MnGCA Home MnGCA
Minnesota Geocaching Association
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   User listUser list   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Another DNR Relations/Discussion Thread
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    MnGCA Forum Index -> Park Relations
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
tomslusher
Geocacher


Joined: 02 Jan 2003

Posts: 182

PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 10:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I also am formally requesting that the thread's title be changed to something a bit more neutral. SB, we all know how you feel about this but as a web master I would like to think you should be remaining unbiased. Calling this thread "another dnr relations/discussions thread" makes it sound like "ohh, Christ, here we go again. Reliving an issue that we solved long ago" when nothing could be further from the truth. Maybe we could call it "the MnGCA Boards absolute refusal to allow it's membership to have a sayor stay informed in a DNR geocaching issue"?

tomslusher
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RubberToes
Geocacher


Joined: 13 Feb 2005

Posts: 222

PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 10:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tomslusher wrote:
As a member of this organization I am demanding to know what MnGCA plans or hopes to accomplish in our talks with the DNR, how we are proposing to accomplish that plan and what we have done to date to reach those goals.


I don't think this is such a big mystery. I've been reading the forums, and it looks to me as if the MnGGA hopes to find a way to open up the state parks and other public land for geocaching. To accomplish this they are establishing a line of communication with state officials with the hope that the organization can eventually persuade the DNR to be more friendly to geocaching.

Sounds like a plan. Why not let them carry it out.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Marsha and Silent Bob
Past MnGCA President


Joined: 02 Sep 2003

Posts: 6261

PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 10:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tomslusher wrote:
I also am formally requesting that the thread's title be changed to something a bit more neutral. SB, we all know how you feel about this but as a web master I would like to think you should be remaining unbiased. Calling this thread "another dnr relations/discussions thread" makes it sound like "ohh, Christ, here we go again. Reliving an issue that we solved long ago" when nothing could be further from the truth. Maybe we could call it "the MnGCA Boards absolute refusal to allow it's membership to have a sayor stay informed in a DNR geocaching issue"?

I am formally requesting, again for at least the third time, that you stop reading further into what I say and do than really exists.
_________________
Sad state of affairs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tomslusher
Geocacher


Joined: 02 Jan 2003

Posts: 182

PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I am formally requesting, again for at least the third time, that you stop reading further into what I say and do than really exists.


It's hard when you refuse to even be subtle with your implications. So Is that a "No, I will not change it" or "Let me consult with "the club" and see what they advise"?

I don't think that was reading too far into what you said, was it?

tomslusher
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pear Head
Past MnGCA President


Joined: 04 Apr 2004

Posts: 5701

PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tomslusher wrote:
As a member of this organization I am demanding to know what MnGCA plans or hopes to accomplish in our talks with the DNR, how we are proposing to accomplish that plan and what we have done to date to reach those goals.


Quote:
Either we run a free and open organization (along with the board) or we have a secret "he-man women's hater club". Please tell me why this needs to be kept confidential? I guess i don't care if you are sorry, as an elected board member you are accountable and you need to be open and honest. Anything else would be absolutely unaccectable.
tomslusher


Do you read what I write? Or do you look for sentences that you can pick apart?

RubberToes summed it up pretty good. Look in the other threads. There you will see what our goals are and how we plan on accomplishing them. I've already told you that, to date, we are working on establishing a line of communication with the DNR.

You ask why it needs to be kept confidential. Try reading my previous two posts regarding this. The answer is in there, and it's not hidden. We don't need folks to muck up the works.

I'm done answering the same rephrased questions over and over. If you or someone else has new questions, I'll address them. For now I'm off to go hunting for the weekend.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
miles58
Geocacher


Joined: 07 Mar 2005

Posts: 196

PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 6:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pear Head,

Given that you participated in the first discussion with Saxton And SB about the MNGCA involvement in the new DNR reg discussion I am surprised you have enough fur on your emitter to participate now.

You were the person who made the request to close the thread trying to find out who had what discussion with the DNR, so that we could simply get on with your plan, which it now comes to light is a continuation of Saxton's and SB's plan.

Closing discussions about MNGCA policy and discussions with the DNR over regs that resulted in large part from bungled management by MNGCA of the original discussions is not just undemocratic, it is antidemocratic. In this case it is also clearly harming the geocaching community in this state because it resulted in a regulation which is as unfriendly to caching as is possible to create. No caching. None.

You have failed to recognize the utter failure of your approach to this matter. You fail to recognize the antidemocratic means you have participated in and continue to use that are the cause of deep suspicion and resentment by members of MNGCA. You fail to recognize that this is a very important matter to many of the members, to the point of fracturing the organization and alienating long time members.

Will it take a forced general meeting with all of the evidence of the above laid out and a demand from a majority of the members at the meeting for your resignation for you to recognize you do not have the judgement to do this or have you at least got the sense to recognize that the above cited actions are resented by many members and need to come to an end?

Just because you have messed something up so badly that it can't get worse doesn't mean by any stretch of the imagination that you can begin to make it better. Please give this very careful consideration because it is my belief that this is about to the point where it will have a profound impact on MNGCA.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pear Head
Past MnGCA President


Joined: 04 Apr 2004

Posts: 5701

PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I decided that I should maybe just check the forums one last time before the weekend...

miles58 wrote:
Pear Head,


Nice to see you back in the discussion (honestly). I noticed your absence.

Quote:
You were the person who made the request to close the thread trying to find out who had what discussion with the DNR, so that we could simply get on with your plan, which it now comes to light is a continuation of Saxton's and SB's plan.


I'm not going to go down this road again. It will simply be a repeat of an earlier thread, with nothing new to gain for anyone.

Quote:
Closing discussions about MNGCA policy and discussions with the DNR over regs that resulted in large part from bungled management by MNGCA of the original discussions is not just undemocratic, it is antidemocratic. In this case it is also clearly harming the geocaching community in this state because it resulted in a regulation which is as unfriendly to caching as is possible to create. No caching. None.


I either misunderstand you or your timeline is severily skewed.

A. The closing of that thread did very little, as the new thread posters pointed out. Anyone was/is able to create a thread, and that's what happened here. Closing it was merely a speed bump. If you think I asked that the thread be closed to stop the discussion then you are dead wrong. I asked that the thread be closed to start some constructive discussion, either for or against my point of views.

B. The closing of the thread did not result in a policy that was unfriendly to caching. The two are very much not related - the policy came FIRST, the thread came SECOND. How can closing a thread after a policy was created result in the creation of such policy?

Quote:
You have failed to recognize the utter failure of your approach to this matter. You fail to recognize the antidemocratic means you have participated in and continue to use that are the cause of deep suspicion and resentment by members of MNGCA.


I've never stopped you from speaking out. I've never asked you to not speak out. Normally, for reasons I sometimes don't understand, I ask that you speak out, for or against me. If anyone has any email, message, etc., that I've sent them, private or not, where I ask you to shut up or not speak on an issue, please bring it up now.

What you recognize as "utter failure" I do not. Sorry - we disagree here. The discussions are moving forward, we have continued to get member input, both for and against my views.

Quote:
You fail to recognize that this is a very important matter to many of the members, to the point of fracturing the organization and alienating long time members.


No, I very much recognize this point. It's very high on my list of concerns regarding MnGCA. I know from the private emails that I've received from numerous members that one of the bigger concerns I have is the ongoing debates between yourself and a select few other members that are getting the organization no where. Members are tired of it. They want it to stop (read below).

Quote:
Will it take a forced general meeting with all of the evidence of the above laid out and a demand from a majority of the members at the meeting for your resignation for you to recognize you do not have the judgement to do this or have you at least got the sense to recognize that the above cited actions are resented by many members and need to come to an end?


I encourage you to put together such meeting. I think you will find that you are in the outspoken minority, not the majority. If I am wrong, and you can get 51% of the active members on the rolls to attend such meeting and tell me that I am wrong, then I'll resign. Good luck.

I'm not concerned - you as well as the other outspoken opponents here all failed to attend the LAST meeting. That would be the meeting that I DID attend. I understand that everyone has other things going on, etc., but you would think if this was something this important to you that at least one of you would have shown up. You want me to resign, and have since before the election, but it seems you didn't even cast a ballot offering up someone else? If the outspoken minority would have shown up it probably would have eliminated the need to call another meeting...

If you are truely concerned in continuing this never ending debate (and this goes for tomslusher and anyone else who wants to beat this issue like a dead horse) then email me privately. For those that don't have my email address, private message me and I will give it to you. One of the factors that I see as a possibility of fracturing the organization is these ongoing debates where either side makes headway. I'm done debating it here. I'm more than happy to converse on email.

I know you don't want me to have the last word here, which is fine, so post away. I'll read it all, but won't respond.

[edit to correct hanging bold tag and clarify one sentence]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
celticwulf
Geocacher


Joined: 24 Oct 2005

Posts: 685

PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 9:19 am    Post subject: wow... Reply with quote

Wow, so much hostility...

OK, comments from the FNG Wink

I'm confused by all of the argument with very little discussion going on here. I've searched through the forums and saw the rest of the postings on the subject, so let me try to sum up what I've figured out so far (trying with non-hostility).

Basically, from what I can see, there have been many discussions in the past with the DNR, although from past postings, it doesn't seem that the discussions were very organized or having any specific DNR contact. It does seem that the original discussions were positive, and a decent policy was in the works until someone in the DNR further up the management chain said "but isn't this allowing people to litter in the parks" or something to that effect. From there, the current DNR policy was put in place disallowing caching based on a currently in effect "abandoned property" rule, which is where we are today.

As of when this policy was going into effect, the MNGCA was also trying to become an "official" club that can be recognized by the state, which was also causing a lot of hostility. When the DNR policy showed up with a time frame for review, there was a lot of discussion, and a decision was made that instead of trying to have multiple people (i.e. all people that have ever cached in MN) "represent" geocacher's in MN, there was time to wait until a new board was in place. This would give at least a years continuity to any discussion as well as giving people who weren't happy with the previous MNGCA board a chance to change things if they wish.

So now, the election passed less than a month ago, and things seem to be happening (at least from my limited view). People on the board (as they have stated) are trying to make official contacts with the DNR at a level that change can be effected. As for knowing EVERY decision that's made, I'd personally rather be out caching Wink I figure if the board hasn't told the membership a summary of what's happening by like April/May, maybe I'd be annoyed, but so far the board is saying they are working on it. As for being absolutely transparent, and that they NEED to do something TODAY...I'm decently sure we (the membership) aren't really paying the board enough for them to quit their day jobs, so I just appreciate that there are people that are willing to spend time trying to make things better for the rest of us while we're out searching for Tupperware out in the woods Smile

The only real comments I could add to this are as follows: I will admit, it would be nice to see a basic outline of the plan the board has rather than trying to sort it out through past forum posts...but seeing as how the current board has been in place less than a month, I can see how they are mostly just trying to get themselves organized enough to do this. Secondly, if we as Cacher's in Minnesota REALLY want to help the situation, I couldn't think of any better way to make our lives easier than by introducing more people to the sport. The more members the organization has, the easier it is too say "hey, you know you've got this many people willing to spend money on a state parks pass if you approve this". Heck, I'd say our jobs would be even easier if we could get some state representatives (senators/reps/governors) into the sport.

Sorry to ramble on...I'll go back to attempting to work now Wink

Celticwulf
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ice tres
Geocacher


Joined: 16 Aug 2005

Posts: 97

PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 10:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree with Celticwulf.

I don't need a blow by blow account of every Board member's action so we can all dissect it and muddle things up. I don't need or even want complete transparency.

However, I as a member do need an outline of the Board's plans, because I don't understand what the Board is up to. I would also like a date (April or May is OK) that a report on progress is promised. I would like the date to be early enough so that if your attempts have run into a brick wall, despite your best efforts, we (as individuals or as an org.) can try something else before the year review period is up.

When the Board is so secretive to the point we have to parse ancient forum threads it breeds division and suspicion unnecessarily.

I don't share Miles58's call for Pear Head's resignation etc. He was just elected, after all. For all I know, he has a workable, rational plan afoot. But if the current Board stonewalls their MnDNR strategy on into the summer such that we're completely unable to try another tack before the year review is up in September, then I'd consider joining a lynch mob and I bet at that point I wouldn't be alone.

You guys on the Board would have more support from the members if you simply provided an outline of your strategy and a date you'll report back to the membership regarding any progress made. I expect most of us know it's not easy and does take time. However, that doesn't excuse total silence on the matter.

Ice Tres
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Marsha and Silent Bob
Past MnGCA President


Joined: 02 Sep 2003

Posts: 6261

PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 10:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ice tres wrote:
When the Board is so secretive to the point we have to parse ancient forum threads it breeds division and suspicion unnecessarily.

I'm growing weary of all the speculation that we are "hiding" things. I have stated now three times that I am all for being open and accountable to the association. I'm going to state for the last time that we are not hiding anything and we will remain open and accountable to the association. I hope that there will be no further discussion about this specific topic as I assume that no one would want to further insinuate that I'm being disingenuous.

When the plan of attack is finalized and we being to actually work on moving forward with DNR contact (which will come long before the ficticious "April deadline") we'll let you know.

As rickrich stated, we have another park district presentation to give and it is our intention to use that as a stepping stone and a learning session on how best to approach the DNR as well as how to negotiate with them. Being that Three Rivers is the largest metro-based parks district and its policy has impacted numerous other local municipalities, we figured it was best to start there. It is not in the association's best interests to go to the DNR without a plan, without preparation, and without real world experience and practice.

Just remember folks, we spend an *enormous* amount of time working on every facet of this organization to make sure that it runs well for YOU. It makes it really difficult to operate when people are calling for Board member resignations, reading too far into innocuous thread titles, and expect to be a part of professional discussions while purposefully derailing positive efforts into an off-topic thread rife with negative commentary.

Please reconsider the direction of your posts and try to put forth ideas and positive efforts to get to our ultimate goal of worthwhile DNR discussion and policy.
_________________
Sad state of affairs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ice tres
Geocacher


Joined: 16 Aug 2005

Posts: 97

PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 10:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Your plan at this point in your tenure sounds great. Thanks for sharing it with us. This is all the information I feel like I need for the time being.

Please let us know their reception after your talk and whether you need anyone to put together something written regarding other states' policies for the DNR to use. Just a brief note once in a while is all I personally expect as your efforts for all of us go on.

Thanks for doing this and good luck!

Ice Tres
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
towlebooth
Past MnGCA Board


Joined: 26 Nov 2002

Posts: 1270

PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 11:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well said celticwulf! It is nice not being the only moderate not on the board willing to speak up and call for calm.

SB, PH and board - thanks for the hard work. I look forward to seeing the process evolve and bear fruit. I too think you should be allowed time to plan and implement your strategy. Good luck.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
HugoBear
Geocacher


Joined: 21 Sep 2005

Posts: 68

PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 1:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

towlebooth wrote:
Well said celticwulf! It is nice not being the only moderate not on the board willing to speak up and call for calm.

SB, PH and board - thanks for the hard work. I look forward to seeing the process evolve and bear fruit. I too think you should be allowed time to plan and implement your strategy. Good luck.


Ditto for me. Thanks guys. I know what it's like to give free time for something that you feel passionate about, and know that it's rarely appreciated (openly) and never compensated.

Good luck.

(Don't screw it up. [Wink])
_________________
Let me not be confused forever.
-Christopher Columbus
For a moment, nothing happened. Then, after a second or so, nothing continued to happen.
-Douglas Adams "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Marsha and Silent Bob
Past MnGCA President


Joined: 02 Sep 2003

Posts: 6261

PostPosted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 6:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Off-topic thread (non-DNR) has been split off and moved here: http://www.mngca.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1911
_________________
Sad state of affairs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ice tres
Geocacher


Joined: 16 Aug 2005

Posts: 97

PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:25 pm    Post subject: other states' policies Reply with quote

Pear Head, do you want me to write up something for DNR regarding other states' geocaching policies you could use when you meet with them?

Or is someone else doing this?
_________________
Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." -President Bush
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    MnGCA Forum Index -> Park Relations All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Geocaching Cache Icons, Copyright 2009, Groundspeak Inc. All rights reserved. Used with Permission.