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 

River Bend Nature Center
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
LucidOndine
Past MnGCA President


Joined: 17 Jan 2006

Posts: 1931

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 4:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Geez, Silent Bob, you smell Cool
_________________
The Lucid Network (tm)-- More Bars in More Places!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Marsha and Silent Bob
Past MnGCA President


Joined: 02 Sep 2003

Posts: 6261

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 4:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LucidOndine wrote:
Geez, Silent Bob, you smell Cool

heh.
_________________
Sad state of affairs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pfalstad
Geocacher


Joined: 02 Feb 2006

Posts: 1013

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 7:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Six caches just bit the dust.. Sad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Pear Head
Past MnGCA President


Joined: 04 Apr 2004

Posts: 5701

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 8:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pfalstad wrote:
Six caches just bit the dust.. Sad


While I don't want to (won't) get in the middle of most of this, I will say that this was 6 caches that were placed on private land without permission of the property owner.

We've all read and agreed to the guidelines for placing a cache on gc.com.
_________________
Hmm...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
pfalstad
Geocacher


Joined: 02 Feb 2006

Posts: 1013

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pear Head wrote:
While I don't want to (won't) get in the middle of most of this, I will say that this was 6 caches that were placed on private land without permission of the property owner.

We've all read and agreed to the guidelines for placing a cache on gc.com.

Yeah. Apparently there was a misunderstanding about their geocaching policy, since it wasn't in writing until recently. But from his perspective, zoejam placed 5 more caches in the park without asking him, so that's probably why he went ballistic.

At least they have a policy that allows geocaching, so that's good.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
LucidOndine
Past MnGCA President


Joined: 17 Jan 2006

Posts: 1931

PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 12:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That bites. 6 caches... they might have been really good ones, too.

Perhaps they can work together and get them replaced... this time with permission.
_________________
The Lucid Network (tm)-- More Bars in More Places!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Arcticabn
Past MnGCA Board


Joined: 30 Nov 2003

Posts: 1846

PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 9:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Being one that has actually found the cache in question. It was an interesting area. However, I agree that it could be considered in appropriate.

The area in question was a ridge top and valley below that had maybe 100,000 rusting cans covering the top, side slope and valley floor. The cache hide was actually a container inside a container, where two rusting cans were used to camo the cache container. Talk about needle in a haystack.

So I can see his concern with it being an inappropriate are. An individual could easily slip on the cans and end up at the bottom of the ridge or potentially get cut up by rusty cans. Though I appreciate the uniqueness of the area I can see his concerns.

IMO going out and putting a cache on any controlled lands that are monitored and maintained on a daily basis such as the nature centers is something that should NOT happen without at least talking to the land managers there. To me it is a common courtesy.

Had we cachers approached them from the beginning, explained our game and worked with them to determine appropriate areas there probably would not even be a policy in place. Why, cause follow-on cachers would have read in the cache page that it was placed with permission and gone and seeked permission.

This game has gotten to big to be the let's do it and ask for permission later. The times and the game have changes and there are enough people participating that we don't need to play the game in secret.
_________________
Airborne All the Way!
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 Dec 08, 2006 9:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wasn't aware that anyone was faulting them for creating a policy and enforcing it. I just don't think the way that they chose to enforce it was very professional.
_________________
Sad state of affairs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fidian
Geocacher


Joined: 23 Nov 2005

Posts: 126

PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 6:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I sent an email to John late last month, and let him know how the MnGCA was receiving his email. Since he does not have an account here, he replied to my email and said that I could post his comments if I wanted to. I thought that perhaps you would like to see his responses to the comments made in this forum.

John Blackmer wrote:
One person notes "I urge the RBNC to give permission to geocaching and to
maintain that geocachers need to follow the same rules as everyone else"

Rules in parks generally note that items are not to be left behind - that's
littering. Just because you think it has a purpose or value doesn't mean it
belongs there. I have other things that I find that people place because
they think it has value, too, beside caches. The "leave only footprints"
principle applies to everyone.

Regarding the professionalism of the post, I had to post it 8 times that day
on different caches from different organizations. I would argue that it was
proper to show a bit of frustration as long as I wasn't derogatory. Helps to
make it stick - which it obviously has.

Oh, and the 1,000+ members and 30,000+ visitors to River Bend each year
EXPECT me to play big brother to everything that happens here at River Bend,
a role I take very seriously. We have several endangered/threatened species
and many hazardous locations - all of which have been targeted by unapproved
caches. I would be derelict in my duty, perhaps legally liable, if I wasn't.
For some folks geocaching is recreation. To park managers, it is special
interest group #32 that wants what they want from a park and sometimes can't
understand why regulations need apply to them.

I am not the enemy. I'm your best friend. I teach GPS classes and want to
see geocaching succeed. Involvement isn't the opposite of approval. Apathy
is. I'm involved.

_________________
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 Jan 18, 2007 6:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

His contiuned lack of professionalism astounds me.
_________________
Sad state of affairs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
celticwulf
Geocacher


Joined: 24 Oct 2005

Posts: 685

PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 7:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Marsha and Silent Bob wrote:
His contiuned lack of professionalism astounds me.


OK, I have to say it: Pot...meet Kettle. Kettle, Pot... Laughing

In my opinion, what I get out of that email is a frustrated park employee who had to deal with a ton of caches he didn't expect all at once. Yes, there was a delay in getting the rules for that specific park posted, but all the same I could easily see that being an IT issue on the delay.

Personally, I think that working WITH him is going to be much more of a positive thing than continuously commenting from the sideline. But then again, now that Surfer Joe knows the specific policy, the problem should be taken care of for now. For the future, the data used that helped to open the state parks back up could also be used to open the policies if needed in the future...but personally I'm glad that there are at least some caches allowed in that area.

Again, just my thoughts...take or leave as you choose.

Celticwulf
_________________
Who put this trail here???
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pear Head
Past MnGCA President


Joined: 04 Apr 2004

Posts: 5701

PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 7:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fidian wrote:
I sent an email to John late last month, and let him know how the MnGCA was receiving his email.


With all due respect, I'm curious how you know how the MnGCA was receiving his email? Have you surveyed all of our members? Because some members vent frustration or have disagreements over rules doesn't mean that this is how the organization is taking it.

fidian: Please do not speak for the MnGCA - that is what the board is for. You are one member of a large organization and do not have the authority to speak for the organization.

John is very able and welcome to come to our forums and read without having an account here, and he has my email address to contact us if he doesn't want to register here to post his responses.

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by attempting to "tattle" on us. There are no super-secret conversations going on here.
_________________
Hmm...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Pear Head
Past MnGCA President


Joined: 04 Apr 2004

Posts: 5701

PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 7:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

celticwulf wrote:
Yes, there was a delay in getting the rules for that specific park posted, but all the same I could easily see that being an IT issue on the delay.


Although I can't speak for John, I believe a large amount of his frustration lies in the fact that cachers didn't ask before placing on the property he manages. An understandable frustration - one that got us closed out of State Parks for a number of years.

Quote:
Personally, I think that working WITH him is going to be much more of a positive thing than continuously commenting from the sideline. But then again, now that Surfer Joe knows the specific policy, the problem should be taken care of for now.


I agree on both points.

One of the problems SJ has, if I recall correctly, is that the RBNC doesn't show up on the maps he uses. It means that he may not always catch a new cache there that is placed without permission. He does the best he can do (I'm sure), and so that's the best we can present to John and other park managers.

I'm confident that this will work itself out. As with most any new policy that includes restrictions of any sort, there are always folks that are less than happy with it - that's just a fact of life. This is a growing pain of the sport.
_________________
Hmm...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
LucidOndine
Past MnGCA President


Joined: 17 Jan 2006

Posts: 1931

PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 7:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Professionalism is a two way street. Just because geocaching is a recreational activity does not mean that you can interact with other organizations --especially organizations that hold jurisdiction over an area-- unprofessionally.

IMHO (again, only an opinion) we should expect curtosey and professional cacher behavior. Since geocaching is a recreational activity it is all the easier to forget that our activities involve interacting with other people, organizations or stakeholders (and by extention, their jobs and well being).

I really don't believe he was out of line with his comments, punctuation, expressions, and in having those caches pulled. Rolling Eyes
_________________
The Lucid Network (tm)-- More Bars in More Places!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
fidian
Geocacher


Joined: 23 Nov 2005

Posts: 126

PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pear Head wrote:
With all due respect, I'm curious how you know how the MnGCA was receiving his email?


Well, I wasn't part of any meetings, but I did read this thread. I just let him know that the email was put up for people to read and that some are probably taking it the wrong way. I don't need to survey every member to notice something like this. I also didn't say I spoke for the MnGCA - I merely pointed him to this forum.

Actually, I had hoped that he would post and then there would be a nice, civil discussion. Turns out that didn't happen.

Pear Head wrote:
I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by attempting to "tattle" on us. There are no super-secret conversations going on here.


If it isn't a secret, how is it tattling? I can't "spill the beans" if the information is already public. I just let him know that the email was published and that there was a discussion. Besides, I just thought that things could be straightened out instead of what's going on now. I was hoping to clear things up and educate people.

Obviously it did not work.

Anyway, why would you look upon my actions so disapprovingly if you didn't mind John viewing this topic? If the information here is free to share, and I shared, why would that deserve the comments I received?
_________________
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.