PROPOSED CHANGES, NOT the final directive. Whether it is accepted or not will be decided by the Washington State Parks.

[+TotemLake]

Thanks! FWIW, the link to the forum doesn't work. Drilling down to the topic does. Also, line breaks are going to be needed for the document to make it easier to read.

Edited November 21, 2006 by TotemLake

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Thanks! FWIW, the link to the forum doesn't work. Drilling down to the topic does. Also, line breaks are going to be needed for the document to make it easier to read.

 

I just copied and pasted the document to a notepad to make it easier to read.

 

John

[+TotemLake]

Thanks! FWIW, the link to the forum doesn't work. Drilling down to the topic does. Also, line breaks are going to be needed for the document to make it easier to read.

 

I just copied and pasted the document to a notepad to make it easier to read.

 

John

I did to, but you shouldn't have to if the proper HTML is used.

[+Right Wing Wacko]

Thanks! FWIW, the link to the forum doesn't work. Drilling down to the topic does. Also, line breaks are going to be needed for the document to make it easier to read.

 

I just copied and pasted the document to a notepad to make it easier to read.

 

John

I did to, but you shouldn't have to if the proper HTML is used.

 

Except that the forums do not accept HTML code.

[+Prying Pandora]

Thanks! FWIW, the link to the forum doesn't work. Drilling down to the topic does. Also, line breaks are going to be needed for the document to make it easier to read.

 

Both links work fine for me.

[+TotemLake]

Works for me now too and I tried several times this morning.

[+Lightning Jeff]

I just received the PROPOSED changes to the Washington State Parks geocaching directive, and published it on the WSGA Website.

 

I emphasize that it is a DRAFT with PROPOSED CHANGES, NOT the final directive. Whether it is accepted or not will be decided by the Washington State Parks.

Thanks for posting this, Cathy.

 

I've had a chance to compare the WSGA draft against my own (submitted to WSGA via Abby a few weeks ago). While many of my edits were included in WSGA's draft, I unfortunately cannot support WSGA's draft. Here are the major differences between our drafts:

 

- Preapproval: My draft would have eliminated the requirement that the park manager pre-approve the exact location of the cache, but rather, would have allowed the park manager to approve the location based on a description that satisfied him or her. The WSGA edit removes these edits, such that pre-viewing of the cache and pre-approval of the location by the park manager is required.

 

- Restoration: My draft made the cache owner responsible for restoration costs directly attributable to damage caused by the owner in placing the cache. WSGA's draft makes the owner responsible for "reasonable restoration costs," regardless of who caused the damage or when.

 

- Scheduled Maintenance: My draft required the owner to monitor the web listing for the cache and to perform site visits and maintenance as indicated (and as specifically required by the park manager). Proof of maintenance (including form of proof) was at the option of the park manager. WSGA's draft reverts to requiring a site visit every 90 days (or 180 with park manager approval), regardless of whether there are any indications of problems with the cache; proof is mandatory.

 

- Existing Caches: My draft included a provision requiring existing caches to be brought into compliance within 60 days of the (revised) directive. WSGA's draft eliminates this provision, so pre-Directive caches are again in limbo.

 

- Indemnification: (This is the deal-breaker for me.)

 

My draft required the owner to defend, indemnify and hold the state harmless for injuries and damage sustained by the owner in placing the cache. It also required the owner to include in the web listing of the cache a statement that seekers agree to defend, indemnify and hold the state harmless for injuries or damage sustained in seeking the cache. In short, each individual is responsible for his or her own actions.

 

WSGA's draft reverts to draconian language by which the owner agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the state harmless for any claim "arising from the placement, movement or removal of the geocache, or resulting from the contents of the geocache, or the use or misuse of said contents." In short, the cache owner is on the hook for the uncontrollable and unknown actions of others.

 

(Why this makes a difference: If I hurt myself placing a cache, I should be responsible for that. I have all kinds of insurance to cover the risk that I will be injured or killed doing something I enjoy. However, if someone else does something stupid while looking for a cache I placed (such as wandering off a cliff, getting themselves mauled by a bear because it's standing on the cache, or using a knife someone else put in the cache to pick their nose just a little too deep) that is not my responsibility. My insurance almost certainly won't cover it - especially if my insurer decides I signed on for liability that wouldn't otherwise have been mine.)

 

As I've stated previously, I had genuinely hoped that just about all of us could get behind and support one draft. I can't do that with WSGA's draft. Further, with WSGA formally proposing these provisions - including the broad and unreasonable indemnification language - I see little hope that anything less rigid will be adopted. I can't say that I now see any value in explaining the proposed changes to the Parks Commission - something I had been prepared to do. Since I will never jeopardize my house, savings, retirement, children's college funds, etc. for the privilege of placing a cache in a state park, I think I'm done.

 

Have a great Thanksgiving everyone.

 

Jeff

[+hydnsek]

Note from the editor: Jeff provided extensive, thoughtful edits to the directive, most of which were used in preparing the revised draft for WSGA to submit. Thanks again to Jeff for taking the time to provide the suggested changes, which made my task easier, and for continuing to push for their inclusion and transparency in the process.

 

The revised draft includes extensive edits to many sections, including all those discussed at the Parks meeting in September, as well as other areas we felt needed attention. It's a substantial edit.

 

However, it's true that not every one of Jeff's edits were included.

- First, this was a compilation of submissions by several people, both outside and inside WSGA, many of whom provided alternate wording for the same sections. This means everyone won't see their exact words or thoughts in the final draft.

- Second, WSGA felt a few of the proposed changes wouldn't fly, so they asked me me not to include them, or to use alternate language.

 

Addressing Jeff's specific concerns:

 

- Scheduled Maintenance and Pre-approval: My first draft eliminated the 90-day cache maintenance requirement, replacing that section with language we would all much prefer, but WSGA feels that the state will not agree to eliminating a time frame and going by finder logs, therefore our best bet is to propose an extension to 180 days and soften the language a bit. So, while it DOES propose a change from the current directive language, it is not as general as we would ideally like. The Pre-approval language also was modified to find a middle ground between our desires and what the state stands firm on.

 

- Existing caches: I was instructed not to add additional language or requirements beyond what was there, but to modify the existing language in the areas that concerned us. So, for example, I was told to remove Jeff's added section on bringing existing geocaches into compliance.

 

- Restoration: Yes, language provided by other cachers was used instead of Jeff's. In fact, several folks proposed the same wording, and that's what was used.

 

- Indemnification: It's true, no changes were made to the actual Permit form in the document. Don't recall why, but if WSGA agrees, I would be glad to edit the Permit form to rework the Indemnification clause, as Jeff suggests. (Or they can do so.)

 

Hope that helps clarify. Everyone should take a look at the draft and see what they think. I have no idea if there is still time to include any further revisions, WSGA would have to speak to that, but I will be glad to help if further edits are needed.

 

Edit: For clarity.

Edited November 22, 2006 by hydnsek

[+MtnGoat50]

 

- Restoration: Yes, language provided by other cachers was used instead of Jeff's. In fact, several folks proposed the same wording, and that's what was used.

 

- Indemnification: It's true, no changes were made to the actual Permit form in the document. Don't recall why, but if WSGA agrees, I would be glad to edit the Permit form to rework the Indemnification clause, as Jeff suggests. (Or they can do so.)

 

Edit: For clarity.

These are both deal breakers for me.

 

Restoration: I would be unwilling to agree to pay for damage caused by some other person that I have no control over. This seems totally unreasonable, I can perhaps see the state wanting it but I can't see geocachers agreeing to it with out an objection.

 

Indemnification: This is a major deal breaker! Almost everyone I know of has a big problem with this. Several caches in my area have already been archived because of it (some of the best caches by the best hiders). I'm extremely disapointed that the WSGA did not address these concerns.

 

Jeff's language on both the points would be acceptable to me.

[+hydnsek]

 

- Restoration: Yes, language provided by other cachers was used instead of Jeff's. In fact, several folks proposed the same wording, and that's what was used.

 

- Indemnification: It's true, no changes were made to the actual Permit form in the document. Don't recall why, but if WSGA agrees, I would be glad to edit the Permit form to rework the Indemnification clause, as Jeff suggests. (Or they can do so.)

 

Edit: For clarity.

These are both deal breakers for me.

 

Restoration: I would be unwilling to agree to pay for damage caused by some other person that I have no control over. This seems totally unreasonable, I can perhaps see the state wanting it but I can't see geocachers agreeing to it with out an objection.

 

Indemnification: This is a major deal breaker! Almost everyone I know of has a big problem with this. Several caches in my area have already been archived because of it (some of the best caches by the best hiders). I'm extremely disapointed that the WSGA did not address these concerns.

 

Jeff's language on both the points would be acceptable to me.

 

Again: the Restoration language was changed based on suggestions from fellow geocachers. So, WSGA did address it, just not with Jeff's language. If you look much earlier in this thread, you can probably find the suggested wording from another member, which matched several suggestions offline and at the meeting. Let's be clear: Just because Jeff's particular suggestions weren't used, doesn't mean revisions weren't made.

 

And again: I would be glad to revise the indemnification wording if WSGA agrees. I don't think there was willful disregard, but perhaps an oversight - it could have even been on my part, as there were so many edits from so many folks to reconcile, I might have missed it. Or perhaps WSGA didn't want that element changed, I honestly don't recall. I do know language was changed within the directive itself, albeit not in the form that Jeff references.

[+Prying Pandora]

And again: I would be glad to revise the indemnification wording if WSGA agrees. I don't think there was willful disregard, but perhaps an oversight - it could have even been on my part, as there were so many edits from so many folks to reconcile, I might have missed it. Or perhaps WSGA didn't want that element changed, I honestly don't recall. I do know language was changed within the directive itself, albeit not in the form that Jeff references.

 

It's probably too late for that, as I sent the draft to WA State Parks yesterday.

[+TotemLake]

And again: I would be glad to revise the indemnification wording if WSGA agrees. I don't think there was willful disregard, but perhaps an oversight - it could have even been on my part, as there were so many edits from so many folks to reconcile, I might have missed it. Or perhaps WSGA didn't want that element changed, I honestly don't recall. I do know language was changed within the directive itself, albeit not in the form that Jeff references.

 

It's probably too late for that, as I sent the draft to WA State Parks yesterday.

It can be suggested for change at the next parks meeting. It is too bad the draft was posted without notice that any chance of working out any changes was gone.

Edited November 23, 2006 by TotemLake