Printable View
How about four or five Geocaching Maine Region Representatives, one for each large region (North, South, East, West and Central). That way when something local is going on, there's someone in the area that might hear about it, or be able to step up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Haffy
Great idea Cam. Now we have to have some volunteers from each district to take on the responsibilty. Anyone out there want to step up to the task?
I'll step up to the plate :D (I already have good contacts with the KLT)Quote:
Originally Posted by Haffy
I nominate: Haffy, Haffy, Haffy, Haffy, and for Central district: Haffy. ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Haffy
-RanMan22
I thought some more on this since my last reply. I don’t think a public affairs person or what ever you want to call it will serve any real purpose.
Here are some questions:
What will the public affairs person do that really needs to be done?
Who are they representing?
Just because they are public affairs they would basically only be representing what, our web site?
If that is the case then what purpose would they really serve? There are many cachers that are not on out site, would this “public affairs person” be representing our web site or geocaching in general? If they were to try and play go between with our web site and the forest service then it would only mean that our public affairs person talked with them. The user does not have to follow any rules so to speak when it come to caching, just the forest service rules and local and federal laws. We can not control who places caches, the manner in witch they place them or where they place them. We can not play police.
So if we have a public affairs person just what will they do and why bother?
I think they would just be the midle man between any outside parties and the rest of us. If a particular land owner wanted to get together with someone and specify what requirements on his property would be, such as permission forms or within 5 feet of a trail, or otherwise, and that person could then relay it to the rest of us on this site and it could be posted here for all to see. This is an issue in some states, and it is possible it could get that way here.Quote:
Originally Posted by attroll
In many cases, the cacher wanting to place the cache could do the same thing, but I don't think it would hurt to have at least one person listed as a contact person.
You are correct.. Creating some form of organization that allows the non-geocaching community to interact with us is what I would like to see. We have no such system in place except on an individual basis. Also a way to speak to the non-geocaching public as one voice. I may have one concept/idea and you may have another. (We also may agree) but what mechanisms do we have in place to say this is a common goal. These forums allow us to debate that openly and that is great and necessary. Then I go out, or you go out and push for your own agenda or vice versa. This is not necessarily good for the whole of geocaching and could lead to confusion for the non-geocaching community. It could also prove that we at these forums are not in agreement and undecided in our goals. This could be bad if it ever comes to State laws and policies that could govern how, or more of my concern, where we cache. It is my belief that we need to show strength by standing behind one organization.Quote:
Originally Posted by brdad
The internal politics is and should always be a concern. When I say organize i'm not saying we should buy one "off the shelf." I think we can come up with an organization that works for GeocachingMaine.org. Be it monthly meetings online or simple a continuous open forum thread with polls to decide on what goals we seek. We can consider all forms of structure from President elected to simply nominate several folks to act in committee. The structure, rules and dues are not as important to me as the fact that we speak with one voice, that we prove we are united and that we protect geocaching now and in the future. Its also important to me to have a place where I can express my ideas and concerns as well as listen to others. The MGA will pursue their agenda (as they should, its their organziation) who will pursue ours or better yet, how will we pursue ours? I don't think the MGA is our enemy but why would they come here or listen to us when its time to make their policy?
Hey Steve,Quote:
Originally Posted by Trezurs*-R-*Fun
Good points, You have my attention and I was one of the ones that opposed this from the beginning. I like what you are saying. However if it's open forumns that we seek with polls to make desicions than the decisions has already been made according to the recent poll of "to form or not to form."
If we choose to persue this than someone needs to come up with a rough draft of goals (not rules) and we can go from there.
Rick, just playing devils advocate here. If Plum Creek decides to ban caching on their property your saying that we should just accept it and move on?? I'm thinking that if we had an official rep., we could at least talk to them, work with them maybe. Your right in that it may not sway their decision but at least we tried. If we speak to them with the backing of a large. unified organziation it may help. It may not too and I will concede that but at least we can prove we are really trying to protect geocaching as it is now.Quote:
Originally Posted by attroll
Just so you know, what ever this group/members of this forum decide I will respect it and abide by it. I'm not going to start another organization...(ok, I could delete that last statement but I won't...LOL) I believe in majority rule and only want what is good for the geocaching community...
Cache On!!!!
I agree with you Dave...but we have over 700 users of this website and a vote of 32 users is hardly indicative of the overall feeling of everyone here. I don't know how many are from Maine, but it still is far from a majority decision. I would like to see more input from other users than the 20 or so who have posted their feelings. Also, the "goals" should include some kind of mission statement indicating what we are "all about." IMHOQuote:
Originally Posted by dave1976