Washington State Parks

[+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.

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.

 

Sorry about that! Looking back at my post, I can see I was unclear about it already being sent when I said it was in the hands of the state. It was given to me as a finished product that needed to be sent to WA State Parks. and I sent it immediately.

[+TotemLake]

No worries. Chalk it up to lessons learned for the future.

[+MissJenn]

I am sorry if this info is buried in these many pages of discussion:

So, is http://www.geocachingwa.org/?DEST=/land-use/state.asp the place where the final state park policy is posted?

 

Thanks for the help.

[+Right Wing Wacko]

I am sorry if this info is buried in these many pages of discussion:

So, is http://www.geocachingwa.org/?DEST=/land-use/state.asp the place where the final state park policy is posted?

 

Thanks for the help.

 

I wouldn't call it "Final" but that is where the "CURRENT" policy is located

[lucyandrickie]

You also might want to check out the Washington State Park Website. At the bottom of the page is a link to the directive. Looks pretty official to me now that it is on the website.

[+MissJenn]

Thank you, RWW and lucyandrickie!

[Team Misguided]

You also might want to check out the Washington State Park Website. At the bottom of the page is a link to the directive. Looks pretty official to me now that it is on the website.

 

Thanks for pointing that out L&R. I have been checking out their website every so often to see if it's been added and they must have done that since my last visit!

[+DrAwKwArD]

Strange...

 

"Log books are required for each cache and are to be provided by the owner of the cache" is the only bolded text in the document. Why? What's it to the Parks Department whether there's a log or not?

[+TotemLake]

Strange...

 

"Log books are required for each cache and are to be provided by the owner of the cache" is the only bolded text in the document. Why? What's it to the Parks Department whether there's a log or not?

[+DrAwKwArD]

No, I was not stirring the pot. I got my question answered the old-fashioned way. Question Rescinded. I still don't know why it's in bold, though.

Edited March 18, 2007 by cache-n-dash

[+TotemLake]

No, I was not stirring the pot. I got my question answered the old-fashioned way. Question Rescinded. I still don't know why it's in bold, though.

Because it's stressed to ensure the log is there for maintenance checks as this is the only way the rangers will know the owner has been checking on them.

 

This particular subject you think you're raising as a new issue has been hashed to death in this thread thus the reply with the stirring pot.

[luckykoi]

You also might want to check out the Washington State Park Website. At the bottom of the page is a link to the directive. Looks pretty official to me now that it is on the website.

 

I know we are supposed to be happy about this but all I can think is "what a pain in the a**". I'd rather go to the DMV (or what ever the state calls it these days) and wait in line to pay to get my drivers license renewed then go through all this hassle to place a cache. But I've got a National Forest in my back yard so I don't need state parks anyway..

[Team Misguided]

You also might want to check out the Washington State Park Website. At the bottom of the page is a link to the directive. Looks pretty official to me now that it is on the website.

 

I know we are supposed to be happy about this but all I can think is "what a pain in the a**". I'd rather go to the DMV (or what ever the state calls it these days) and wait in line to pay to get my drivers license renewed then go through all this hassle to place a cache. But I've got a National Forest in my back yard so I don't need state parks anyway..

 

It was really no hassle at all for me to get the permits for the two caches we have in a state park. It didn't even hurt.

[+Criminal]

Well, not all of us can charm our way past the required flogging like you can.

[+Shop99er]

I didn'y have any problems with my two....

[Team Misguided]

Well, not all of us can charm our way past the required flogging like you can.

 

Who said I skipped that part?

 

Remember I'm a reviewer, I enjoy pain and torture.

[+Lightning Jeff]

It was really no hassle at all for me to get the permits for the two caches we have in a state park. It didn't even hurt.

Out of curiosity, did the park manager actually inspect both the cache (including contents) and the actual hide location, as required by the directive? If so, how was that arranged and accomplished? (I'm interested to know whether the fact that the permit process is perceived as relatively easy/painless is attributable to the parks themselves disregarding elements of it.)

 

I'd also be interested in how often those of you with "permitted" caches in state parks check their contents for inappropriate items (the use or misuse of which by third parties you are financially responsible for).

 

Also, what hide methods are being approved? I recall that the directive prohibits the "disturbance" of any vegetation or stones, which would seem to preclude most typical western Washington hide methods.

[Team Misguided]

Funny you should bump this today. I had a nice chat with the State Parks this afternoon to touch base. So far they are pleased with how things are going. They are even considering having some parks set up their own geocaches.

 

As for our caches, both are in the same State Park. The rangers have known about the older one for years and exactly how and where it's hidden. I did not need to go to that cache site with the ranger, he'd already been there and signed the log. The other cache he was familiar with the general area where the cache was but not the specific placement so he grabbed his radio and we took a walk. While we were walking we had a nice visit about geocaching and the caches in that park in particular. At the cache site he inspected the hide method and said it was okay. Then we headed back.

 

Just last week on our quarterly maintenance visit we did inspect the contents and removed anything that was trashy. We would have removed anything inappropriate if necessary.

 

I can't speak for anyone else as to what hide types are being approved but our two caches are ammo cans that are both hidden within feet of the main trail. As for the contents, the park is free to check the contents at anytime they see fit to make sure they comply with the directive.

[+Right Wing Wacko]

Out of curiosity, did the park manager actually inspect both the cache (including contents) and the actual hide location, as required by the directive? If so, how was that arranged and accomplished? (I'm interested to know whether the fact that the permit process is perceived as relatively easy/painless is attributable to the parks themselves disregarding elements of it.)

 

They had already inspected the cache long before I arrived with my permit application. They do seem to check on the cache occasionally and have removed contraband.

 

I'd also be interested in how often those of you with "permitted" caches in state parks check their contents for inappropriate items (the use or misuse of which by third parties you are financially responsible for).

 

As I mentioned above, they have removed contraband themselves and have not contacted me or complained other than to note it in a log.

 

BTW: I should point out that we confirmed with the SP that should a Ticket be issued for putting contraband in a cache, it would be the person or persons that placed the contraband that would be ticketed, not the cache owner.

 

Also, what hide methods are being approved? I recall that the directive prohibits the "disturbance" of any vegetation or stones, which would seem to preclude most typical western Washington hide methods.

 

In my case the cache is hidden under a log behind but not under some dangleing ferns.