:)As an original member of GeocacachingMaine.org I was wondering if you guys have any endorsements from the state parks and thus have begun any correspondence with them regarding policies on placing caches within state parks? I know when I was a member we were talking about working with all landowners and parks and such regarding this but haven't heard any talk recently of anything regarding this. I think working with them and being proactive can only help geocaching in the state.

I have enclosed a short video about one of the state parks involved with the Georgia State Parks geo challenge and thought you would enjoy what is going on here in Georgia.

http://bfginteractive.com/blog/technology/2010/06/16/geocache-scavenger-hunt-by-georgia-state-parks/

I am in talks with the new government authorities about this subject. A couple of the parks had unofficially banned caches and had been confiscating them.

The state wants to have a lot of hands on input which means a bunch of man hours. The problem is that now there is no time or money for this. So we are kind of at a stand still. Now with the new budget in place I think things will move along.

What do you mean by a lot of hands on imput? By cachers or by employees and doing what?

Mike, I found your note to be a bit cryptic as well. Before LePage was elected, I shared a podium with my friend and former DOC Commissioner Pat McGowan and he was clearly in tune with geocaching. If the state is to be approached, it has to be handled appropriately and not without some thought. I think the board here is aware of the issue and could help develop an approach that would help.

Perhaps at the same time the board could develop an approach in reference to the essentially off limits attitude to geocaching of TNC (The Nature Conservancy) in negotiating a lttle more access to the lands they oversee. I don't know if it's a primarilly Southern Maine thing or statewide but they have a very negative attitude towards geocaching in general as referenced to me by their Land Steward, Daniel Grenier, in a request to place a cache on land they control. The Nature Conservancies mission is “to protect ecologically important lands and waters for nature and people”. The last time I checked all of the Geocachers I’ve met are people.
Mr. Grenier stated in an email response to me “As a policy, The Nature Conservancy in Maine does not allow geocaching on our preserves.” a check of the TNC Web Site for Maine states “Geocaching – Placing of geocaches is generally discouraged because of the disturbance to areas off-trail.” This statement pretty much shows that Mr. Grenier has taken it on himself to enforce a policy that he has made up himself. The words “in Maine” in this statement made me curious if all TNC states are created equally so I checked on TNC policies in other states and immediately found that TNC in Maine is more or less anti geocaching state – probably due to Mr. Grenier’s aversion to Geocaching unlike states such as New York: They even offer geocaching introductory training. http://www.nature.org/wherewework/no...vents5227.html (http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/newyork/events/events5227.html)
and Virginia which publishes easy guidelines to placing caches on their lands: http://www.novago.org/forum/viewtopi...t=1765&start=0 (http://www.novago.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1765&start=0)
Many TNC web sites of many other states provide easy to use guide lines and forms for Geocachers to establish caches on their properties. I personally sent three email requests to Mr. Grenier last year requesting to place caches on one of TNC properties and finally gave up on the quest after never receiving a single response.
I don't know if any of you realize it or not but TNC is rapidly signing up small woodlot owners to place their land under TNC control in York and Cumberland Counties and perhaps in even more areas statewide. When this land is placed under TNC control it immediately become off limits to geocaching. If you watch the new cache placements in New Hampshire ( a state with relatively little TNC land holdings) vs new cache placements in southern Maine you will see a very large number of placements in New Hampshire compared to a nearly stagnant number in Southern Maine over the past year. I believe a large number of cachers are just not placing caches in Maine due to a large amount of the land under TNC control - thus most of our newer caches are light skirt and guard rail hides. I urge the board to work on a negotiation with TNC to show them that geocaching is not as destructive to the land as Mr. Grenier believes it is. See my prior post dated 1-5-11 http://www.geocachingmaine.org/forum/showthread.php?5018-The-Nature-Coservancy-Infiltration.....ForestDefenders-in-Flesh-and-Blood&p=72322&highlight=#post72322

I think it would be a great time for the board and the general geocaching Maine constituency to now sit down and have some really productive dialog regarding the placement of caches in areas such as these and to come up with formal geocaching guidelines that can be used by TNC and also the state parks. It was one of the very 1st things that was on the agenda when I first became one of the original members of GCM.org and there doesn't seem to have been any other action taken to try and come up with some formal guidelines regarding this very issue. Although I'm not a Maine resident now I still consider Maine to be my home and hopefully you guys can come up with something to make it easier for cache placements in areas such as this.

Maybe it's time for a poll and ask the general population if there is a need for a general guidlines regarding the placement of caches in these areas.

I think it would be a great time for the board and the general geocaching Maine constituency to now sit down and have some really productive dialog regarding the placement of caches in areas such as these and to come up with formal geocaching guidelines that can be used by TNC and also the state parks. It was one of the very 1st things that was on the agenda when I first became one of the original members of GCM.org and there doesn't seem to have been any other action taken to try and come up with some formal guidelines regarding this very issue. Although I'm not a Maine resident now I still consider Maine to be my home and hopefully you guys can come up with something to make it easier for cache placements in areas such as this.

Maybe it's time for a poll and ask the general population if there is a need for a general guidlines regarding the placement of caches in these areas.

I, for one, don't like polls. Why do you need a poll when this has been brought up since day 1 and is clearly back on the table? Debating things as important as this on a website to me is the wrong approach. A committee approach with folks who sit at a table together and bring it back to the "membership" is, to me, a better approach.

IMHO the guideline suggestion should start with the State Parks. TNC is a totally different story. Not one to be put aside but certainly not the one to tackle in the beginning.

The timing was wrong for GMC to do anything until the site became more than just a forum website which was owned by an individual. Since, there is now a formal organization it should probably come back to the table.

1234567890

Mike, I found your note to be a bit cryptic as well. Before LePage was elected, I shared a podium with my friend and former DOC Commissioner Pat McGowan and he was clearly in tune with geocaching. If the state is to be approached, it has to be handled appropriately and not without some thought. I think the board here is aware of the issue and could help develop an approach that would help.

I was just stating the facts. Facts, the stuff your kind twists and manipulates to suit your cause. Just kidding. (kind of)

A couple of years ago caches started to disappear and then we found out some where being confiscated by the park mangers. One of them is a 2001 cache. Then an experienced cacher had been told by someone loosely connected with a park to go ahead and place several caches. When they were "caught" I was asked to help.

Several park managers were really upset as to having crap put in their parks with no permission or information being provided. Some managers only had a cursory idea of what caching was all about. After several meetings and long discussions includeing caching trips, plans started to form. Their plans were in short, way too time consuming for the park managers with very little in the way of criteria to use for reviewing and approving caches. So pretty much when a permission form came before a park manager it would be way to easy to misfile the paperwork into the trash rather than deal with it.

Things have been modified and a much easier plan is being reviewed.

By the way, several of the authorities have looked over the site and they were not impressed. The board seems to have little control over what is on the site and the board sure does not speak for me or mine. I am an information source explaining how things work now and what will not work.

This might seem a little harsh but this topic has been mentioned several times before. You, the board and anyone else had ample opportunity to contribute. Now after the fact you want to jump in.

In effect this site represents very few cachers anyway. Very few people that have signed up actually participate. Most signed up once and never came back. Just to check it out or were forced into signing up to buy a coin or some such. This site sure doesn't represent the cachers not on here or from out of state that place vacation caches. We have no say it any activities of anyone. We do not participate in any review or acceptance of caches in geocaching.com or any of the other like activities.

I think it would be a great time for the board and the general geocaching Maine constituency to now sit down and have some really productive dialog regarding the placement of caches in areas such as these and to come up with formal geocaching guidelines that can be used by TNC and also the state parks. It was one of the very 1st things that was on the agenda when I first became one of the original members of GCM.org and there doesn't seem to have been any other action taken to try and come up with some formal guidelines regarding this very issue. Although I'm not a Maine resident now I still consider Maine to be my home and hopefully you guys can come up with something to make it easier for cache placements in areas such as this.

Maybe it's time for a poll and ask the general population if there is a need for a general guidlines regarding the placement of caches in these areas.

I like this idea of yours to a point. This website, and that's all it is, represents nothing. It seems to have no control over it's own content and what is presented to the public. With the rising popularity of Opencaching.com and Letter Boxing which came long before geocaching and a couple of other similar activities this site has even less authority. Especially since once you sign up your information is held hostage. Unless you pay money you can not even correct a mistake or escape this site. Even then you can not get out completely. So as it stands now this site can not represent me or any other person, geocacher or not, in any way. As I have stated in my previous post ample opportunity presented itself for input and none was forthcoming and the issue is at and acceptable conclusion.

First, the new board has not ducked this issue. It has just now been brought to our attention by Ekidokai and we will deal with it. I have a specific plan in mind and that involves starting at the top, not with the underlings. It is not helpful for ANYBODY to suggest that this site "represents nothing." GCM is an incorporated entity that can, in fact, represent its members in issues of this sort. This is exactly what I stated when I was asked why I wanted to be on the Board. Give us a chance Mike and I'm guessing we can make some headway with the State and the Nature Conservancy. If you want to help, you would be welcome. If all you want to do is dump on this organization and suggest we're not capable of dealing with an issue like this, then please take it elsewhere. And my last thought, don't suggest for a second that my professional training and chosen career makes me "manipulate and twist" things. I'll stand on my track record, don't apologize for being an attorney and think I can help address these access issues, especially with the help of the current board and any others that want to help and not just criticize.

First, the new board has not ducked this issue. It has just now been brought to our attention by Ekidokai and we will deal with it. I have a specific plan in mind and that involves starting at the top, not with the underlings. It is not helpful for ANYBODY to suggest that this site "represents nothing." GCM is an incorporated entity that can, in fact, represent its members in issues of this sort. This is exactly what I stated when I was asked why I wanted to be on the Board. Give us a chance Mike and I'm guessing we can make some headway with the State and the Nature Conservancy. If you want to help, you would be welcome. If all you want to do is dump on this organization and suggest we're not capable of dealing with an issue like this, then please take it elsewhere. And my last thought, don't suggest for a second that my professional training and chosen career makes me "manipulate and twist" things. I'll stand on my track record, don't apologize for being an attorney and think I can help address these access issues, especially with the help of the current board and any others that want to help and not just criticize.

This site has a ton of none participating people that signed up and never came back. they signed up just to check out the site or buy a coin or something. Do you represent them? Do you also represent the people that have not signed up on this site? Do you represent the people that participate in Opencaching.com or Letter Boxing or Troll Find and others. I don't believe you do. You do not have permission to represent me or mine and I doubt you have the right to speak for any of them.

As I said I have been an information source and worked on this for a long time. Working with the people that have the hands on participation.

Mike, I hear you. Take a deep breath and let us work on it. The GCM board and myself represent the "members" on this site, what and whoever that might be. I know nothing about the other groups you mention and obviously don't "represent" any of them or their members. If you don't want me or the board to mention you or to somehow exclude you as somebody we don't represent, I understand. But if you're to the extent that you are an "information source" why not pitch in and help? I never turn away a resource. You in, or you out, my friend?

I'm not going to say much until I log my caches and take time to re-read everything.

I will say this site is not designed to have authority over it's members. Nor should it.

Hopefully with the help of the site, a few of our members are capable of joining forces and maintain good relations with land owners, whether they wish to allow caches on their property or not.

................edited..........
I will say this site is not designed to have authority over it's members. Nor should it.............end edited...........
A quick comment here - this is true BRDad - BUT when, now that we have changes, an incorporation, etc., will there be an determination of WHO is a "member".

I personally don't believe it should be everyone who considers themself a member. Nor should it just be all of the folks who were here "from the beginning" or whaever.

The organization - "a corporation" - should be able and willing to speak for member(s) but there should be some guidelines like a constitution and by-laws, membership meetings and the like. Folks who are members should have a voice, a report and not here on this website (necessarily) where everyone else has access to the information.

JMHO - and as for the State Park Issue - NCL issue - I prefer to allow the board time to adopt a position - share it with "members' and then go forward in a professional and organized manner. One where, if I ask, who did you talk to? I can get a name! Who knows, it might be someone I know. Just saying!

Yes, I'd love to see maps, contact information, and details of properties which officially allow caching as well as those that officially do not, all publicly available to all cache hiders and finders.

Yes, I'd love to see maps, contact information, and details of properties which officially allow caching as well as those that officially do not, all publicly available to all cache hiders and finders.

For the Town of Orrington Conservation Land I can tell you - for the land owned by Penobscot County Conerservation Association I can tell you - I don't think what you suggest is practical. It is up to each individual who hides a cache to do the research required to ensure they have permission. I do not believe in any type of universal map or anything where anyone can "assume" all is well to place a cache here. And - what may be current today ~ could change tomorrow!

I know the PCCA was not aware of caches on their land.......but the ones there are ok now. I have convenienced them it is ok. As for others, it will be individually evaluated so don't just assume caches in Brewer or on our Stetson land are ok.

For example, I went to the Town of Hampden to a boat launch to find a cache this weekend. As you drove into a Boat Launch (the cache description said it was a "public boat launch" but there was a tube for folks to pay a "fee"), I clearly saw a NO TRESPASSING sign along the edge of parking. Presumed this to mean, launch your boat, park your car and don't swim or wander aroung. So - the cache was not at the edge of the boat launch but way beyond that and beyond the NO TRESPASSING signs! So - was permission obtained, were cachers trespassing???? - certainly there is not a water right of way like on roads...........so, after a quick look I left, uncomfortable like may others after reading the logs. I posted a DNF and suggested if permission had been granted to so state in the page.

I have an Earthcache where the placement is beyond an 'Authorized Vehicles Only' sign. It was placed with permission - as per the Earthcache guidelines. My cache page clearly states it was placed with permission and folks are "authorized".

With the vast expance of this State and Nation, and the ever changing ownership/owners desires/wishes/permissions, I don't see whereby the publishing of any that data would work. It changes sometimes on a daily basis - it is not grandfathered - it would never work!

A great concept but just not practical or workable on all lands. Public lands such as state parks or perhaps Land Trusts, maybe BUT some of those change quite often too.

A great concept but just not practical or workable on all lands. Public lands such as state parks or perhaps Land Trusts, maybe BUT some of those change quite often too.

Fully understood, but that does not make it not worth doing.

I think it is very practical for those landowners who explicitly say they do not want caches on their property. If the Nature Conservancy meets this definition, it would be a great resource to have a map or even a GSAK macro so cache hiders could easily check to make sure they did not place caches there. Then there is the Allagash, Tribal lands, Appalachian Trail, Acadia, etc.. Some of these areas may allow EarthCaches, but that could easily be stated in the overview of the property as well.

It would also be practical for landowners who like the idea of caches being placed on their property but would like to either be informed of their placement or would like to be able to control their placement. The state park system of Pennsylvania has a full application process for caches placed there. If that were the case here, we could easily post maps and other pertinent information and links.

If we maintained communication with these entities and both ends had contact information, hopefully we would be alerted if the rules changed either direction. If that communication does not exist, the only way we find out is when someone places ten caches on property they should not be.

BRDad, your comments are good points but who is the "we". GCM? There are tons of folks who used to come to this site who don't anymore. And they are still placing caches. I don't believe publishing maps would be a true motivator for them to come back.

There are many groups who own land in Maine - and if you want to work on permission - starting small with State Parks would be just that - a start. I don't believe most folks would just blanket say - yeah, place a cache anywhere on my/our property. To contact the owner and obtain permission is the only correct way (and it sounds like PA State Parks has ensured that).

We need to look at how many active people are here on this site to have an interest in, time to do it, and the abliity to work on this project. And - what projects are being worked on? This one probably should be put in a que for priority along with some others (and I do realize the State Park accepting Geocaches has been on the table for this site for years).

In the statement I posted, the "we" is merely those who participate by posting or viewing the site. The people that comprise the "we" change on a daily basis, and also changes on the topic, members often participate in one subject but not another.

Correct, it would not be a tool for drawing members (new or old) to visit the site; it would only a be a tool for those who do choose to visit - just like most of the articles posted on the front page do. We are pondering ways to draw and keep members on the site - I think having content outside the forum posts is one thing that can help. If anyone has any ideas that may draw members or that would encourage our active members to participate more, I am all ears, and hope the rest of the board and active members would listen as well.

Lois has hit the nail on the head as they say. If the Board is not "representing" anybody then what's the sense of having a board? I don't think we should proceed willy-nilly to every park manager or send a "to whom it may concern" letter to landowners. I'd suggest direct contact with folks in Augusta to lay the groundwork so that if asked by an specific park official we can indicate who we spoke to and the authority given to us and its limitations.

If the members here prefer that they not be "represented" for lack of a better term or alternatively would view the board as a logical choice to deal with the state and perhpas the Nature Conservancy as well, then please chime in on this topic and tell us one way or the other.

As far as maps that show where not to place caches, I think I'd like some input from Tom on that thought. My fear would be that some cachers would think they could place caches anywhere not "blocked off" on the map. Seems to me there are a lot of cache placements that show little regard for private property rights but that's a different topic.

The response of those who post to this site should tell us (it will me for sure) whether addressing this issue and other issues the board has worked on is worth the effort that's made. We'll see....

So if we obtain some sort of agreement from the state, we are supposed to keep this information classified? This is where I get lost. It seems logical the agreement would be posted on the site along with any other pertinent information. Maps are a great resource. Really, we don't need to go overboard on this end of the discussion until some sort of agreement is made. It just seems logical if there is a defined agreement for or against caches having that agreement is useless unless it's available to cachers.

But let's worry about that until if and when any defined agreement is made with a landowner.

Dave, let's try and keep this simple and to a point. I would suggest approaching the State, specifically the Department of Conservation and ask them to develop a guideline to placing caches in state parks. It would be something any cacher looking to place a cache would have to follow and not a secret or classified. I envision a "go to" person at DOC who could address and placement concerns.

BUT, the rest of the board members haven't shown any interest in this topic and I have posted that I'd like to see if the so called "members" here think this is an issue they'd like us to tackle. I won't do anything more until I receive some board feedback from the rest of the gang.

I have been watching the shots being fired back and forth here and after reading the reference to "so called members" I now feel a need to comment. Just how do you define a "so called member" of this group? And who makes the determination as to who is or is not a "so called Member"? I for one have done what this group asked of an individual wishing to join this group. In my opinion I am a member, plain and simple. If you folks have dtermined that to not be the case, let me know as I will have no further need of your little club. Thanks for your time and attention to my comment.

blewis..thanks for chiming in. We hear you!

I have been watching the shots being fired back and forth here and after reading the reference to "so called members" I now feel a need to comment. Just how do you define a "so called member" of this group? And who makes the determination as to who is or is not a "so called Member"? I for one have done what this group asked of an individual wishing to join this group. In my opinion I am a member, plain and simple. If you folks have dtermined that to not be the case, let me know as I will have no further need of your little club. Thanks for your time and attention to my comment.
Anyone that registers on this site is considered a member. There is no fee to become a member and it is not a club. Welcome aboard Blewis.

New York State Parks and Recreation has a policy for geocaching and that policy is posted on the various geocaching websites so that we are all aware of what the policy is.

Here is a link to the NYS site for those of you that are interested in looking at it: http://nysparks.state.ny.us/inside-our-agency/documents/OPRHPGeocacheGuidanceDocument.pdf

I for one think that, as elected members of this group, the board should contact the proper people in Maine and initiate a dialog to get a policy for Maine. I think that it would promote a cooperative attitude on the part of the geocaching community and set common guidelines for all to follow.

Just my 2 cents

I think having a chosen representative approach the DOC here in Maine would be a good productive move. Getting ahead on this would offer a much better option than to be behind the curve as such. In other words lets be friends with the DOC and not a problem.

I think having a chosen representative approach the DOC here in Maine would be a good productive move. Getting ahead on this would offer a much better option than to be behind the curve as such. In other words lets be friends with the DOC and not a problem.

Mike stated, early on in this thread, that he was having discussions with some of the powers that be. Rather than send another person to generate the possibilty of conflict, maybe we should talk more in depth with Mike and support his efforts? Hopefully, if they decide to allow caches they will come up with some guidelines for cache placement in the parks....guidelines we've had input in via our mouthpiece (a.k.a. Mike at this point). I think that if we "send" someone from the site they'd need to be in collaboration with Mike anyway, just so we don't appear disjointed.

I have been watching the shots being fired back and forth here and after reading the reference to "so called members" I now feel a need to comment. Just how do you define a "so called member" of this group? And who makes the determination as to who is or is not a "so called Member"? I for one have done what this group asked of an individual wishing to join this group. In my opinion I am a member, plain and simple. If you folks have dtermined that to not be the case, let me know as I will have no further need of your little club. Thanks for your time and attention to my comment.

I'll send you a private message explaining my thoughts.

Anyone that registers on this site is considered a member. There is no fee to become a member and it is not a club. Welcome aboard Blewis.

Sheesh! I'll drink to that! Thanks, Rick!

Sheesh! I'll drink to that! Thanks, Rick!

I thought you had a thread to talk about beer and drinking already? :)