MnGCA

[ice tres]

I agree the impact on the environment of geocaches and geocache hunting on public land is an extremely important matter and that the state park policy we as a state adopt must consider and minimize environmental impacts. The environment is not our personal playground.

Personally, I don't think the Duluth Policy establishes enough safeguards but I trust the DNR will do so. (I did propose a policy with more safeguards last summer somewhere on these forums.)

However, the state and federal governments have established several levels of "wilderness-ness" for public lands and state parks are designated by law as multiple use. Some allow snowshoeing, snowmobiles, off-trail hiking, hunting, logging and many other uses that affect the environment. Wilderness areas are off-limits to most of these activities and should be off-limits to geocaching as well.
_________________
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

[Marsha and Silent Bob]

[Arcticabn]

[tomslusher]

[Marsha and Silent Bob]

Can someone explain to me why there needs to be discussions w/the DNR about a "standardized container"? I assume it was discussed in the Slashdot article from 2003?

We have plenty of other things to present to the DNR as a priority (density, paperwork required, management, etc) than a standardized container. If the DNR feels that it's important and they tell us that, that's one thing, but I just don't see it needing to be discussed during negotiations.
_________________
Sad state of affairs.

[tomslusher]

[Marsha and Silent Bob]

Anyway, ignoring the blantant and unnecessary troll, a standardized cache container will not eliminate the trash "fear" that was the prevailing issue in 2002/2003. Educational discussions and evidence of community involvement in removal/adoption of the few caches that may go unattended over the years are what will be most helpful in changing the perception that might not even be there anymore. That's what I learned in my experience during negotiations with Three Rivers (who also harbored the trash fear in 2002).

If the DNR says "no to geocaching" it's not going to be b/c they couldn't mandate a standardized cache container. If it was, the solution is obvious, but I still don't understand why it needs to be brought up during the negotiations.
_________________
Sad state of affairs.

[tomslusher]

[ice tres]

SB, at least to me the point is that MnGCA should have a bunch of fall-back positions so you can respond to anticipated DNR objections if necessary. For example, if they say something about how the container is akin to trash/abandoned property (and there's a regulation banning abandoning property in a park), then you can say, among other things, "Well what if the container were standardized?" Or, "What if the outside of the container were clearly marked as a geocache?" Or, "What if the DNR officially owns the geocache once it's placed?" Or, "What if the regulation is changed to specifically exclude geocaches from that rule?"

You always want to be able to respond with a fall-back position if it becomes necessary so you don't get shut out. As you suggest, you wouldn't bring up these fall-back positions unless you needed to to get the negotiations on track. But it's nice to have such fall-back positions when you need them so you don't blurt out something you haven't thought about in advance.

Same thing with the obvious DNR objection re damaging the environment. You want to have a series of fall-back positions like, "What if the container was hidden within X feet of an established path?" or "What if the local park ranger designates certain areas of the park as off limits due to potential damage?" Or "What if the cache is moved every year?" Or, "What if the cache is deactivated if it is logged more than X times per week on average?" The more of these responses you have, and have considered carefully beforehand, the better off you'll be in a pinch.

[Paklid]

I completely agree with ice tres's proposition that we anticipate potential objections, arguments, and issues and develop positions (and possibly alternatives) that address them. Proper preparation can only help our chances for success.

We'll never be able to antipate all possible permutations in hopes of developing stock replies. But, by discussing the issues - and bringing forward the likely objections, we'll have lines of thought considered that should serve us during any future meetings with the DNR.

Several potential DNR arguments come to mind:
Won't foot traffic to caches cause new trails to be formed?
Won't the act of searching for caches cause damage to the site?
Isn't it possible that someone could get hurt searching?
What if a container falls into disrepair and nobody takes care of it?
As we see it, a cache container is abandoned property...
How will the park manager/cache hider interface work?

I'd like to get more of these type arguments listed for consideration, so if any come to mind, please post.
_________________
-Paklid

[dmnrec]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't see how having a standardized container would alleviate the abandoned property issue. From what I have seen in the forums, abandoned property seems to be the big sticking point....whether or not all the abandoned properties look similiar or different.

Just my opinion, but I would offer up the following to the DNR:
*Cache owners would have to buy an annual park permit
*Cache owners have to live within X miles to the park/area
*Cache owners have to monitor on line log entries
*Cache owners would have to personally visit the cache frequently, say once a month
Maybe some stipulations such as these would convince them that cache owners own and maintain the caches, not just abandon them once placed...

[ice tres]

Another possible DNR objection:

Isn't a State Park supposed to be as natural as possible? A cache, being manmade and unnatural, therefore has no place in a state park especially off the marked trails.

[ice tres]

Another fall-back position re the interface between cache owner and the park staff is that the Board could approve a single MnGCA member for each state park who lives nearby and who could establish a good working relationship with the park ranger and who could step in and handle any problems with individual cache owners and their caches within the park. That way the MnDNR staff wouldn't have to spend time chasing down a cache owner who has gone missing or otherwise AWOL.

[Marsha and Silent Bob]

The DNR should just contact the MnGCA Board directly (through the Board's e-mail address) and if necessary the cache will be pulled by one of them or a designated delegate.

If you have an appointed person it's a lot of responsibility and they may decide to go away on vacation, find some other hobby, etc.

A single contact point makes it easier for the DNR to handle rather than having to deal w/a lengthy list of contacts.
_________________
Sad state of affairs.

[ice tres]

That would be fine to email the Board. The point is, we should develop as many viable options to each likely objection they have as possible beforehand.

My idea of a contact person for each park is that it would decentralize the process so that the local park ranger could contact someone (or two) locally that the ranger would come to know and trust. But again, as many viable options as possible including emailing the Board is the key to getting this done. If the DNR is more comfortable with the Board, fine. If they're more comfortable with a local contact, fine. If there's another option they may prefer, let's think of it. It's not ours to choose, to a large extent. Please don't rule out possible fall-back positions unless they are completely unviable because you don't know which option will tickle the DNR's fancy.