[Ray]

The issue of changing the WGA logo has come before the BOD on a couple of occasions. Two or three possibles were presented at the Feb 19th meeting of the Board. Unfortunately there was no support for pursuing the idea at that time. In fact, the ideas presented by CH Dave are bolder and more professional than those we had seen earlier. Reviewing the minutes of that meeting failed to produce evidence of such a suggestion. Arguments for considering change were apparently weak. Perhaps now is the time to take another look at some of the other suggestions that were ignored at that meeting.

[Ray]

8 😕 😕 … Oh yeah, 9 (guess who I forgot).

[Ray]

Trudy named our ‘companion’ Barbie, reflecting on her intellectual capacity. Barbie frequently takes us into private drives, or suggests turns where no road exists. On the trails, we are accompanied by Bonnie and Clyde. No this isn’t a guy thing.. Trudy was very influential here. It may be contagious, caught it from Geoffnsara.

[Ray]

I jumped right in… where’s the chocolate? 😕

[Ray]

I am with Tie on this. You found it, Log it. The cache owner needs to know that the cache may be found through the back door. This is how muggles locate caches.

Your log should state that you stumbled on the cache.

Trudy & I stumbled on the final of a difficult multi-cache a few years ago and did not log the find. We have discussed it and had time to think about it. While we have no regrets, we feel we would have been comfortable logging it as well. If the owner is not pleased with your choice, he can delete the log. Don’t let it Pi** you off, this just shows that you have a difference of opinions; but you are right in my opinion.

[Ray]

😥 Family conflct, can’t make it the 8th through the 17th 😥

[Ray]

perhaps we need to notify local police when we place a cache that might be seen as suspicious 😕 ???

[Ray]

What is the intention of an event?
1. to bring geocaches to geocachers?
2. to bring geocachers to geocachers?
3. to bring geocachers to geocaches?

We (T&tb) have attended events of each of these persuasions. Truthfully I see the temporary caches eroding the effectiveness of an event that is intended to be social (don’t talk to me while I am playing chess), but if temps were removed from the events, I see attendance plummeting.

I believe that one attends a geocaching event because they are a geocacher at heart or in fact. Finding a plethora of temps at an event, did not make me a geocacher or even a better geocacher. I can find plenty of great caches without events. The temps have proven to be no more than entertainment, a diversion while at these events. I find my fellow geocachers are entertaining enough. I don’t need the hunt to occupy my time. I come to events to share tales from the trails, to get to know my fellow cachers better. I can see having a few temps (not loggable) to demonstrate techniques to neophytes. Take away the temps and we would be able to use much smaller facilities for our events; we would not need a thousand acres to spread our activity for the day.

To answer the original question on intent, I believe that our WGA events have had some of each of the intentions. I believe we have put too much emphasis on (1) bringing the geocaches to the geocachers, and we need to put a lot more emphasis on (2) bringing the geocachers to the geocachers. There are some damned interesting folks in our midst and I want to get to know them.

JMHO ~tb

[Ray]

A murder of crows, a brace of rabbits, a release of cachers… ❓

[Ray]

@GeoPink wrote:

… Sit on your hands and give it some time.

I would disagree. Dan has voiced his concerns and it is important for these to be addressed. His arguments may be from the point of view of a devil’s advocate, but they are objectively presented with specific examples. He needs the opportunity to vent as any other concerned member of our organization.

Dan’s arguments have given us the opportunity to explain how important it is to realize that the land we use is not our own personal property. We share the parks with thousands of other users. Land managers must insure that activities on these lands are in the best intrests of all users. Hence, we must seek permission to use these lands.

I may seem to be 180 degrees off of Dan’s thoughts, but I welcome his input and encourage him to not abandon his Ideals. ~tb

[Ray]

Again… Get permission. You can avoid all the hastles by adhering to the original guidelines given to us by groundspeak. Get permission first

Originally suggested in 2000.

[Ray]

The DNR Geocaching form, and the DNR page do not address existing caches. I have been given conflicting information from our reviewers. Our reviewers do not establish DNR policy. I have heard “grandfathering” discussed in the presence of 2+ DNR land managers on 2+ occasions and no denial was made. If you would like a DNR interpretation of the rules, contact, Kate Zurlo-Cuva, (608) 266-7617.

At this point, I would like to se a reiteration of the policy on grandfathering by each of our reviewers as well.

In any case, it is suggested that cachers complete the form and submit it. If you obtained permission up-front as you should have, the process should be painless. If you have not obtained permission to place your cache on State managed lands, it is suggested that you remove them and archive them or get that permission now.

Geocaching 101 – get permission.

[Ray]

@Digital_Dan wrote:

I thought the whole idea here was to be proactive with the DNR. If notifications are not sent to the DNR for caches already on DNR Land, when/if they find them they will assume we are deliberately not abiding by the Policy. Wouldn’t that be more of a reason than they had before the Policy to ban Geocaching? Before you could plead ignorance, now it’s a deliberate violation. I don’t think we have any choice. Caches on DNR Land must have notifications sent in, or they must be pulled and archived, otherwise we are in viloation of the Policy.

The DNR reads cache pages and can see placement dates. If a cache is already in place, it would not be in violation of new policies without specific inclusion of existing caches. That specific inclusion does not exist. At this point, documentation of existing caches at the DNR level is voluntary but advised. It is not mandatory.

[Ray]

I am not seeing any difficulty here. Our first cache was, in Havenwoods, DNR land. We sought permission to place it and the ranger showed us where he would prefer we not place it. We understood from the start that we needed permission to place caches. We placed several in county parks and sought permission for those too. We placed several in Sheboygan county, some were under the radar, others we were able to get permission for. The ones under the radar were the only ones we had problems with. We hid a few without permission because we could not identify the land managers.

I don’t recall any land manager giving us a flat NO.

Now we have a defined procedure for DNR managed lands. It seems to me that this should make things easier. DNR land managers are now more aware of our activities, and of their own authority. We are more aware of their concerns. We are working together to keep the parks open.

Where is the difficulty?

[Ray]

Great Work Tie!

Here is the latest Injured Reserve List: http://www.geocaching.com/bookmarks/view.aspx?guid=73b30522-225e-40dc-845d-8428796ff3be

[Author]

Posts