Secrets of the City

It’s sad that this businessman had to go out on his own to develop this initiative. It should be a priority with goverment. However, it won’t be without pressure. Tax revenue doesn’t come from empty shorelines. Zoning for McMansions can be enticing to legislators.

At least it is a priority with *some* government agencies like the Minnesota DNR. They are *SO* involved with sticking to their mission and following their rules to the “T” that they happily reject very worthy outdoor activities as “dangerous” to the natural landscape rather than openly embracing new outdoor activities that may get more people out and using their lands.

It’s not just the Minnesota DNR though, it’s other land owners like Three Rivers Park District which openly welcomes all newer and growing outdoor activities (such as antler shed hunting, rollerblading, mountain biking, etc) as long as they stay on their maintained (majority of which are paved) trails. Forget about wandering around in their vast expanses of open land — you could be fined. While they are looking at the ways that this is hurting children (by confining them to more and more urban situations) they have yet to allow you to go off-trail in their parks without warnings or even possible fines.

So, while there are many areas of the government that are looking for continued development there are agencies out there that are avidly protecting our natural resources. Perhaps a little too much.

We do need to strike a balance but we also need to realize that we are a huge state that has a relatively low population which is mostly centered in on geographic area — unlike any other state. Perhaps the population’s migration to other areas of Minnesota, like Ely, is a natural progression that we should promote.

Hard to reply to your grudge when you don’t provide specifics about what and where you’re talking about, but in general I don’t think the DNR does nearly enough to protect the land and other species from humans’ destructive whims and amusements. Your right to play is less important than other species’ right to exist.

Bill, innuendo and veiled attacks aren’t very helpful to the dialogue, but whatever. I thought you said 3 Rivers was being pretty friendly toward geocaching these days? Something change?

As for the DNR being heavy-handed, it is certainly done with a strong bias… See their attempts to open up as much state land as possible to unlimited ATV use. That’s not exactly locking down available activities, unless you mean opportunities to enjoy peace and quiet, pristine woodlands, clean streams and wildlife.

I don’t think the point here is to somehow give the DNR more empowerment or to necessarily close off any lands to use. It’s merely to address conservation and land use issues on a statewide level, instead of the disjointed efforts and practices that are currently being employed by various government and non-government groups. I’d rather this didn’t mean the shoreline of every northern Minnesotan lake filled with cabins 12 feet from the water (and barried vegetation mowed down between their manicured lawns and the lake), but it’s my understanding that the idea is simply to make informed, long-term decisions.

Anyway, sorry you have a grudge against the DNR. If they (and groups like the 3 River District) didn’t exist, you sure wouldn’t even have those public lands to fight over. Good luck getting landowners to allow you to place caches in their private 40 acres.

You’re right, I suppose if you’re interested in protecting other species’ rights then their mission statement doesn’t adequately protect what you would prefer be protected.

To each their own.

Bill, innuendo and veiled attacks aren’t very helpful to the dialogue, but whatever. I thought you said 3 Rivers was being pretty friendly toward geocaching these days? Something change?

I never once mentioned geocaching in my post. Three Rivers is very pro-geocaching and very interested in expanding the amount of activities permitted and promoted in their parks. Even their stance on “off-trail” hiking is forward looking and may change in a few years.

We have just spent a considerable amount of time working with them, again, in 2005 to get even more geocaches into their parks. Something that was welcomed with open arms by their staff and board (and as you mentioned, something that I posted about several weeks ago).

Anyway, sorry you have a grudge against the DNR. If they (and groups like the 3 River District) didn’t exist, you sure wouldn’t even have those public lands to fight over. Good luck getting landowners to allow you to place caches in their private 40 acres.

The DNR has been very willing to work with geocachers to help us eventually allow geocaching by permit in their parks. Your insinuation that I hold a “grudge” against them for geocaching is nothing but incorrect. While I disagree with their descision to interpret their rules and mission as they choose to do, I do not hold it against them at all — after all, they’re looking out for our best interests.

Hope that clears up your confusion about my personal views.

It’s merely to address conservation and land use issues on a statewide level, instead of the disjointed efforts and practices that are currently being employed by various government and non-government groups.

I disagree that this should be handled at the state level. To do so could seriously limit local communities that might be looking for serious growth and development in directions different than the majority of those living in Minnesota.

I went geocaching. It was dumb. Trash in a plastic container in the woods. They should keep their garbage out of the woods.

If you want to play with your GPS then have everyone go find the same big tree and take a picture or something.

Hey, someone else is using my — name. Geocaching sounds good to me.

Bill, I don’t think it’s too much to ask for Minnesota, as a state, to decide how we grow, as a state. Especially when it comes to state- and federally-owned lands. The “my backyard” argument is valid to an extent, but is also tired. Local communities certainly should be allowed to chart their own growth and development, but this doesn’t have to exclude the concerns and needs of all Minnesotans.

Our woods and lakes are truly a treasure of the state, and for a small group in one community to decide how they are exploited is not right, especially considering the track record of pro-development members of those communities shouting down anti-development members, giving us the wrong impression that everyone in outstate Minnesota is in favor of selling off all the public land and seeing it turned into second homes for Twin Citians.

Cheers, Gerg

We will never see eye to eye on the development issues you have raised. We’ll have to leave it at that.

I think now is the time for this dialogue because we all lose if we don’t talk about it, but I respect you wanting to do the whole “agree to disagree” thing so… Have a great weekend!