|
Post by ladybugkids on Mar 29, 2013 12:08:39 GMT -9
Lots of things to consider moving forward.... Note that the permit is only good through the end of the calendar year ie expires on 12/31/2013 Yes, and the State Park representative who issued the permit encouraged us to submit our renewal prior to Thanksgiving 2013. Yeah, cache ownership was never meant to be casual and the new State Parks permit formalizes that relationship between the Cache Owner and any caches placed on State Parks land. I know I'm going to be selective about where I drop caches in areas that take long day trips to reach. Desire to visit other areas to find caches I haven't visited are going to be balanced with placing new caches that will require annual visits in the future. Note that Wes posted that maintenance visits may be done by proxy by other cachers. However, some of my caches go years between finds and some of MTBoy's caches have never been found.
|
|
|
Post by akgh519 on Mar 29, 2013 12:12:24 GMT -9
Thanks Wes for providing the link. I looked it up also after making my comment. Annual visits...one of the thoughts I had after reading that, is this gives me another reason to leave the workforce!!! Ie to be able to keep up with maintenance!!!!
|
|
|
Post by ladybugkids on Mar 29, 2013 12:21:38 GMT -9
Questions for which there currently not answers, but will need to be resolved prior to the 2014 permit application year when the annual visit requirement will be applicable to caches placed in 2013:
It's clear that it will be up to Greatland Reviewer to publish only caches that comply with the permit requirements as they are placed.
However, who in GeocacheAlaska! (the permit holder) is accountable for verifying all caches placed in the permitted areas have received an annual Cache Owner or Cache Owner Proxy maintenance visit?
What will be done about caches that do not receive an annual maintenance visit? Will the accountable person/team above be writing an e-mail through the Cache Owner's profile with a reminder which then gets followed up with a Needs Archived logs on non-complying caches? If so, this work should be done early enough in the year so maintenance visits can be scheduled before snow locks down the high country. If the caches eventually get archived, they become geolitter, most likely an unintended consequence.
|
|
|
Post by akgh519 on Mar 29, 2013 12:25:44 GMT -9
I always am prepared to do and have performed maintenance on remote caches. That followed up with a note on the cache page stating the same. I will continue to do so moving forward. Yes, this is part of being a good geocacher and should be done on all caches but is particularly valuable for the remote rarely visited caches. I appreciate those who have done the same for me!
Moving forward, I will also let remote cache owners know of upcoming visits to see if they would like any changes to be made to their caches.
|
|
|
Post by fuzzybelly on Mar 29, 2013 12:37:49 GMT -9
Yes Earth caches are APPROVED in state parks, but only by permit. My point exactly.
I have much more to say on this but will remain silent.
Glad to here my Portage caches can stay.
|
|
|
Post by akgh519 on Mar 29, 2013 12:44:41 GMT -9
Clarification needed...
What exactly must be written on the container?
Should it say...
Alaska State Parks Permit #GeoCache AK
Or
Alaska State Parks Permit #13-KA-1289 Geocache AK
Does this information need to be on both the container and the log as before?
Inquiring minds need to know!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by ladybugkids on Mar 29, 2013 12:47:28 GMT -9
Yes Earth caches are APPROVED in state parks, but only by permit. My point exactly. The EarthCache guidelines require explicit Land Manager approval and the EarthCache reviewers request the approver's name and contact information prior to publishing new EarthCaches if the information is not initially provided. Having EarthCaches explicitly in the permit eliminates the need for each cacher to get permission for each EarthCache they write up in a State Park. No permit-compliant caches must be removed. The annual visit requirement applies only to caches placed under the new permit.
|
|
|
Post by NeverSummer on Mar 29, 2013 12:51:37 GMT -9
Help me out here...I'm trying to make sure I'm clear on requirements. Does this permit process apply to all Alaska State Parks? I saw the listing by region states that there is a permit for Kachemak Bay State Wilderness Park, but the number is different.
Is there a process we should be aware of here on the end of the Kenai Peninsula? In addition, are there any permit requirements for the Anchor River Rec area?
Thanks for clarifying!
|
|
|
Post by ladybugkids on Mar 29, 2013 13:05:22 GMT -9
Clarification needed... What exactly must be written on the container? Should it say... Alaska State Parks Permit #GeoCache AK Or Alaska State Parks Permit #13-KA-1289 Geocache AKDoes this information need to be on both the container and the log as before? Inquiring minds need to know!!!!!! Details are in Wes' post here.The hash-mark (#) on the permit proper is a placeholder for the permit number.
|
|
|
Post by ladybugkids on Mar 29, 2013 13:12:22 GMT -9
I always am prepared to do and have performed maintenance on remote caches. That followed up with a note on the cache page stating the same. I will continue to do so moving forward. Yes, this is part of being a good geocacher and should be done on all caches but is particularly valuable for the remote rarely visited caches. I appreciate those who have done the same for me! Moving forward, I will also let remote cache owners know of upcoming visits to see if they would like any changes to be made to their caches. Yes, "Community Maintenance" will be beneficial and appreciated for the more remote caches.
|
|
|
Post by SSO JOAT on Mar 29, 2013 18:19:27 GMT -9
I think some are trying to read too much into this permit, while at the same time others are not reading deep enough. Item 16 states, "The Permittee shall visit the cache at least once per year to ensure the stipulations are followed and sign the log indicated that the cache has been inspected." The "permittee" is GeocacheAlaska! Inc., so if you really want to nitpick the regulatory speakese of this permit, our organization is taking on the responsibility for cache inspections via this permit that our organization (a formal corportation) has negotiated with a state agency. So, if you tossed a lawyer into this mix, you'd quickly find out that GeocacheAlaska! Inc. IS responsible for ensuring that all the stipulations on the permit are enforced for every cache in every park jurisdiction on this permit. And yes, brand new to this consolidated permit, that includes all state parks in PWS, Kachemak Bay, Resurrection Bay, and the Kenai River Special Managment Area. The permit does not state that the actual Cache Owner must do the visit, so GCAK can have any member of our organization comply with this requirement by signing the log and "indicated that the cache has been inspected". Creative wording on your logbook header can easily validate any dated entry in the log as an "inspection". So any cache finder can be considered an inspection visit. That only leaves unfound caches. If a cache is placed such that it won't be visited annually (and there are a whole bunch of remote caches that might get 1 visit in 5 years), then it triggers the need for a maintenance visit. This is where we are putting our organization out there a bit, because "we" are the permittee and you can still have a CO drop a box, never to return, and we become responsible for it due to this permit. There is no grandfather language in the permit. It clearly states "All caches within" and the reporting requirement is for "all caches" regardless of date placed. This permit pretty clearly affects old caches as well as new. I see no way out of the need for every CO to update the permit # wording on their hides during their 2013 maintenance visit. You can "assume" that caches placed under old permits are OK, but since those permits expired and this permit uses the language "all caches", I don't think you'll win that argument against a government agency. If this isn't sinking in yet, let me be as blunt as possible... this permit places GeocacheAlaska! Inc. as the responsible party on all geocaches in the designated parks. Tread carefully here. If the CO doesn't follow the stipulations, the blame falls back to our corporation. We now have the duty of "cache police" in these parks and it is imperative that we put our heads together and define how GCAK is going to handle that role with cache hiders, some of whom are members of our corporation and many of whom are not.
|
|
|
Post by SSO JOAT on Mar 29, 2013 18:23:44 GMT -9
And as the lawyer keeps wispering into my ear... Since this permit is issued to GeocacheAlaska! Inc (the corporation), it technically would only apply to members of GCAK and thus to place a cache under this permit, a CO would need to be a member of GCAK for this permit to apply. If they are not a member of GCAK, they would be working outside of this permit. Dude, like how deep is that concept for ya? p.s. The citation for this lies on page 4 of the permit under item #1.
|
|
|
Post by GreatlandReviewer on Mar 29, 2013 18:51:46 GMT -9
Dude, like how deep is that concept for ya? A bit too deep because Greatland Reviewer has no intent of checking whether a Cache Owner is a member of GeocacheAlaska! Ladybug Kids has told me that GeocacheAlaska! will not share its membership list with people outside the Board of Directors, anyway. Also, GeocacheAlaska! has made it a stated goal to promote Land Manager Advocacy on behalf of all Alaskan geocachers. It would be a slippery slope for GeocacheAlaska! to go down if it declared the State Parks permits "members only."
|
|
|
Post by ladybugkids on Mar 29, 2013 18:59:07 GMT -9
There is no grandfather language in the permit. It clearly states "All caches within" and the reporting requirement is for "all caches" regardless of date placed. This permit pretty clearly affects old caches as well as new. I see no way out of the need for every CO to update the permit # wording on their hides during their 2013 maintenance visit. You can "assume" that caches placed under old permits are OK, but since those permits expired and this permit uses the language "all caches", I don't think you'll win that argument against a government agency. Wes had a direct conversation with the issuing regulator about grandfathering and I'll leave it to him to provide the exact details. GeoacheAlaska! has always been on the hook with past permits, hence the reporting and application requirements our members have fulfilled in past years. However, there are new stipulations that may or may not have been negotiated (I wasn't involved in the application process, nor have I spoken with the permit issuer as others have, so I don't have first-hand knowledge) prior to the permit being signed. It's always a good idea to look at an agreement of any sort with several sets of eyes and seek clarification with the issuer and negotiate change before signing it. That said, blanket permits such as this have been issued to dozens of geocaching organizations all over the world and they've worked fine. As stated earlier in this thread, the stipulations in the State Parks permits are significantly less than what cachers in other states have to contend with. And, people need to keep in mind that Alaska State Parks is working with us. Indiana had a major upheaval in November 2012 where ALL caches on Department of Natural Resources lands had to be archived and repermitted. The three Indiana Reviewers were not happy campers. Linky for Indiana's stipulations.
|
|
|
Post by SSO JOAT on Mar 29, 2013 19:22:00 GMT -9
And the reason I'm tossing in the Devil's Advocate on these items is simply due to the fact that face-to-face conversations leading up to the permit are irrelevant to what is printed on the permit. What was said behind closed doors doesn't matter in the field where only the text on the page is being read by the Law Enforcement officer who is inspecting that box left by GeocacheAlaska! Inc.
I'm sure this permit will "work fine" as well. But we are in an increasingly litigious society with an increasingly heavy-handed government bearing down on us pip-squeaks. Corporations are targets. And we, as GCAK, are putting our necks on the block with seemingly reckless abandon. In my view, we are putting considerably more effort into debating the shade of red to use on the border of a pathtag than we are putting into the negotiation of permit terms with a government agency (as clearly evidenced by the half dozen or more typographical, spelling, and grammar errors contained on the first 3 pages of that permit).
I think it is a great service to work out blanket permits, but I have less faith in individual COs to put in any extra effort to follow the additional stipulations of this permit. It will be in the best interest of GCAK if we work out some internal issues about how we are going to be sure that permits signed by the organization fall onto the shoulders of the members using the permits. Tricky legalese stuff, but it is a topic that cannot be ignored and have us just "hope for the best" as we sign our organization away to government agencies via these permits.
|
|
|
Post by NeverSummer on Mar 30, 2013 9:21:32 GMT -9
So, if I understand correctly, if someone is simply knowledgeable enough about the permit policy and has the required permitting info on their cache, it is good to go. If Greatland Reviewer doesn't see that a cache in the state park system has the necessary disclaimers, they can mention to the owner that this must be addressed.
The only issue is that the cache may have been placed, and the owner may not head back out asap to label the container properly.
Perhaps this is a topic that we need to hammer hard in our EduVents and other publications. If cachers don't know, they won't "care". The more we can get the word out about what is expected in dealing with approval for cache placements under negotiated land manager terms, the better.
The same issue is going on over at the geocaching forums discussing nationally designated Wilderness areas, as well as confusion over federal land manager regulations and restrictions on geocaching. It's pretty clear that, because Groundspeak isn't shouting the regs and restrictions regularly to geocachers, the understanding of where one can or can't place a cache on federally controlled lands is virtually non-existent.
If users aren't regularly engaged in the guidelines and other related land-management issues, they won't know what to do. And that can, unfortunately, give reason to ban or heavily restrict geocaching activities by land managers.
|
|
|
Post by SSO JOAT on Mar 30, 2013 9:38:06 GMT -9
A part of the problem is actually the different requirements from one state park to the next state park. Hence the desire to try and pull all the state permits under a single permit, which is the process that is currently in the works.
As to cacher knowledge, that is a fight that we are losing on multiple fronts. It is an extreme minority of cachers who show up at our monthly EduVent sessions. All the concepts that you've mentioned about federal land access and the stipulations of our permits plus the GroundSpeak guidelines have been covered in previous EduVents and are contained in the training materials posted on our Education page. We can't repeat those same issues every month, because we rarely get new people at the EduVents so the topics must keep moving to keep folks engaged. The other 200+ GCAK members stay home and then there are hundreds more who are not members of our club. We can try to reach the members through our monthly newsletter, but we have no channel to reach the non-members. That remains GS territory and I have a hunch that the majority don't even read the weekly newsletter from Seattle.
I stopped dealing in the GS forums long ago due to all the nasty attitudes floating about. They have a tendency to make people feel like you just walked into the wrong bar...
|
|
|
Post by NorthWes on Mar 31, 2013 7:04:59 GMT -9
All good points being raised here. Scott's comment about the level of care regarding detail negotiation vs what's in print hits home hard. We are going to submit the permit for 2014 with our own stipulation language attached. It's going to be useful to continue this conversation here and over on the Kenai thread; we need to hear from members. Neversummer - your unique background is going to be very useful! Please chime in from that angle as well.
|
|
|
Post by akgh519 on Apr 4, 2013 19:29:39 GMT -9
Wow!!! Guess the Alaska State Parks only want smalls or larger....awful lot to have to write on a cache container and a log sheet....I think only coloReido can write small enough! Guess it is time to make some new log sheets on the computer!!! And we all know what comes after that!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by SSO JOAT on Apr 4, 2013 21:07:40 GMT -9
Micro, small, and regular are allowed. Large caches are specifically banned for some reason.
|
|