Jump to content

Belleuve Parks/Mercer Slough Rangers are looking for some help


TeamIDFC

Recommended Posts

A few of us received requests from the Mercer Slough Environmental Education Center telling us that the caches in Mercer Slough were out of compliance and asking they be removed. At first glance that seemed arbitrary, but I suspected it was an opening bid to get responses and people involved.

 

This morning I called the contact to find out what was going on and what inspired their action. It turns out they were out patrolling and found somebody scrambling on one of the banks, and they were concerned for the person and for the sensitive nature of the bank. Christina said the person identified herself as a "geocacher working on a multi-cache."

 

The Bellevue Parks/Mercer Slough folks are well aware of caching and like that it brings more people out to use the natural resources, but they share the same concerns that most land-management agencies do: that caches are placed in areas that won't do damage to the park nor the cachers. They have no interest in having all the caches removed, but they do need/want to ensure they aren't going to be a problem.

 

The incident above (perhaps someone working on Lake-to-Lake?) was on top of what she described as the "real problems we have are with Microsoft geocachers who place them in really bad locations, like next to homeless shelters." She thought maybe they were a different caching group, but I wonder if maybe that was a GeoTeaming event?

 

In any case, they've only got 3 part-time rangers for all of Bellevue, so they don't have the time to be cache-cops, and she said she'd already gotten calls from several of the owners they contacted. They were very impressed with our responsiveness and concerns and wanted to work with us to look at all the Bellevue Parks and ensure there wasn't ecological damage being done by caching. Again, they are very agreeable and just want to find an appropriate compromise if a cache is in a bad location.

 

So, that brings me to the point of this post: they have no intent to disallow caching, but they need help ensuring it is working in everyone's best interest. I think we need to get a liaison to reach out and set up a meeting/contact point where caches in Bellevue can be reviewed, some mutually acceptable ground rules can be established, etc.

 

I know Hydnsek has done this for some land-management agencies, do we have anyone that might be appropriate to step to the plate here? (I'm currently not a candidate, unfortunately.)

Link to comment

Thanks, Michael, for posting this - and for taking the initiative to contact the Bellevue parks folks directly - so that everyone's aware of Bellevue's concerns, as well as their support for geocaching.

 

This is exactly the sort of situation that WSGA's Parks Advocacy Committee is for, and I've received email from other cachers who have been contacted about their hides in the Slough, as well. As committee chair, I'm happy to talk to the Bellevue folks, as I'm familiar with the issues and already working with land managers at other park systems, including serving as the geocaching liaison for King County Parks.

 

So, I'll follow up and let everyone know if there's additional scoop.

 

Meanwhile, this is a good reminder to everyone that it only takes one or two poorly placed geocaches or searchers trampling a sensitive area to give land managers a bad impression of geocaching. When you place a cache, think about how/where people will search for it (what if they have poor signal, or there's no hint? will they trample the area? tear apart stumps? etc). When you're caching, be careful about how/where you search, esp. if it's potentially an environmentally sensitive area (check the info in the cache page and hints, ask yourself if the hider would really place it where you need to trample the vegetation). Bushwhacking in the Cascades is one thing, but it's rarely acceptable in urban/sensitive areas like Mercer Slough, and it's specifically off-limits in some parks, such as Cougar Mountain.

 

Thus far, in the Puget Sound area, we've had excellent relations with King County Parks and Bellevue City Parks, among others. They've been supportive of caching, with no formal permissions required. Let's all help keep it that way, so we don't have another Discovery Park on our hands.

Link to comment

But we were only given a few work hours before all the caches were archived which seemed a bit draconian to me.

Can't disagree there. Particularly since some of mine aren't even in the park (Slough to Lake Multi), but I'm confident after my call that they will be folks we can work with.

Link to comment

Okay, I just got off the phone with Christina Farrell, the park ranger designated as our contact for this issue. As WSGA's Parks Advocacy chair, I agreed to be the geocaching liaison to work with her and Bellevue Parks to resolve the current situation with Mercer Slough, and come up with an approach for the future that addresses their concerns while continuing to keep the park open to geocaching (and prevents spread of these concerns through the Bellevue Parks system).

 

Christina was impressed with how quickly we responded to her emails, particularly her conversation with Michael (TeamIDFC). His OP on their conversation matched what she said to me, but I'm going to recount parts of my talk with her below, to confirm and expand on what he heard.

 

Christina said Bellevue Parks is very aware of geocaching and supportive of it as a recreation activity that introduces people to areas they may not otherwise have visited. However, a couple of incidents have raised red flags (see below), hence their contacting us and requesting a liaison and cache reviews. Christina is VERY willing to work with us to reach a solution for Mercer Slough that benefits everyone concerned, and stated that they are NOT requesting that all caches in the Slough be removed. But they do want to review them for environmental and safety issues - both current and future placements. Their role is to protect the slough, which is a sensitive wetlands where there should be no off-trail or out-of-kayak travel, and to protect visitors.

 

As those with caches in the Slough know, most caches there were archived today by Ice and Wind (at Groundspeak's request) due to the red flags raised by the park. (Kudos to Albert&friends for disabling hers before the axe fell.) I&W has confirmed that these caches can be unarchived as appropriate once we resolve issues with the parks personnel, so no need for cache owners to take further action (i.e., removing containers) quite yet.

 

In hopes of resolving this quickly, Christina and I are meeting later this week (probably Thursday) to discuss geocaching and review current placements for environmental impact and visitor safety (determine which ones can remain, which might need to be moved or removed). She hopes to take a walking tour of some of the placements (not the paddle caches, tho). Please be aware that if she requests it, I will remove caches during the inspection and contact the owners for retrieval. If you have a cache in the Slough and want to join us, please email me. It could be quite helpful. I'll report back here after our meeting.

 

Unfortunately, now that this is on Bellevue Parks' radar, we may need to get permissions for the Mercer Slough area going forward. Hopefully, we will come up with a plan for informal review of future placements that will not be onerous to geocachers, reviewers, or Bellevue Parks.

 

Christina cited two incidents in particular that raised red flags for them:

  • In hunting a TeamIDFC paddle cache, a cacher got out of her canoe at one stage and was scrambling around on the bank, which is a no-no. (Note that TeamIDFC's caches specifically state that you can't access them by land, so leaving the canoe was not necessary, and the cache owner did nothing inappropriate in his placement.)
  • A cache had been placed near a homeless camp; she said the staff is aware of these areas and doesn't want the public visiting them due to safety concerns.

I'm currently compiling a list of caches that are in the slough. Feel free to contact me if you have an affected cache, regardless of its status (active, archived, disabled, multi/puzzle with WP in slough). I know there are a couple that escaped the axe due to starting points or PMOC status, but we want to be on the up-and-up in our discussion so that they don't later see cachers in places we didn't disclose (that would break the trust).

Edited by hydnsek
Link to comment

I got the email Sunday and as chair of the advocacy committee I asked Hydnsek to intervene.

I thought a cooler third party might serve geocaching better than if I contacted them directly. :P

 

But we were only given a few work hours before all the caches were archived which seemed a bit draconian to me.

 

Alien Drop site

To be fair to Ice and Wind (the reviewer involved), they were directed by Groundspeak to archive the caches based on this statement in the emails sent by Bellevue Parks: "We request that you remove your geocache and discontinue your listing on www.geocaching.com immediately." In my experience, Groundspeak always acts on such requests to respect the wishes of the land managers and maintain good relations. As a listing service, Groundspeak isn't directly involved in resolving the situation and doesn't know what will happen or how long it will take.

 

I&W said the caches can be unarchived if/when Bellevue Parks reviews and approves them. They also advised: "For future reference, the correct thing for a cache owner to do is to immediately "disable" the cache with a note indicating that there is a problem and you are working on it." I thought this was very useful to know, and saw that Albert&friends did this with her three caches there, and they escaped archival.

Edited by hydnsek
Link to comment

You know me, I couldn't pass this up:

 

Christina cited two incidents in particular that raised red flags for them:

  • . . .
  • A cache had been placed near a homeless camp; she said the staff is aware of these areas and doesn't want the public visiting them due to safety concerns.

What, HUH? :D

 

So, people who are using the park property illegally, and are continuing (allowed?) to do so on an ongoing basis, are a motivating factor for excluding visitors who wish to use the park for entirely legal and generally positive activities? I know we don't want to be adversarial with land managers, but I hope there is an opportunity somewhere in the process to point out the subtle irony here. :(

Link to comment

You know me, I couldn't pass this up:

 

Christina cited two incidents in particular that raised red flags for them:

  • . . .
  • A cache had been placed near a homeless camp; she said the staff is aware of these areas and doesn't want the public visiting them due to safety concerns.

What, HUH? :D

 

So, people who are using the park property illegally, and are continuing (allowed?) to do so on an ongoing basis, are a motivating factor for excluding visitors who wish to use the park for entirely legal and generally positive activities? I know we don't want to be adversarial with land managers, but I hope there is an opportunity somewhere in the process to point out the subtle irony here. :(

As oxymoronic as it appears, I'm thinking (guessing) they don't want any safety issues come back to bite them in the rear. In essence, you know where the sleeping dog is.

Link to comment

You know me, I couldn't pass this up:

 

Christina cited two incidents in particular that raised red flags for them:

  • . . .
  • A cache had been placed near a homeless camp; she said the staff is aware of these areas and doesn't want the public visiting them due to safety concerns.

What, HUH? :D

 

So, people who are using the park property illegally, and are continuing (allowed?) to do so on an ongoing basis, are a motivating factor for excluding visitors who wish to use the park for entirely legal and generally positive activities? I know we don't want to be adversarial with land managers, but I hope there is an opportunity somewhere in the process to point out the subtle irony here. :(

As oxymoronic as it appears, I'm thinking (guessing) they don't want any safety issues come back to bite them in the rear. In essence, you know where the sleeping dog is.

Yep, exactly. They are not trying to exclude legal visitors, including geocachers; they just don't want caches placed in potentially unsafe areas. (Personally, I'm happy to comply!)

Link to comment

As oxymoronic as it appears, I'm thinking (guessing) they don't want any safety issues come back to bite them in the rear. In essence, you know where the sleeping dog is.

Yep, exactly. They are not trying to exclude legal visitors, including geocachers; they just don't want caches placed in potentially unsafe areas. (Personally, I'm happy to comply!)

Yeah, I know about public agency fear of liability, believe me. :D I just hope this particular bullet point is a short-term concern. Seems kinds of silly to worry about someone climbing out of a canoe if they're not also chasing the illegal squatters out, don't you think?

Link to comment

As oxymoronic as it appears, I'm thinking (guessing) they don't want any safety issues come back to bite them in the rear. In essence, you know where the sleeping dog is.

Yep, exactly. They are not trying to exclude legal visitors, including geocachers; they just don't want caches placed in potentially unsafe areas. (Personally, I'm happy to comply!)

Yeah, I know about public agency fear of liability, believe me. :D I just hope this particular bullet point is a short-term concern. Seems kinds of silly to worry about someone climbing out of a canoe if they're not also chasing the illegal squatters out, don't you think?

Yes. But then again, who is more likely to sue?

Link to comment

Update:

 

My meeting and walk-through with Christina re: the Mercer Slough caches has been rescheduled to Oct. 29. So it will be 2-3 weeks before we have movement on this. Christina requests that all cache owners leave your caches and WPs in place, so she can see them during the inspection.

 

She also wants to review the caches in two phases, due to her schedule.

 

1. Those that are on trails. This is Oct. 29. She feels this will enable us to get geocaches with no environmental impact back up quickly.

 

2. Those that are by water or take visitors off-trail. Later date.

 

In addition, she said: "At this point, I’d like to suspend any additional geocaches being created in Mercer Slough Nature Park until we can get a handle on current caches. Phase 3 will be creating a process for future geocaches in Mercer Slough Nature Park, and possibly the City of Bellevue Parks."

 

Our reviewer, Ice and Wind, has reiterated that the affected caches can easily be unarchived once the land manager approves their placement (or any requested changes are made).

Link to comment

Okay, I've pulled together the list of caches that will be reviewed by Mercer Slough personnel and it's below FYI, along with a few notes.

 

Mercer Slough missed a couple of caches in their list. So, caches with a * were added in the interest of full disclosure of all caching activity in the Slough. We don't want park personnel seeing caching activity in areas we didn't discuss and breaking their trust.

 

Nearly all the cachers involved have contacted me directly with helpful info - thanks! When we do the reviews, I'll have printouts of all the cache pages, a map of the Slough with caches and WPs identified, plus the notes and positive impacts that you've provided.

 

Land Caches (Oct 29 walk-through)

 

The Jester (and maybe TeamIDFC) will accompany me on this review with the ranger.

 

Roland to the Rescue! (Albert&friends) - Temp disabled. Keep!

It's Murder in Montana! (Albert&friends) - Temp disabled. Keep!

Save the Salmon! (Albert&friends) - Temp disabled. Keep!

Alien Drop Site (MarcusArelius) - Temp archived. Keep!

Digital Illusions (-=(GEO)=-) - Temp archived. Recommend permanent archival, as GEO hasn't been active in years, and the coords are off by 100 ft.

* Poodle Dropping #2 - Hunting Bellefields (poodleranch) - Archived. Need to pick up container.

* Micro Multi Cache II: Lake to Lake (The Jester) - Temp disabled, as WP2 is in Slough. Keep! But may need to be reworked following review.

JO I-90 - The Scene of the Crime (FrodoB) - Temp archived. Keep! Cache is outside the slough and shouldn't be part of this review.

 

Water Caches (review TBD)

 

TeamIDFC will participate in this paddle tour with me and the ranger.

 

Bellevue has a slough? Part I (TeamIDFC) - Temp archived. Keep!

Bellevue has a slough? Part II (TeamIDFC) - Archived last January. Shouldn't be in this review.

Bellevue has a slough? Part III (TeamIDFC) - Temp archived. Keep!

Bellevue's slough to lake multi paddle (TeamIDFC) - Temp archived. Keep! Only WP1 is in Slough.

* Sloughless on the slough (Shaddow) - Temp disabled. Keep! New PMO cache.

 

Please let me know if I've overlooked anything, or you have some additional thoughts.

 

Abby

 

WSGA Puget Sound Chapter Representative

WSGA Parks Advocacy Committee Chair

Edited by hydnsek
Link to comment

On Oct 29, The Jester, TeamIDFC, and I met with the Mercer Slough ranger, Christina Dyson Farrell. She shared her concerns and those of Bellevue Parks, we visited a couple of cache locations (all she had time for), and discussed appropriate placements and things to watch for.

 

She was quite positive about finding solutions that permit geocaching where possible in Mercer Slough, and has approved two of Albert&friends' caches for reactivation (yay!). The Slough is Bellevue Parks' most sensitive area, but it's clear that Bellevue Parks is watching this engagement closely. If they aren't happy with the result, this might expand to other parks in the Bellevue system (she says her boss is anti-caching, while she is pro-caching).

 

As chair of WSGA's Parks Advocacy Committee, I'm serving as geocaching liaison between the geocaching community (esp. the affected cachers) and Bellevue Parks in resolving this. Our next steps:

  • Christina will review the remaining caches and decide how they should be handled.
  • She wants to draft cache-placement guidelines for Mercer Slough, and we'll work with her on that. All future placements in the Slough will require approval from the parks.

FYI, below is current status of all caches that have been flagged. Most were identified by Mercer Slough, but we offered up three they missed, in the interest of full disclosure. We don't want them discovered later and be asked why we still have unauthorized caches. That would break the trust we're trying to establish.

 

1. Two caches have been approved for reactivation.

 

Roland to the Rescue (Albert&friends)

Save the Salmon! (Albert&friends)

 

2. Christina visited the Slough location for this cache and has it under advisement. We await her decision.

 

Micro Multi Cache II: Lake to Lake (The Jester) - Temp disabled. WP2 is in Slough.

 

3. The following caches are under consideration and may not be reactivated yet. I have visited the sites and provided Christina with the additional intel she requested.

 

It's Murder in Montana! (Albert&friends) - Temp disabled.

Alien Drop Site (MarcusArelius) - Temp archived.

Warrior Series - A Dangerous Path (Mahawking & naj3) - Active.

JO I-90 - The Scene of the Crime (FrodoB) - Temp archived. Cache is outside the slough and shouldn't be part of this review.

 

4. The only remaining water cache in the Slough is on indefinite hold (disabled) until Slough management can review it in person. Per Christina, this may not happen until the spring, as they are off-water for the season. I'm recommending that Shaddow work directly with Mercer Slough, rather than have me in the middle, as I haven't visited it.

 

Sloughless on the slough (Shaddow) - Temp disabled.

 

5. Sadly, we lost several caches during this process, including most of the paddle caches when TeamIDFC decided to archive his. The following caches are now permanently archived.

 

Digital Illusions (-=(GEO)=-) - Archived. Owner is no longer active, cache had problems. We were unable to find the container for retrieval; if a previous finder wants to do geo-litter recovery, that would be swell. Or perhaps it's missing.

Poodle Dropping #2 - Hunting Bellefields (poodleranch) - Archived. We retrieved the pieces.

Bellevue has a slough? Part I (TeamIDFC) - Archived.

Bellevue has a slough? Part II (TeamIDFC) - Archived last January. Shouldn't have been flagged in this review.

Bellevue has a slough? Part III (TeamIDFC) - Archived.

Bellevue's slough to lake multi paddle (TeamIDFC) - Archived. WP1 was in Slough.

 

Thanks to all the affected cachers for their cooperation and patience as we work through this. Special thanks to The Jester and TeamIDFC for their help with the engagement.

Edited by hydnsek
Link to comment

After a year of challenges and negotiation, Bellevue City Parks has issued its Geocaching Guidelines, which are shown below. Overall, I think these are quite sensible, and WSGA really influenced their final form.

 

All caches in Bellevue parks (current and future) must adhere to the new guidelines. If you own caches there, please review them to make sure they comply and revise if necessary, so we can avoid future issues.

 

Bellevue is also finishing up its review of the Mercer Slough caches, at long last. If you are a CO there, you will receive email from me with the disposition of your caches.

 

Three key things to know:

  • Cache placements do not require prior approval. Proceed as before, but make sure you adhere to the guidelines (which ban a few options, like bushwhacks and climbing trees). The "case-by-case" wording below does not mean advance permission, although it does imply that. They simply retain the right to deny caches after the fact on a case-by-case basis if they find a problem.
  • All existing placements may remain and will not be reviewed individually, altho owners should make sure they comply with the new guidelines. Exception: Mercer Slough. Caches there are being individually reviewed, and future placements will likely require permission similar to Discovery Park. Existing caches in other parks may receive some scrutiny in the future (Kelsey Creek and Coal Creek were mentioned).
  • I (hydnsek) am the geocaching liaison for Bellevue City Parks, so if you have questions or issues, contact me.

The Bellevue Parks Geocaching Guidelines (PDF flyer):

Geocaching is fun and a great way to enjoy City of Bellevue Parks. Remember when you’re geocaching to follow the guidelines to ensure safety and help preserve the environment for everyone. The City of Bellevue allows geocaching on a case-by-case basis under these guidelines:
  • Caches will not be permitted where the activities of placing and finding the cache could potentially cause resource damage.

  • Caches must remain on designated public trails or otherwise approved access areas.
    ["access areas" means grassy lawns and other open areas where the public is allowed to recreate, exercise their dogs, etc.]

  • Caches must be accessible from the ground level, within reach, and be placed so as not to disturb any turf, vegetation, or other City property.

  • Caches must be clearly marked “geocache.”
    [Marked on the outside of the container.]

  • All inactive, disabled or archived caches must be removed on an annual basis. [We should continue to follow GC.com guidelines, which are more stringent.]

  • The City may request the removal of caches from any site at its discretion.

  • Geocachers shall follow Leave No Trace ethics which can be found at
    . To learn how to be more environmentally friendly while geocaching in parks go to
    .

  • Geocachers must follow all park rules, including hours of availability. No geocaching is permitted during Bellevue Parks' closed hours, dusk to dawn.

Link to comment

There is a depressing irony to the timing of this - I just made my semi-annual property tax blood-letting to Bellevue and the state today. You would like to think that money gets used for providing reasonable and timely service to the public.

 

I bowed-out of this process from the beginning as I am not well suited to the pace of bureaucratic decision-making, but hearing that it took a year to get approval for what is effectively nominal public space usage is just plain disappointing – limited resources or not.

 

Thanks for sticking with it, WSGA-everything hydnsek. You are a better person that me... :santa:

 

PS: I suspect there is very low chance Sloughless will make the grade and you and Shaddow might want to consider a tactical decision to choose to not even ask for it. They'll object to the placement under the bridge under the premise that either 1) people have to stand in boats to retrieve it (dangerous), or 2) will try to climb down from the bridge (more dangerous).

Link to comment

I'll to tag on TeamIDFC by saying what they said. I'd surely be less diplomatic about it. Thanks for sticking with it hydnsek, I know it was very difficult at times. Seems a very reasonable resolution.

 

Though I don't understand their issue with standing in the boat (which may or may not be necessary), it's not a liability issue to them. All activities have inherent risks and this one is no different. Otherwise they should outlaw jogging because someone could trip... Not to mention bike riding. Probably should outlaw shoe laces too.

 

Well, I knew this was an issue and I'm willing to deal with it if necessary. There are options to place that cache so it could be reached will remaining sitting in a kayak.

Link to comment

There is a depressing irony to the timing of this - I just made my semi-annual property tax blood-letting to Bellevue and the state today. You would like to think that money gets used for providing reasonable and timely service to the public.

 

I bowed-out of this process from the beginning as I am not well suited to the pace of bureaucratic decision-making, but hearing that it took a year to get approval for what is effectively nominal public space usage is just plain disappointing – limited resources or not.

 

Thanks for sticking with it, WSGA-everything hydnsek. You are a better person that me... :santa:

 

PS: I suspect there is very low chance Sloughless will make the grade and you and Shaddow might want to consider a tactical decision to choose to not even ask for it. They'll object to the placement under the bridge under the premise that either 1) people have to stand in boats to retrieve it (dangerous), or 2) will try to climb down from the bridge (more dangerous).

Thanks. There's so much I could say about this...but won't in a public forum. :santa: Suffice it to say they were extremely difficult to work with. But we came a long way from their early ideas of banning caches or requiring preapprovals.

 

As for Shaddow's slough cache, he's aware of the situation and you're correct about their objections (liability). They won't be swayed, so Shaddow will have to make a choice.

Link to comment

Great work, Abby! Micro Multi Cache II will be back as soon as I check the waypoints.

 

One question did pop up in my brain. RE: •Caches must be clearly marked “geocache.” - what about nanos? Were they mentioned/known about?

I don't think nanos are in their knowledgebase, and I chose not to inquire, as every change seems to take at least a month internally, and who knows what they'd do (ban nanos? wait, that might not be so bad...). :santa:

Edited by hydnsek
Link to comment

As for Shaddow's slough cache, he's aware of the situation and you're correct about their objections (liability). They won't be swayed, so Shaddow will have to make a choice.

I wonder, have they banned playing Frisbee in the parks? Or jogging? Or walking? After all someone might fall and break a bone. Think about that liability.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...