Session Start: Sun Mar 26 19:47:47 2006 Session Ident: #BCGA-Chat [19:47] * Now talking in #BCGA-Chat [19:47] * Topic is 'British Columbia - Parks Canada Geocaching Policy Development' [19:47] * Set by moderator on Sun Mar 26 18:58:14 [19:49] * tlg has joined #BCGA-Chat [19:49] * Half-Canadian has joined #BCGA-Chat [19:50] Hello everybody. Good to see people here. We will get started in a few minutes. [19:56] * Team_K1W1 has joined #BCGA-Chat [19:59] Good evening everybody. I'm glad that you could all make it here tonight. The purpose of this meeting tonight is to be able to talk together to gather information/ideas for when I travel to Gatineau to talk with Parks Canada. [20:00] I fell it is important for people to state how they feel about the situation. I think the best way to do this might be to pose a question or two and then respond to it. Is that acceptable? [20:02] Sounds like a good way to get things started [20:02] sounds good to me [20:03] The first question I would like to pose to the group is this: What do you not want to see in a geocaching policy with Parks Canada. What would be the deal breakers for people? [20:03] * DocMagoo has joined #BCGA-Chat [20:04] fees and "virtuals" are two things I don't want to see. [20:04] I think requiring a permit to place a cache would be unreasonable [20:05] By virtuals do you mean virtual caches only? [20:06] I mean I don't want to see them requesting "virtuals" in lieu of a "real" (ie physical) cache [20:06] got it. [20:06] I don't want to see that either. I also hate the idea of fees. [20:07] PC (Parks Canada) is reviewing caching policies from all over the world right now. From what I understand, they want to look at different policies and piece one togther. The idea of a fee never goes over well. [20:08] What are peoples feelings on restricting cache size / type? [20:10] the size shouldn't real matter; it's not the cache that caches the damage, it's the cachers. A larger, easier to find cache would have less impact than a difficult micro [20:10] Although PC may think that a regular size cache would be more damaging to the environment, micros often tend to create more problems with people tearing stuff up trying to find them [20:10] what she said :) [20:10] LOL [20:10] agreed HC [20:10] I just want to backtrack a second.... [20:11] * jrav has joined #BCGA-Chat [20:11] With regards to fees/permits; what kind of arguements would you make against those ideas? [20:12] I wouldn't place a cache if there was a fee/permit requirement [20:12] in most cases we already pay to enter our national parks [20:12] no caches would not entice cachers to visit our parks. [20:13] That is an interesting statement [20:13] geocaching is 90% hiking and we should not have to be treated too much differently [20:13] The amount of red tape required to process a permit would most likely cost way more than any reasonable amount they would charge. I could see easily $50 worth of PC time to fully process a permit! And they'd probably only be able to get away with $5-$10 at most, if anything [20:13] People have stated they feel both ways. Some say they wouldn't enter a park if there are no caches while others say they would still attend parks. Depends on the person. I would tend to not go to parks if there weren't caches there too. [20:14] Fees/permits specifically for geocaches? Would other "specialty" users be required to pay a fee as well? [20:14] people will still visit the parks, but some cachers will plan their road trip vacations around caching [20:15] I haven't heard any talk about permits. I just wanted to see how people would respond to the question. [20:15] Some places do require a fee. Hopefully not here anytime soon. [20:16] How do people feel about cache placement guidelines. What would you like or not like to see? [20:16] * goldguru has joined #BCGA-Chat [20:16] Washington state has discussed permits for caches in their state parks. So far that has not happened. Each head ranger currently has jurisdiction over placement, if any, caches within his own park. [20:17] Guidelines that help minimise damage are good. Place the cache close to the trail is pretty much the only sensible guideline I can see. [20:18] Doesn't Pennsylvania have a $30 fee for caches in some parks? [20:18] I agree. In talking with BC Parks, they see geocaching as 90% hiking. They want to keep it simple. If hikers are expected to stay on trail then so are geocachers. [20:19] In areas where off trail travel is permitted, then so are geocachers [20:19] I hope the guidelines can be kept simple. I don't want to have to have a lawyer present to understand what has been written if I want to place a cache in a park. [20:20] the cachers are leaving something though, the other travellers are just passing through. Some people could regard a cache as littering. [20:20] This is the sticking point with BC parks right now too. [20:20] * Team_K1W2 has joined #BCGA-Chat [20:20] * Team_K1W1 has quit IRC (Connection reset by peer) [20:21] How do we convince parks staff that this is not littering. My argument is that the cache is visited by a string of people and is maintain by a network of people. [20:21] I have to wonder how many caches in National Parks are within a reasonable distance for easy maintenance? PErhaps that should be another guideline [20:21] I would hate to see the policy come down as only virtuals allowed [20:21] What would you propose TLG? [20:21] Does Parks Canada . BC Parks consider Summit Logs as litter? I doubt it, and they are visited much less often than the average geocache. Plus caches have published owners. [20:22] We can convince them it's not litter by having a responsible and responsive cache owner. [20:22] One thing that came up was: What happens if cachers leave the game? What happens to their caches? We have told them about the adoption process. [20:23] The owner should be close enough to the cache site that getting to the cache within a week or so is always possible. [20:23] Seems reasonable. I thnk most listing services have this in there "rules" somewhere. [20:24] Perhaps something can be in the policy that the cache owner must have been actively caching for some period of time, to prove they aren't going to dump something out and then get bored and quit [20:24] We are working on a process for removal of abandoned caches. If the cache owner leave the game and the cache, it will be a matter of finding someone to remove the cache. [20:25] perhaps an adoption thread in the Canada forums that is "stickied"? [20:25] Good ideas [20:25] * goldguru has quit IRC (Quit: goldguru) [20:26] people tend to overlook stickied threads. How about forum area on the local caching groups? [20:26] * tlg has to go. Later everyone. [20:26] * tlg has left #BCGA-Chat [20:26] Something else that came up with talking with BC Parks. What is a lifespan of a cache? When do they get pulled out? I know that Washington State Parks has a lifespan of 1 year and then it is reviewed. [20:26] Does each province have a local caching group/forum? [20:27] Not all [20:27] landsharks had a cool graphic on their cache pages that linked to a webpage that talked about their caches being Parks friendly. I wonder if we could do something like that along with a graphic that links to the cache owner "ie. click here if this cache needs maintenance" [20:29] How do we sell geocaching to PC? What positive attributes should we highlite to make it look like a positive thing for Parks Canada? [20:30] * Forest_Dragon has joined #BCGA-Chat [20:30] If they want to promote park usage, they could advertise there are caches in their parks [20:31] What economic "perks" does caching bring to the parks [20:31] I also education as being a big selling feature. [20:31] Parking lot fees [20:31] It brings the same economic perks as any park visitor [20:32] When I gave the talk in February to the BC Parks and Rec convention, I emphasized that geocaching brings in quality visitors to their parks -- people and families that care about the environment, user fees, and educating a new generation of kids on the value of parks, nature, outdoor activity, etc. They all seemed to like that line of thought [20:32] Good points H-C [20:32] Yes, definitely [20:33] * DocMagoo has quit IRC (Ping timeout) [20:34] I know that BC Parks has a mandate right now to increase park visitation by 2011 by a certain %. I wonder what kind of mandate PC has? They must have something similar. [20:34] * DocMagoo has joined #BCGA-Chat [20:34] Does anyone see any special Western concerns with this policy... anything unique to our area? [20:35] I know we have the Broken Island Group and coastal areas. [20:35] The Broken Group, Long Beach... [20:35] Pacific Rim National Park [20:35] yup, we don't want to see anything from Ontario Parks creep into this ;- [20:36] ;-) [20:36] Good point. [20:36] * Forest_Dragon has quit IRC (Quit: Forest_Dragon) [20:36] Do we need anything "special" put into a policy for us though? Like I said before, I hope to keep it as simple as possible. [20:37] * Scruffster has joined #BCGA-Chat [20:38] Does anybody have any gnawing questions or concerns they want to put forward now? [20:38] If it looks like they are following the lead of ON parks, remind them of BC Parks more open view, and try to get a policy for Parks Canada parks in BC to more closly follow the BC Parks guidelines....to keep things from getting too confusing. [20:39] I will be taking the draft BC Parks ideas with me for sure. BC Parks was more than willing to let us use some of their more open ideas. [20:39] Good point. Trying to keep track of various requirements from different agencies would be a nightmare. [20:40] * Scruffster has quit IRC (Ping timeout) [20:41] I know. PC has researched an insane # of policies. They want to piece one together and not reinvent the wheel. The problem with this is that they are using smaller jurisdiction policies to make one for a huge country. Different areas have different concerns. I don't want to see a blanket policy that doesn't really work well for anybody. [20:41] It's sad there are so few people here. Is this an indication that most cachers don't care? [20:42] That's why we're all hoping for the simpler the better. What works for us here needs to work for Ontario, and Cape Breton, and Manitoba... [20:42] I know. Ontario had their 2 chats last week and only had 6 cachers as well. [20:42] Of course if this thing turns into a big smelly bomb, everybody and their dog will be mad about it. [20:43] True. :-( [20:43] I was wondering the same thing -- especially after all the clamour there was awhile ago. [20:43] We will just have to see what they are willing to work towards. It has been hard to get a feeling on how this thing will go. [20:44] Some people are probably having trouble figuring out how to load Java...maybe some instructions on the chat page would help. [20:45] good point jrav....I know that i've already pinged out once [20:45] I will pass that along to the tech guy. I didn't know you had to do anything. I just clicked and here I was. [20:45] I thought you were just bored, Doc ;-) [20:45] Doc, was the ping drop a result of the tool, or your internet connection? [20:45] What's the overall sense coming from other jurisdictions, Chilli? [20:45] At the meeting, will Parks Canada be presenting a proposal, or just listening to presentations from cachers? [20:46] I have the agenda...just a second while I find it. [20:47] WCE: I'm sure it was connection...but when 1st connecting it took awhile [20:47] * deifenbaker has joined #BCGA-Chat [20:47] * Kermode has joined #BCGA-Chat [20:47] Good evening [20:47] Hi Kermode [20:47] hi [20:48] hi Kermode... Chilli has just gone to find the agenda for the PC meeting.... [20:48] I missed most of the chat. Will a transcript be posted? [20:48] are you gutys still talking bout the parks or is it almost over? [20:48] ok [20:48] hi jrav [20:48] hi again [20:48] Aren't you the guy who stole all those travelbugs? [20:48] I am [20:49] theyll be back with th eowners soon enough [20:49] We will hopefully be posting a transcript if everything works properly ;) [20:49] what has been happening with th eparks to this point? [20:49] There will be an introduction of what PC is. We will then take them caching. What has worked in other areas (Input by us), Identify PC concers with the activity, workshop concerns in small groups. [20:50] They won't be proposing anything there. This is a workshop format [20:51] Chilli, do you know what the next steps are after the workshop? [20:51] That's good - sounds like they have not made any ON Parks style decisions yet. [20:52] Day 2: Review concerns, build policy recommendations phase 1, build policy recommendations phase 2, identify next steps and then summarize and depart. [20:52] Ontario banned caching until they could examine it. Isn't that what Parks Canada did? [20:52] After the workshop, the information will go back to higher ups for policy review [20:52] Yes, deifenbaker [20:52] Up to this point in time what is it that bcga is proposing and putting forward to parks [20:53] How "high up" are the Parks represntatives that will be at the talks? [20:54] I haven't received the list yet so I'm not sure [20:55] Are the cachers representatives going in with a unified message? [20:55] Yes. That is something that will happen immediatly after all these talks with the different provinces have taken place. [20:55] Great! [20:55] I got the impression from the goecaching forums that the reps don't communicate much with each other. [20:56] It may be impossible to all be exactly on the same page but we want to be unified on the big issues [20:56] I am in daily contact with reps [20:56] Glad to have got the wrong impression then. [20:56] * Team_K1W2 has quit IRC (Connection reset by peer) [20:57] * deifenbaker has quit IRC (Quit: deifenbaker) [20:57] thanks to all who came online tonight. Any last questions before we depart? [20:57] Thanks for asking for our input! [20:57] * abba has joined #BCGA-Chat [20:58] The next chat is scheduled for April 6 from 8 - 9 [20:58] sorry...9 - 10 [20:58] Thanks for setting this up -- no one can say we aren't giving people the opportunity to voice their opinions [20:58] Thanks Chillibusher for your hard work. Sory I missed the chat. [20:58] I know it is almost impossible to represent everybody's opinions, but I hope to address most of the concerns and opinions. [20:58] maybe after posting the transcript more people will join in with new questions for the upcoming sessions [20:59] Hopefully. [20:59] No problem, abba. The next chat is april 6 from 9 - 10 if you are interested [21:00] i'll read the transcript when it is posted and think up some questions [21:00] excellent. Pass around the info with caching friends and on the forums. [21:00] the lmga has been good about getting the info out. That's how i heard about it. [21:01] I expect they'll post a link to the transcript when it is availab,e. [21:01] * DocMagoo has quit IRC (Ping timeout) [21:02] * DocMagoo has joined #BCGA-Chat [21:03] * DocMagoo has quit IRC (Quit: DocMagoo) [21:03] g'night everyone... [20:57] * wce has quit IRC (Quit: wce) [21:04] Good night and thanks for coming everybody. Hope to see you all here again on April 6. [21:04] Thanks, Chilli