This topic contains 91 replies, has 25 voices, and was last updated by 
-
Posts
-
I feel that our agreement with the WiDNR is and will be a positive one for Wisconsin geocachers. I say that even though I have had to archive our first hidden and most favorite geocache. I knew when I placed it that it was in a Wi State Natural area, but there was no policy then. It is still one of the most beautiful views in central Wisconsin.
I have had no problem with my cache at Devil’s Lake and the Park Manager there. I have one more on State property that I am working on and for-see no problems either.
This agreement will give both Geocachers and Park Managers a better understanding of where each stands, and what geocaching is about. I feel we will gain from this. It also opens the lines of communication between both groups.
Wisconsin is a beautiful state with lots of great State land to explore. Let’s take a hike!!!
@digital_dan wrote:
Any time a governmental agency is involved, it’s rarely a good thing…
I’ll agree with that. Which is why I was thrilled that the WI DNR took a more hands off approach and let us give them notification instead of asking for permission.
@digital_dan wrote:I wish we had never approached the DNR for a Policy in the first place.
See above post by the Tie for results of this approach.
@digital_dan wrote:If they found a particular cache and had a problem with it, they would just remove it, thereby affecting only one cache.
Not quite. If they find a problem with a geocache, they find a problem with geocaching, thereby affecting ALL geocaches. We’ve seen it before… [Ref. MN DNR, Madison]
@digital_dan wrote:Now with their so called Policy, Many more of our caches are affected. I’m sure what you’ll see is that a number of DNR land managers won’t be aware of the Policy, won’t want caches placed on their lands or will just be ambivalent about it and we’ll get responses from them that won’t seem very consistent. The problem then is, that there is no real recourse or for us as cachers, so we’ll just have to live by what they say, whether or not it’s per the policy. Let’s learn from this and NOT approach any more governmental agencies about policies for placing caches.
That is just plain ignorant. Early in the game I might have taken that same stance, and been just as ignorant. The game has grown from a behind the scenes, clandestine activity with very few participants to a worldwide, commonly known family activity. We need to grow with the game or risk the consequences. That is why the WGA took the initiative and put together, with the WI DNR, this “so called” 🙄 policy. It will take diligent effort on the part of both geocachers and land managers to keep lines of communication open and educate each other about our respective concerns and responsibilities. There will be bumps in the road as the policy is implemented, most certainly. The end result may very well be that there are fewer geocaches on state lands, though I doubt it. Regardless of the quantity of caches on these lands, the quality, safety, ecological impact, assuredness, and longevity of those geocaches will be ensured.
@digital_dan wrote:Let’s learn from this and NOT approach any more governmental agencies about policies for placing caches.
Ever find a geocache in Madison? There is a prime example af working with a government agency to get geocaching back after having it taken away. Why was it taken away? One or two geocaches were placed where they shouldn’t have been. Nobody sought permission. Nobody knew they shouldn’t have been there. The government saw a problem and fixed it. All because there was no communication.
I see a real opportunity here. We can take the positive statewide example set here with the WI DNR and take this to our local county, and city agencies as a working example of how to “police” geocaching in their jurisdictions. Governmental ignorance of geocaching is a threat to geocaching. Governmental ignorance of geocaching is what set the fire ablaze in Appleton over some flowers. Governmental ignorance of geocaching is what prohibits Minnesotans from utilizing their own lands for their own type of recreation. Governmental ignorance of geocaching needs to be a thing of the past.
Has anyone sought out “their” land manager and introduced him/her to geocaching or discussed the DNR geocaching policy. I was thinking of contacting the one in my area. I guess I’m looking for some ideas. What do you guys thing of a Face to Face?
Did anyone find out why Uncle Fun had his shot down?
I have to say that the response from the land manager at Bong was very positive. I offered to give them a tour of all the caches, but they said they would rather find them “the regular way”. A face-to-face is always best if you can swing it. Now I am working on figuring out who the land manager is for Dover Waterfowl Refuge. (If you look at the DNR mapping facility, this is one of those little “scattered wildlife areas”. I have driven by this place everyday for 12 years and have never seen anyone there ever.) I will be calling the service center on Monday.
I really would like to thank all the board members for being proactive on this. This really was the right thing to do for the long term health of geocaching. I hope that, after some of the dust shakes out, we can revisit the concept of requiring some reason beyond “because I say so” for rejecting a cache, if that is indeed what is happening.
One question I just thought of: I know of at least one cache in Bong that is owned by non-WGA members (GCJ8EA). I’m sure there are other around. Is there any process to notify these guys of the new policy?
@sadowskifamily wrote:
Has anyone sought out “their” land manager and introduced him/her to geocaching or discussed the DNR geocaching policy. I was thinking of contacting the one in my area. I guess I’m looking for some ideas. What do you guys thing of a Face to Face?
A few years ago, we held an event in Cascade. We sought permission wherever we could identify the land managers. We were very well recieved. The city clerk in Random Lake gave us a city map and hi-lighted all city property. Then she went on to explain what areas to stay away from and why [Maintenance garage, poison ivy]. Take a look at the archived cache GCGQ87 Cache in Adell for another example of how well we were treated when we asked in advance.
Always ask for permission! When you don’t, you will risk encounters with bomb squads, etc.
I agree it’s all about getting to know your local DNR contact. I’ve got two caches in a local state park and the ranger checks on them regularly (even tells me if the log books are getting full). Now he wants to get together this fall and have me help HIM hide several caches in the park that would be the “official” park caches … show casing specific areas of the park that he thinks people don’t know about … he sees the value in drawing more park users to the area that might not come otherwise.
Get to know them … and the caches will come.
@digital_dan wrote:
I’m sure we’ll see very few caches being placed on DNR land now. Any time a governmental agency is involved, it’s rarely a good thing, so I seriously doubt that seeking DNR approval will turn out to be good for Geocaching. I wish we had never approached the DNR for a Policy in the first place. If they found a particular cache and had a problem with it, they would just remove it, thereby affecting only one cache. Now with their so called Policy, Many more of our caches are affected. I’m sure what you’ll see is that a number of DNR land managers won’t be aware of the Policy, won’t want caches placed on their lands or will just be ambivalent about it and we’ll get responses from them that won’t seem very consistent. The problem then is, that there is no real recourse or for us as cachers, so we’ll just have to live by what they say, whether or not it’s per the policy. Let’s learn from this and NOT approach any more governmental agencies about policies for placing caches.
Geocaching.com presumes geocachers have obtained permission for their caches. Geocaching.com has basically had a don’t ask, don’t tell policy and not verifying you’ve obtained permission. If you haven’t asked for permission to hide your cache, any cache, you haven’t been doing it right. But let’s face it, most people don’t ask for permission.
The WGA became involved with the DNR when we heard from some of our members that the DNR was concerned about geocaches on state land and there was talk about a ban on geocaching. Geocachers were asking permission like they are supposed to be. DNR managers who were naive to geocaching were seeking approval from the upper level staff.
Now, just imagine what the DNR would have done if the WGA never established talks with them. My guess is that managers would be asking for a ban, and that would probably be the case. They would have fabricated a policy based on their perception of geocaching. I personally feel we would be looking at a ban or heavy regulation and limitations.
So rather then the possiblity of a ban, we just need to notify them of where our caches are. Sure, some of our caches might get denied, but that’s better the having thousands of caches banned, with the possibility of citation or arrest like on NPS lands.
The DNR has always been very greatful of the way the WGA has approached them, and worked with them. I think this spirit of cooperatin has gone a long way in preserving the future of geocaching on state lands.
There will be some bugs to work out on our end, and on the DNR’s end. We continue to work with the DNR to hash out problems with the policy as they arise.
Other states have seen a ban on geocaching. Geocaching.com often points out our organization as a good example on how a geocaching community can work with State officials. We are highly respected by Geocaching.com.
To be honest I have gotten approval for almost all my caches but the ones on state owned property I did not get prior approval for as I was told by another cacher that on state property it was not required, and to be honest they were placed in areas that should not have been accidentally found.
When all this discussion about filling out the form came out I thought about pulling my caches rather than filling out the forms. Then I thought well I just wont fill out the forms and if they pull them they pull them. Now I see after reading some of these well thought out posts that there are a good number of reasons why we should be reporting these caches. Yes it is a pain in the butt to have to fill out these forms but I think it is a necessary evil.
My thanks goes out to the WGA for its continuing work to make caching in Wisconsin a better experience for all. It looks like I have some forms to fill out.
Here is a portion of the response that I received. I responded in a very nice and appropriate manor, letting him know that he is lumping geocachers with the wrong groups. This particular location is visiting all summer long by various Boy Scout groups with a nearby camp, my Boy Scout Troop included. Every time we take out bags of trash from the boaters/party goers. Incidentally, there are two permanent first come first serve campsites on this island, that they apparently have no intention of closing down. They even installed a raised toilet seat over a tank to keep that piece more sanitary. Hard to view this any other way than, “No, because I said so…”
After consulting with other DNR personal and reviewing our policy, a geocache on the island in Lake Wabikon is not appropriate.
Many of our State-owned islands are receiving heavy use from boaters, party goers, ect.. I currently have three islands I am in the process of rehabilitating because of too much human activity.
It is our responsibility to maintain our state-owned islands in a natural and undisturbed condition consistent with controlled public use. Each state owned island
should be managed for its most desirable use. If suited for recreational purposes, we need to be sure every effort is made to maintain the natural condition, aesthetic qualities, natural forest growth, and the protective vegetative cover.
Thank you for taking the time to pick up the litter on the island. Forest County has thousands of acres of public land that should be suitable for this type of recreation.
Uncle_Fun
I guess I would still rather have a “No, because I said so…” instead of just No, as with their policy with caches in state natural areas.
I noticed something on the DNR website, the alphabetical Listing of Wisconsin State Natural Areas only list some areas as sensitive.
“* Indicates areas not suited for visitation by the general public. These natural areas may have restricted access, require special permission from the landowner, or contain sensitive resources. Contact the State Natural Areas Program for information about visiting these sites.”
http://dnr.wisconsin.gov/org/land/er/sna/alpha.htm
So it looks like their no caches In SNA policy is without merit. If all the SNA were listed as sensitive I could understand the rules, but even their own site says not all SNA are equal.
Personally speaking, I have no problem with the SNA rule. We have a gazillion acres of land available for geocaching. As users of the forests, we need to help conserve our resources.
While many SNA’s are open to hiking, off trail hiking is discouraged. invasive species such as garlic mustard can be transported by pedestrians, and that is what they are trying to avoid.
These areas are set aside to remain as natural as possible and keep them in prestine condition. I see no need to seed the area with tupperware 🙂
@grousetales wrote:
Personally speaking, I have no problem with the SNA rule. We have a gazillion acres of land available for geocaching. As users of the forests, we need to help conserve our resources.
While many SNA’s are open to hiking, off trail hiking is discouraged. 🙂I agree that these areas should be kept the way they are, and NO ONE should ever be hiking off trail. my problem is that allot of these areas have very well traveled marked trails and get lots of visitors every day.
check out pewits nest SNA, the cache thats there get TONS of people coming there But I would say that geocachers are not hurting the area as much as the people climbing around and swimming(the day I was there there were 20+ people there swimming). Gibraltar Rock is another fine example of a cache in a SNA that is not hurting anything, you walk an old paved road to the top and never leave the trail, cache is within 10ft of where everyone goes. Now the cache located at Ferry Bluff SNA you leave the marked trail to get to the cache, I do see an issue with this BUT the cache only has gotten 2-5 visits a year.
The reason I am so adamant on this issue is the best caches I have been to are in state natural areas. Even without the caches being in SNA I am still going to visit them so either way the eco damage is going to be done.
There really won’t be much of a problem here in Wisconsin with caches on DNR land, because very few will go to that much effort to get them approved. So, the end result will be the same, No caches on DNR land. Does it really matter if it comes by way of the DNR saying, “No Caching allowed” or by default “No one placing caches on DNR land”?
@digital_dan wrote:
There really won’t be much of a problem here in Wisconsin with caches on DNR land, because very few will go to that much effort to get them approved. So, the end result will be the same, No caches on DNR land. Does it really matter if it comes by way of the DNR saying, “No Caching allowed” or by default “No one placing caches on DNR land”?
🙄
whatever
The forum ‘Wisconsin DNR’ is closed to new topics and replies.