Heads-up About Impending Rule Change in Maryland DNR-managed Parks

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Just a quick heads-up about an impending Maryland DNR Parks rule which has a very high likelihood of being enacted, and is already being enforced in some of the Maryland DNR-managed parks for all new placements:

 

I have been advised by Lt. Mark Maas, in my role as a volunteer reviewer of geocache and letterbox placements (from any and all listing sites) for DNR in Gambrill State Park and Cunningham Falls State Park, that DNR is strongly leaning toward changing their requirements for containers used for cache and letterbox placements in DNR-administered parks to one which will specify that only transparent containers, that is, containers which are transparent on all six sides, may be used, with the additional requirement that each of the six surfaces must bear a waterproof/weatherproof label reading "Geocache" (and other information, if needed, such as "Please Do Not Disturb"), and the labels must be of a size which is large enough to be easily read, but small enough that the label does not obscure viewing the contents of the container. While the requirement has not yet been committed to paper on the DNR cache application forms, this is a change that DNR is strongly considering implementing statewide for all placements on all DNR Parks-managed properties, and at this time, Mark Maas is already strongly inclined to make this an informal requirement for all new cache placements in the two above-mentioned parks from this point onward, effective immediately. He has also advised me that if and when they do actually change the written rules to include this revised container specification, DNR plans to allow a reasonable time window, of perhaps 2 to 3 months, for owners of legacy caches and letterboxes already emplaced in the parks, to allow them some time in which to upgrade their containers to meet the new requirements.

 

DNR's biggest concern in this matter, in this post-9/11 world, is to get rid of all cache and letterbox containers that have an ambiguous appearance, particularly opaque containers that are not well-labeled on each side, and particularly brown, olive green, near-black or black containers that could be mistaken for some type of IED (improvised explosive device) or perhaps a drug stash. In my role as an invited consultant on this proposed rule change, I have proposed that one exception be made, and that would be for metal ammo cans which have been completely painted white on all six sides and which are labeled with waterproof/weatherproof "Geocache" labels on all six sides, and that exception is under consideration.

 

Please understand that this new rule will not at all affect signage stages, such as small durable metal or plastic tags used to simply convey waypoint coordinates for a subsequent stage (or to disclose the waypoint for the flying saucer landing site), and rather, it impacts only cache (and letterbox) containers.

 

Mark and his staff are already informally communicating this requirement from this point onward to all persons wishing to emplace geocaches or letterboxes at the two above-mentioned parks, and if and when the requirement is codified in print and incorporated in the DNR cache application form (this would likely be statewide, if it comes to pass) for all state parks, then I will pass the word along in this thread or a related thread on the MGS site.

Edited September 16, 2008 by Vinny & Sue Team

[+Packanack]

Why? This seems to be almost absurdly ridiculous.

 

What problem is this change intended to address from a governmental involvement standard ?

 

And what is the local view ? Immaterial , not worth bothering about or just another burden that is not even worth questioning.

Edited September 17, 2008 by Packanack

[+SharpShin']

Why? This seems to be almost absurdly ridiculous.

 

What problem is this change intended to address from a governmental involvement standard ?

 

And what is the local view ? Immaterial , not worth bothering about or just another burden that is not even worth questioning.

 

This is being discussed on the Md. Geocaching Forum, where Vinny made the same post.

 

As a MD cacher, I don't believe this is "immaterial" - More arbitrary than anything, and I have expressed my concerns on the MGS Forum.

 

I appreciate Vinny bringing it to the MD geocaching community's attention.

[+Packanack]

As a MD cacher, I don't believe this is "immaterial" - More arbitrary than anything, and I have expressed my concerns on the MGS Forum.

 

It struck me as being somewhat arbitrary, but what I could not figure out from any of the information, why the change, what problem are they trying to address, by making the change in their rules are they curing a problem ?

[+SharpShin']

As a MD cacher, I don't believe this is "immaterial" - More arbitrary than anything, and I have expressed my concerns on the MGS Forum.

 

It struck me as being somewhat arbitrary, but what I could not figure out from any of the information, why the change, what problem are they trying to address, by making the change in their rules are they curing a problem ?

 

Any response I make would only be conjecture - I have my theories, but that is all they are; and, I would prefer to see first-hand knowlege & facts posted.

 

Vinny has a unique relationship with the DNR people in the two parks mentioned, and could better answer your questions. Hopefully he will respond.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

As a MD cacher, I don't believe this is "immaterial" - More arbitrary than anything, and I have expressed my concerns on the MGS Forum.

 

It struck me as being somewhat arbitrary, but what I could not figure out from any of the information, why the change, what problem are they trying to address, by making the change in their rules are they curing a problem ?

 

Any response I make would only be conjecture - I have my theories, but that is all they are; and, I would prefer to see first-hand knowlege & facts posted.

 

Vinny has a unique relationship with the DNR people in the two parks mentioned, and could better answer your questions. Hopefully he will respond.

Well, I personally do not believe that the decision by DNR to state this requirement more clearly and explicitly and to enforce it more strictly is any big deal and Sue seems to have the same laid-back feeling as do I. And none of the hiders whom we know who actually own caches in either of these two parks seems to be at all disturbed about the possible tightening of the rules.

 

And, in fact, as JPatton (an ex-officer and founder of MGS) has already pointed out on the MGS forum, the reality is -- if you wanna get really honest and blunt about it -- that this requirement was largely instituted years ago, in the months just after 9/11, by MD DNR, and the only thing new is that they seem to have been receiving pressure from their law enforcement people to state the requirement more clearly and more explicitly, and to enforce it far more strictly and firmly, and to perhaps finally get rid of the white ammo cans (which had previously been the one exception allowed...) and (perhaps) instead insist that all caches be in transparent containers.

 

And, the reality is that most of the caches placed in the two DNR parks for which I am responsible (as the volunteer DNR reviewer for all geocache and letterbox placement in those parks) are already largely in compliance with those rules, and for the few that are not, it will not be hard to swap them over (to transparent containers) during the grace period. In fact, one of Sue's puzzle caches owned by our team account in Cunningham Falls State Park is in a white ammo can, and the idea of possibly needing to swap that out for a large transparent container sometime in the next few months is not at all bothersome for us. And, a couple of our other caches in those parks may also need a small bit of container upgrading, but this is not a problem for us. So we, and most of the local cachers whom we know (who own caches in these two parks, seem to be rather at peace with what is really just a minor tightening and minor fine-tuning of the DNR rules.

 

Of course, there are a few DNR-manged state parks across the state which had been much more liberal, casual and relaxed about enforcing the post-9/11 rules regarding containers over the years, and which also are home to lots of caches, and thus there may be somewhat more weeping and gnashing of teeth in those regions of Maryland.

 

As for me, well, my attitude is simply gratitude that DNR has always been largely so receptive to cache placements in the parks, despite several cache-related problems (we are talking bomb squad callouts due to isanely inept placements of inappropriate containers) in the past (many years ago) that led to to a temporary ban on cache placements, and that their rules are so simple and sane and realistic, and eminently workable.

 

Of course, the one quarter from which we will continue to hear screaming about this tightening of the rules will be the body of folks who had been hoping to hide silly camouflaged nanos or micros, or some other kind of small camouflaged container, in dense forest (see footnote #1) -- that will simply not be happening, but then again, that kind of placement has already been illegal anyway in DNR parks since post 9/11 days!

 

Footnote #1: my personal point of view is that anyone who would want to emplace a camouflaged micro or nano container in deep forest as a cache placement is seriously disturbed, and also probably possessed by the devil, and should be forcefully picked up by the white wagon and taken to the nearest residential behavioral care facility where they will be incarcerated and where they can gratefully receive the requisite 64 sessions of electroconvulsive therapy to correct their errant thinking!

Edited September 21, 2008 by Vinny & Sue Team