3 rivers park question

[+Renegade Knight]

...stretch that 25 foot limit out a bit in some areas? Lookin' for some feedback here...

 

Unless the rule says "about 25" it's 25'. Even if it doesn't always make sence in a location. Once a rule is made the people stuck enforcing it don't normally get a lot of flexability.

[+sbell111]

I would think that the only appropriate way to hide one farther from the trail than the park's rule allows is to have a park rep actually go to the location and tell you that it's OK.

[Abra Cadaver]

This is Icky, the other half of Abra cadaver.

 

25' is roughly 8 average sized adult steps.

These are highly used hiking trails ( I know, seems like an oximoron, right?) Horse trails, walking trails, and some dog walking trails. Theres only so much you can do with heavy trafic and 8 steps.

As I said in the other thread.....

1. Whats the point of getting in your car, driving 30-40 min. to a park, parking, walking for 40 min, just to find 1 cache? Look at it from an environmental point of view....if your into that kind of thing.

2. 99% of the people that went to find our caches loved the walk, liked the hides, and appriciated the numbers.

3. We knew the 25' rule, we took a shot, and lost. Now, any of our caches in 3 rivers will be no more then 8 steps off of the center line of a trail. I know, seems like a lame waste of time.

But, as our local "geo-cop" pointed out..."If I ignore these caches, it sends a very bad signal to the rest of the area cachers that *** *** ******/****** *** condones the violation of the TRP rules. "

Rules are rules and 25' (From center line) is 8 steps.

Edited August 31, 2007 by Abra Cadaver

[+Confucius' Cat]

I recently placed 2 caches in areas that require approval and have a lot of silly rules. (one has been approved and the other I keep getting busy signals at the contact number)

 

As I look at the rules, that I assume were negotiated by a local caching club and the property managers, I gasp!

 

(these are not from the same set of rules but are some of the typical things I have seen in policies on geocaching)

 

1. must be within arm's reach of the trail (And we expect it to NOT get muggled?)

 

2. must not remain more than 1 year (And that is worth my time and money as a cache owner?)

 

3. must not be more than one cache per park (And cachers are going to drive a hundred miles to the park, why?)

 

4. cannot be in a crack in the rocks (this is some kind of important habitat, notwithstanding the drift and garbage that have accumulated there)

 

5. cannot be over 1 quart capacity (see #1- doubtful that anything other than a micro could survive anyway)

 

6. must be transparent container (bomb squad is going to blow it up anyway if they get a report- even though it was approved by the management, and furthermore how do you camouflage it?)

 

I know, I know, "the alternative is that the parks will be off limits to geocaching."

 

With policies like these, what's the difference?

 

I am and probably always will be an advocate for getting permission in almost every case, but those that argue that we should keep it quiet and getting forgiveness is easier than getting permission have a valid point regarding the future of the sport if the best we can negotiate as "policy" is restrictions like the above.

 

One of the problems with "blanket" policies is that once codified, they leave no room for common sense. The policy takes away the discretion of the managers. In the case of managers who hate our sport, this is a good thing (but not so much, because negative managers can always find an excuse to deny anyway- we have a fine example of that in the IDNR policy locally). But in the case of managers who might be favourable to us, these policies effectively "tie their hands" and good caches that common sense would say have no reason to be denied, cannot be approved because of "policy." Therefore we are stuck with the woodsy equivalent of the LPC.

Edited September 1, 2007 by Confucius' Cat

[+Rockin Roddy]

Many policies were made up AFTER a problem had already occurred either at that park or nearby. Working with the landowners BEFORE having a problem would have been great, but what can you do??

 

I know, try rehashing the policy with them! Show them the economic good caching can be to their parks, demonstrate how a well placed cache isn't an environmental nightmare! Work with them to bring about the change you desire!

[+Confucius' Cat]

Show them the economic good caching can be to their parks, demonstrate how a well placed cache isn't an environmental nightmare! Work with them to bring about the change you desire!

Being "devil's advocate" here:

 

Economic good? "So your cache is going to bring another 100 visitors a year to my park, eh? Well, the park gets 20,000 visitors a year already. I doubt I'll notice the 'great economic impact'."

 

Environmental damage:

 

"Exactly how do you intend to place a cache so that people don't trample the general area of the cache whilst looking for it? Do you put up a red flag that says 'geocache here'?"

 

It is time we admit it. Our hobby does not have any significant merit for the landowners. It is all a matter of perceptions. Our vision is skewed by our desire to pursue our hobby. Their vision is based on their observations of general activity in their parks anf their personal opinion of the purpose of the land and where the visitors fit into that purpose.

 

I.E. we look at the trampling of the undergrowth and say, "it'll grow back- no different than if a deer had trampled it."

 

They might look at it and say, "we are preserving this land for the deer, it is a shame we have to put up with visitors at all, nasty things visitors, they cause ME to miss dinner."

 

Those park managers that see the purpose of the park as to enhance enjoyment by visitors don't need convincing as to the value of caching. To them it is just as valid as fishing and hiking.

 

Those park managers that see their purpose to preserve Bambi will not be convinced to allow those nasty humans off the trail no matter what. "It is bad enough that they are allowed in here in the first place."

[+Rockin Roddy]

My experience is vastly different than you state CC! Ask the people at Hayes Park here where I live and they'll tell a totally different story about how the event that we hosted there was a HUGE success, the story about it printed in their mailer glows of their approval! You'd also be told of the change in next year's schedule to allow us an even better date to host our event!

 

They'd tell you that they had many new visitors, many of which stopped in to buy a parks sticker and spoke to my contact lady personally about caching. They'd outline their plans for a new program involving the rental of GPS units to potential cachers who'd like to check out caching before buying a unit.

 

They'd tell you that they visited several of the caches I have placed out there and praise the fact that no new "spur" trails have been started, no environmental damage to speak of at all. They'd tell you how happy they are to see the trash that I and others have CITO'd out already, and know we will do more! They'd tell you how much they appreciate my time involved in bringing extra visitors to their cash strapped park system, the extra money (no matter how small or large) is a true boost to their budget which is continually lessening every year.

 

OR...go to another park just down the road which I also worked out a deal to allow caches. Hidden Lake Gardens would paint much the same picture, they'd also add the THANKS for our help with their upcoming festival where we'll be hosting a GC101 workshop. We'll be helping visitors learn caching and possibly bring in some newbs! Our caches (15+ but can't remember the exact number) have brought them many new visitors as well. Since they are eco crazy there, they'd probably tell you that one of our hides is starting a spur trail, but since I move them about (not far enough to involve coords changes), the trail will be minimal at worst!

 

They'd also praise our CITO efforts and are ever happy to go out to be shown the next hide thought!!

 

Since BOTH of these parks have seen an influx of new visitors (most of which are cachers, some are also friends of the cachers who heard of the park and had to visit) and many new members to their programs, I'd say the economic good is obvious! Since our impact has been minimal at worst, they'd likey praise our handling of the environmental issues!

 

Many of the "new" visitors will and have been repeat visitors as the parks have so much more to offer than just caching, but many wouldn't have known or cared unless and until they were brought to the park....to find a cache!!!

[+Rockin Roddy]

Oh, I forgot to add the fact that this visitor growth has been seen all through Michigan's State Parks system as they have worked a great deal to allow free placements of caches (used to be a fee to place). This agreement has benefited both the parks system AND cachers as we get to use our parks for our sport and they reap the benefits of the new visitors.

 

My guess....we have given these parks an economic good!