$5 cost per find

[Neos2]

And on the other hand, there is one state park near here that had forty geocaches in it for several years. It's a huge park and they were great caches. One day, the property manager decided that he didn't want geocaches in his park any longer; he sent his crews out to pick up all the caches they could find and bring them to his office. He didn't notify any of the owners to got pick up their caches. He didn't get in contact with the cachers who had hosted CITO events there in the past. He didn't get in contact with the local geocacher who had offered to tend to any caches that had developed a problem. He just took the caches. (The DNR rules had recently changed, but other park managers dealt with the change in much less controversial ways).

 

Now we can all go there and pay our $5, but we can't geocache there. You can hunt there, you can fish there, you can hike there, you can watch birds there, you can picnic there. It's still a beautiful place and a lot of people still visit there, you just can't geocache there.

 

Our state parks deserve our support, and the five dollars is a small investment to preserve our natural areas. Most of their money comes from other sources--hunting licenses, legacies, and so forth--but the gate fees to help defray some of the costs to maintain roads and signage. Most parks could use a lot more money than they get each year from all sources.

 

Guess which park I would rather pay up my $5 to visit?

[+ePeterso2]

I can't imagine that the revenue from cache seekers is in anyway a significant number for the park. I imagine that the number of cachers in the park is several orders of magnitude smaller than the number of other visitors.

Edited February 14, 2007 by ePeterso2

[+Renegade Knight]

...We had a cache shut down that was on a beautiful boardwalk and the restaurant owner had the cache up on a ledge in the establishment. It was a very cool location, but it got archived because it was considered a commercial establishment. Even though you could walk in, grab the cache and walk out without having to spend a dime. ...

 

Oddly enough I agree with you here. This site tends to be conservative when it comes to commercial caches. The cache was likely fine (better info may result in a different answer).

 

This cache mentioned by the OP is not commercial because it's a state park. Thats why. It's the defintion as used by this site. I agree with it. The entrance fee has nothing to do with the commercial or non commercial nature of the cache.

[+AStargirl]

I really don't see what the problem is. Most state parks that I know of charge an entry fee (the one near me is $2 per person in the car).

They need that money to maintain the park, facilities and staff that keep it up and running and that's one of the ways they are able to do that.

On the actual cache page, I see no advertisement, just a note that the State park fee is required to access the cache, meaning you have to pay to get in the park like anyone else wanting to go there for the day for whatever reason.

It does have a link to more info. about park passes, but you have to choose to click on that and don't have to read anything about it if you don't want to. I would think the only reason for clicking on it is if you actually were interested in buying a pass, but you are in no way obligated to buy the expensive year-round pass.

How is this cache any different from one I or anyone else might post in a state park that clearly states that there is a $2 parking fee or a $5 entry fee to get into the park? What difference does it make if it's the park itself placing the cache as long as you know about the fee beforehand and it's not anything other than their usual regulations?

Edited February 14, 2007 by AStargirl

[+ReadyOrNot]

They need that money to maintain the park, facilities and staff that keep it up and running

 

I am going to go into my boss's office and demand more money, because I'm not managing what I do have very well. Only the government gets away with this and it seems noone cares.

 

I don't do those kinds of caches because I refuse to give any more money to the government. Maybe I'm losing out.. Whatever.

 

But, I'm starting to get off topic here, so I'll be quiet now.

[+Renegade Knight]

...My original post is/was intended to solicit opinions about caches that are intended primarily to provide fees to the owners in order to come onto their property and perhaps to additionally solicit more business.

 

Personally I very much enjoy caches placed in State Parks, and will always pay fees associated with my visit. But I am opposed to the direction the above cache is taking in the government's solicitation offering a geocache for a fee. Should we allow these GeoPimps?

 

Every cache has an agenda. I've used mine to make fun of the world I live in, poke fun at forum controversies, poke fun at the rich, point out industrial slag, and take people to places that I have chosen for them to see. Agenda only varies by how obvious it is.

 

I think the real issue is that you don't like caches placed by parks because their agenda (use our parks) crosses the line of too obviouse.

 

It's not about the 5 bucks. If Disney ran the park it would be about the 5 bucks. The parks departmenet of the state is about providing recreational opportunites for the states citzens and then getting them out to enjoy the parks. It really is about that. That's one reason there is a difference between commercial caches and this. If the park could, odds are they would drop the fee to get more people to visit and use the park system. However like everone else they have a budget and if Utah is like about every other state the budget is tight.

[+ReadyOrNot]

...We had a cache shut down that was on a beautiful boardwalk and the restaurant owner had the cache up on a ledge in the establishment. It was a very cool location, but it got archived because it was considered a commercial establishment. Even though you could walk in, grab the cache and walk out without having to spend a dime. ...

 

Oddly enough I agree with you here. This site tends to be conservative when it comes to commercial caches. The cache was likely fine (better info may result in a different answer).

 

This cache mentioned by the OP is not commercial because it's a state park. Thats why. It's the defintion as used by this site. I agree with it. The entrance fee has nothing to do with the commercial or non commercial nature of the cache.

 

Not odd.. I think we all have more in common than we lead on. Here's the link to the cache "Foo Foo Girly Box" (My 1st FTF )

[+horsegeeks]

With all of the traveling we do to find caches they probably cost us about 5.00 apiece anyway.

[+Renegade Knight]

With all of the traveling we do to find caches they probably cost us about 5.00 apiece anyway.

 

$5000 Rig for caching, 1000 caches so far. 5.00 each and that's before you factor in that I have to leave the driveway...

[Dinoprophet]

Is it that I like to go to parks for things other than geocaching that I don't get it? I really am flabbergasted that anyone would have an issue with this.

 

As far as the commercial aspect, it's valid because Groundspeak owns the site and they approved it. End of story. GeoPimps? Call them whatever, I unreservedly say "Yes, I want my parks placing caches".

[+AStargirl]

They need that money to maintain the park, facilities and staff that keep it up and running

 

I am going to go into my boss's office and demand more money, because I'm not managing what I do have very well. Only the government gets away with this and it seems noone cares.

 

I don't do those kinds of caches because I refuse to give any more money to the government. Maybe I'm losing out.. Whatever.

 

But, I'm starting to get off topic here, so I'll be quiet now.

 

Yeah, 'cause the government is great about giving money out, even to their own state-run programs Oh, that's funny.

It isn't always because the money isn't managed well, it's that there isn't enough to keep things well-managed. That's what I've seen anyway. Then, people wonder why things aren't as "nice" as they think it should be and attendance goes down, and...maybe the gov. starts thinking it's not worth keeping open to the public anymore, etc. etc.

Yes, this is off-topic and I'll be quiet now, too, but I'll contribute directly to a cause (even a government-run institution) if I know the money is going back into it. I guess I'm assuming things here, but...

[+Harry Dolphin]

I think that it's a great program!! As many have stated: The charge is to visit the state park, not to geocache. If the state finds new ways to attract visitors, more's the power to them! My only objection is that Utah discriminates against non-Utahans in their fee schedule.

As to posting that it's a fee area on the page, this is a good idea. I have a few caches in a fee area ($8 for a year-long hiking permit). (Hmm... Cheaper if I were a resident. Oh, well.) If I forget to note that it's a fee area, my reviewer gently reminds me that I need to provide the links. I know that I get fewer cache hunters because of it, but that's the cache hunters' prerogative. They would miss out on some nice hikes, and great views, but it's their choice.

The question seems to be the propriety of the State of Utah hiding caches to attract more visitors to the park. I think it's a great idea, and that more state parks systems should do it!

[+ReadyOrNot]

They need that money to maintain the park, facilities and staff that keep it up and running

 

I am going to go into my boss's office and demand more money, because I'm not managing what I do have very well. Only the government gets away with this and it seems noone cares.

 

I don't do those kinds of caches because I refuse to give any more money to the government. Maybe I'm losing out.. Whatever.

 

But, I'm starting to get off topic here, so I'll be quiet now.

It isn't always because the money isn't managed well, it's that there isn't enough to keep things well-managed.

 

That is just absurd. I guess that's why there are multiple parties in this country. I respect your opinion though.

[+Moose Mob]

I'm flip flopping more here than Congressman in late October, but the more think about it, the less I can find wrong with it. Yes it is kinda commercial, but we as cachers are getting as much or more out of it as the Park system is. If you're going to go there for other caches, why not let them hide another one for you.

I would be screaming foul if this was a business or a private park, but this is a public park. In a way we're paying ourselves. It's our park. Or least it the people of Utah's park.

 

I doubt very much of the entrance fees goes to the park.. I would bet the majority is typical government waste. So, really not that much different than than a commercial venture. To think that because it's the government, that the money is going towards something good is really naive. Commercial organizations have always been more efficient with money than government, so a private park would probably put the money to better use than a government run organization.

Well that government waste could be derived from your paycheck instead of an entrance fee. I'd say that's a difference. If they take it out of your pay check or via sale/property tax you have no choice. At least here you do.

 

That's true. I personally think they should use the money they are already taking from my paycheck to maintain the parks. If they weren't such wasters, they'd be able to do that. It seems like every turn you take you get nickel and dimed to use services that should be free for us to use.

This is not a geocaching issue and is a general issue regarding taxes and fees to use public lands. That should be discussed elsewhere (like Off Topic).

 

The issue posed here is fee for finding a cache in a State Park. Let's not derail the topic.

 

Thanks

[+Recdiver]

Is there a fee to use the park or is the fee for parking your car in the lot?

 

If it's the former, boycott the park, if the latter, park just outside the entrance and walk in.

 

WA parks used to have fees to park, now they don't.

Did a cache like that north of Vancouver Canada.

There was a cache in the park and they didn't charge a park use fee however you had to pay to park in the lot and lots of NO parking signs outside the park with threats of parking tickets costing 3 times the parking fees.

In the end I paid for parking and enjoyed a walk through a very nice park with way too many muggles which is how I ended up with a DNF!

I think we should ban muggles from parks with caches in them.

[+dcrep]

Am I correct in assuming that Utah State Parks doesn't allow players to place caches in their parks? If so, then they're breaking their own rules by placing these 2 (sovereign immunity?)

 

Geocaching is more than finding caches, it's placing them too. Compare the pages for the 2 caches they have placed. Identical, besides minor details.

 

This wouldn't strike me as blatant advertising IF they embraced geocaching as a whole.

 

-D

[+BlueDeuce]

Am I correct in assuming that Utah State Parks doesn't allow players to place caches in their parks? If so, then they're breaking their own rules by placing these 2 (sovereign immunity?)

 

Geocaching is more than finding caches, it's placing them too. Compare the pages for the 2 caches they have placed. Identical, besides minor details.

 

This wouldn't strike me as blatant advertising IF they embraced geocaching as a whole.

 

-D

 

Well, if they said the general public cannot place caches in our parks, only a park employee can I still wouldn't complain.

 

What do you think they would do if people took issue? Probably say "Fine, no caches at all."

[+welch]

I don't see anything wrong with it, as long as the hider was up front with the fact there was a fee. Many parks and recreational areas have an entry fee. I buy a State Park pass here for that reason. Plus I would be using the parks even if there wasn't a cache there.

I don't the issue is paying the usual park use fee, its that the people who put out the cache are the same ones collecting the fee (at least that's what I got from the first post).

If a cache were set up just to collect visitor fees it would seem commerical. Of course it may difficult to know for certain someones intent for a given case (why was this cache here? did the owner really like the view from here? etc)

[Dinoprophet]

Am I correct in assuming that Utah State Parks doesn't allow players to place caches in their parks? If so, then they're breaking their own rules by placing these 2 (sovereign immunity?)

 

Geocaching is more than finding caches, it's placing them too. Compare the pages for the 2 caches they have placed. Identical, besides minor details.

 

This wouldn't strike me as blatant advertising IF they embraced geocaching as a whole.

 

-D

By that logic, I can't place a cache on my own property unless I let other people place caches there as well. It also means a park that doesn't allow fires can't do controlled burns; if they don't allow machetes and axes, they can't do their own trail maintenance; if they don't allow motorized vehicles on their trails, the rangers can't use ATVs for same; if they don't allow vistors to raise buildings, they can't build any of their own.

 

Identical cache pages is typical of a series. I'm not sure what's wrong with that.

 

It's no more advertising than any other park feature. It's something else you can do for your $5. Do people look at the flyer rack at their local outdoor store and cluck at the way these insidious park managers try to attract people to the parks? Do these stores know they're being taken advantage of?!?

[CoyoteRed]

What, is Jeremy Irish & Co. the only people allowed to make money off geocaching?

[+Bob Rich]

I don't the issue is paying the usual park use fee, its that the people who put out the cache are the same ones collecting the fee (at least that's what I got from the first post).

If a cache were set up just to collect visitor fees it would seem commerical. Of course it may difficult to know for certain someones intent for a given case (why was this cache here? did the owner really like the view from here? etc)

 

From the OP:

It seems there are a few schools of thought here. These forums are great. There can be many sides to all issues, and I've learned from many of your ideas that I have not thought of before.

 

It seems that Utah State Parks are trying to increase visitation in their parks. And that is commendable I think. Why not? And why not then have those visitors (like all others) pay a day use fees for their enjoyment? OK so far. I would be happy with an ad that read "Come to this Utah State Park to enjoy Fishing, Hunting, swimming, hiking, and . . . geocaching."

 

What bothers me is that Utah State Parks is using GeoCaching to entice us geocachers to find new caches AND PAY THEIR FEES for doing so, all the while proferring their other fee-based activities. Of course some may again argue "if we don't like it, don't do it." But that's a trite cop out.

 

The principle at stake here, in my opinion, is the offering of caches to be found for a fee to the owner. These state park caches attempt to use the Geocaching.com web site cache reporting tool directly or indirectly (intentionally or non-intentionally) to solicit customers through a Geocaching.com listing to pay a fee to enter and find the cache, and also solicit future business. These are NOT permitted per the guidelines, but somehow were in this case.

 

We've all been to caches on private/government property. If Utah, then there may be more states. If Emery County, then your county perhaps will charge a fee.

 

The Utah State Parks is not an active GeoCacher. They have found NO caches themselves. They are doing this for one reason only: to increase their revenue by charging us fees. That's not (IMHO) in the spirit of this sport.

[+boda]

I find it hard not to be sarcastic here, but I'll try.

 

Utah will not get rich on fees collected from cachers, no matter how many caches they place.

 

They did not put the cache out to collect fees. (See above comment.)

 

Cachers will pay the fee if they want to go to the park, whether they hunt the cache or just picnic, hike, etc.

 

It is really not a problem.

[GermanSailor]

I find it hard not to be sarcastic here, but I'll try.

 

Utah will not get rich on fees collected from cachers, no matter how many caches they place.

 

They did not put the cache out to collect fees. (See above comment.)

 

Cachers will pay the fee if they want to go to the park, whether they hunt the cache or just picnic, hike, etc.

 

It is really not a problem.

 

You are so right.

 

I find it quite amusing that someone does a 200 mile roundtrip for just one cache. And then complains about the five bucks supporting a state park.

 

I additionally find it actually quite fair to you taxpayers that there is a (very small in my opinion) fee for most parks, since if the money came only from taxes, no tourist would pay.

 

All the state or national parks are so cheap compared to what you have to pay at an actual commerical park like Disney or SeaWorld. I wish we had parks with those facilities in Germany.

 

GermanSailor

[+Muddy Chris]

I guess I don't see the problem. Most all state parks charge an entrance fee ... in any state. State parks are not for profit (by definition.) Some parks allow caches some don't.

 

I guess I'll be glad to have two additional caches to find when I go to Utah.

 

Chris

[Clan Riffster]

I think its crossing the line. In order to get this cache you are required to pay.

In order to hike in the park, you're required to pay. In order to picnic in the park, you're required to pay. In order to drive around in your SUV thinking nefarious thoughts about the park's pigeon population, you're required to pay. None of these activities are crossing any line.

 

If they charge $5 to just walk through the gate, how could it not be considered commercial?

Because a commercial venture is, by it's very nature, created to generate income in excess of it's costs. If a state park costs 100K a year to run, and their entrance fees generate 5K, I wouldn't think that would quite qualify as commercial. It certainly wouldn't make for a good business model. The non-commercial aspect of geocaching was created by Groundspeak when they wrote their guidelines. As such, they get to define what is, and what is not, a commercial cache.

 

To me, that's using Geocaching and Groundspeak solely to further their agenda which almost certainly requires collecting fees for their efforts.

I prefer to look at it as a symbiotic relationship.

 

But I am opposed to the direction the above cache is taking in the government's solicitation offering a geocache for a fee.

They are not offering a cache for a fee. This cache was placed on 02-11-07. On 02-10-07, the fee to enter this park was $5, just as it was after the cache was posted. Nothing has changed other than during that 24 hour time period the Utah State Parks posted a cache for us to find, and they don't even ask us to leave swag in exchange for it.

[Dinoprophet]

The principle at stake here, in my opinion, is the offering of caches to be found for a fee to the owner. These state park caches attempt to use the Geocaching.com web site cache reporting tool directly or indirectly (intentionally or non-intentionally) to solicit customers through a Geocaching.com listing to pay a fee to enter and find the cache, and also solicit future business. These are NOT permitted per the guidelines, but somehow were in this case.

I submit to the inevitable. Here are the complete guidelines:

Commercial caches attempt to use the Geocaching.com web site cache reporting tool directly or indirectly (intentionally or non-intentionally) to solicit customers through a Geocaching.com listing. These are NOT permitted. Examples include for-profit locations that require an entrance fee, or locations that sell products or services.

 

Solicitations are also off-limits. For example, caches perceived to be posted for religious, political, charitable or social agendas are not permitted. Geocaching is supposed to be a light, fun activity, not a platform for an agenda.

 

Some exceptions can be made. In these rare situations, permission can be given by the Geocaching.com web site. However, permission should be asked first before posting. If you are in doubt, ask first.

Bold and italics mine. The guidelines allow for exceptions, the cache was reviewed and posted, so even if this is commercial or a solicitation, gc.com allowed an exception, per its own guidelines.

 

The Utah State Parks is not an active GeoCacher. They have found NO caches themselves. They are doing this for one reason only: to increase their revenue by charging us fees. That's not (IMHO) in the spirit of this sport.

And I'll repeat: it's no different than any other activity you can do in the park. They're taking money from the mouths of families who just want to take their kids on a picnic!

 

As to their motives, you cannot state what they are. Geocaching is a burgeoning outdoor activity -- why wouldn't the parks make it another option for visitors? My guess is they want to see what kind of traffic the caches get and how the caches are treated before deciding whether it's worth allowing geocaching or furthering their own involvement.

[Dinoprophet]

As to their motives, you cannot state what they are.

I take that back. You can know, by reading this thread on the UTAG forums. Below are parts of posts from the park employee who organized these caches. The "problems" referred to in the first are the reasons the parks posted -- they were looking for help in setting the caches up. Bold mine.

 

A geocache will be placed in each state park and will remain so until the end of 2007 (we hope to have them all active sometime in January). After 2007 is over each park will decide if they want to continue with the cache. Each will be stocked with park-specific 50th anniversary stickers so you can collect them all. The caches will also have state parks paraphernalia such as pencils, whistles, etc. along with the occasional gift certificate or camping coupon. In additon to that we are making coins that will be randomly placed in each cache throughout the year--so visit the caches often.

 

The difficulty we are having is that each park wants to have a fun cache that is creative but also teaches responsibilty like staying away from archaeological sites or leave not trace ethics, but they do not know how to set things up. They are not sure how to hide a cache well, put the stages of a multi together, or incorporate creative elements. Many do not know how to use a GPS and Magellan is providing a loaner GPS to each park for visitors who do not own one themselves but would like to play.

Please keep in mind that all State Park rules and fees apply. Some parks are placing the caches in non-fee areas and others have chosen areas where fees apply. Please stay on trails...you know the drill. I am very hopeful that this experience will show everyone that geocaching is not damaging to resources.

 

As many park managers have planned their caches, quite a few caches in State Parks have been discovered that were placed without permission. So far we've avoided real problems with that but in one particular area it will take a long time to get back in good graces.

 

I can't believe these folks are being demonized. It appears UTAG members are excited about this. Maybe this issue should be brought up there.

Edited February 15, 2007 by Dinoprophet

[4x4van]

I think it's alot of hot air about nothing. As others have said, it is not a geocache "for a fee". It is a geocache placed in an area that requires an entrance and/or parking fee, just like many, many other caches. If the fact that an entrance fee was not mentioned on the cache page, there would be numerous complaints. The only thing that even comes close to being objectionable is the additional links on the cache page, and even that would be debatable. The fact that the State itself placed the cache and stocks it actually speaks highly of their attitude towards geocaching, IMO, as opposed to the many states and organizations that ban geocaching.

 

Will it directly result in more revenue for the state? Probably, but by such an insignificant amount so as to be nearly a moot point.

 

Here in California, a $5 adventure pass is required just to park alongside the road anywhere within the national forest areas, which covers an awful lot of ground. I'm not just talking about "parks" that actually have improvements such as picnic areas or such, I'm talking about anywhere in the national forest. Many, many caches are placed in the forests, as it of course provides some of the best locations (hikes, views, etc.).

The $5 fee program was started a number of years ago because gov't spending for upkeep in the national forests was woefully inadequate to cover the costs associated with managing those forests. Now obviously the argument can always be made that the gov't is wasting too much money in the first place, but neither you nor I are going to solve that problem overnight and in the meantime the Forest Service still needs to be able to do it's job.

[+The red-haired witch]

If paying a 5$ park entry fee made a cache "commercial", wouldn't all downtown caches also be considered commercial? After all, in almost every city, you have to pay to park downtown, often much more than 5$ a day. (Sure, you could take public transit, but that's not free either)

 

Better look out for city employees placing caches to boost parking revenue!

[+TexasGringo]

I've also paid $10 apiece (3 different caches and parks) for Special Use Permits to place caches in Dane County Wisconsin...County parks.

 

There is NO charge to get into the park or for the Geococher.

[+Team Dubbin]

I've also paid $10 apiece (3 different caches and parks) for Special Use Permits to place caches in Dane County Wisconsin...County parks.

 

There is NO charge to get into the park or for the Geococher.

 

That would be a whole different topic.

[+mudsneaker]

Here in Washington St they finally dropped the park fees. Read about the what and why Here

 

Yes the fees did some good, but not enough to keep them in place apparently.

 

Might want to contact your politicians and ask how much of the fees actually benefits the park vs costs of additional enforcement. Some states apparantly spend up to 50% just on collections and enforcement. And they noted a 30 to 40 percent attendance decrease in some cases.

 

Sounds like utah is looking for more revenue from any source they can find (cachers) to offset the costs of collecting and enforcing fees.

[+The Herd]

I see no issue in the park charging a fee to find the cache, if the cache is inside the park. Seems rather elementary to me.

 

Given most states' current budgets, many parks have been smart and rely on gate fees to cover maintenance costs. Relying on the state budget hurts the parks, cause when the budget cuts come, the parks are the ones that suffer.

[+escondido100]

lets look at the alternative... at this point if you ask the parks to archive their caches you will alienate a group that is supportive of geocaching......some one (probably a cacher) came up with this idea and presented it to the managers and was approved probably on a provisional level.....they have put considerable effort into this...we as cachers should be supportive of land managers that share our enthusiasm and are willing to work with us not against us.

i have a cache that requires passing thru a national park......you may have to pay a fee if the toll booth is open that day...... i gladly promote our local park as it provides jobs for locals and a destination for tourists to spend their money.....do i gain? monetarily no. but our community does and so do the people that choose to find my cache.

[+ePeterso2]

A phrase I've heard used in other similar but unrelated contexts seems appropriate to rephrase here.

 

Not everyone can find or even should be able to find every cache.

 

This is not a bad thing ... diversity is a big part of what makes this game fun.

 

There's always some real cost involved in finding a cache: snacks, gasoline, trade items, specialized training, aerobic conditioning, passport with Brazilian visa, airlift rescue for when you get stuck or lost, and (yes) park entrance fees.

 

I see absolutely nothing wrong nor contradictory about the state park service promoting geocaching in a state park, regardless of whether there's an entrance fee or not. Complaining about having to pay $5 to get into the park is missing the big picture.

[+welch]

What, is Jeremy Irish & Co. the only people allowed to make money off geocaching?

Isn't that how the commerical guidelines are set up?

You may not use a cache listed here to solicit customers, charge fees, or lure visitors to places selling products/service. UNLESS you're either A. in a group deemed ok to charge (ie. park systems w/ fees for all users) or B. Have special permission from Groundspeak (from the guidelines "Some exceptions can be made. In these rare situations, permission can be given by the Geocaching.com web site. However, permission should be asked first before posting. If you are in doubt, ask first.")

[CoyoteRed]

What, is Jeremy Irish & Co. the only people allowed to make money off geocaching?

Isn't that how the commerical guidelines are set up?

 

I was referring to what seemed like the "how dare any one charge for geocaching" attitude that I was picking up. If no one else but Groundspeak was allowed to make money off geocaching then they wouldn't allow commercial caches or geocaching-based advertising on this site.

[Jeremy]

What, is Jeremy Irish & Co. the only people allowed to make money off geocaching?

Isn't that how the commerical guidelines are set up?

 

I was referring to what seemed like the "how dare any one charge for geocaching" attitude that I was picking up. If no one else but Groundspeak was allowed to make money off geocaching then they wouldn't allow commercial caches or geocaching-based advertising on this site.

 

Be honest. You're trying to co-opt the topic.

 

Groundspeak's position has always been the same. Entrance park fees are acceptable costs of finding a cache because they existed already - if there is no additional "find a cache" fee then it should be fine.

 

Regardless, ask first if your listing is even remotely commercial, regardless of intent.

 

Calling me out in this topic is really bad taste and is in my opinion out of line. The irony is you make money off of geocaching as well, as do many other companies. I'm not the villain here nor is the park system.

 

I have some empathy with folks that think it is unfair to pay an entrance fee to the parks. I don't think there is a vibe that "how dare any one charge for geocaching" either. It's the cliche opinion that "I pay my taxes and how dare the government add a fun tax because they don't spend our money properly already and they have enough of my money already" and so on.

 

The reality is there is this big tax pot and the elected officials decide where to divy up the cash. Sadly, more often than not the money is diverted away from the parks and into the coffers of road systems, pet projects (like Safeco field, ahem), and other "higher priorities." Far too many people neglect the parks these days so the budget of these parks are lost every year. As a result the park systems are being creative to help manage the massive lands they are required to protect.

 

It's no wonder that heart disease, diabetes and obesity are such an issue in the US. If more people used these parks there wouldn't be a need for these kinds of fees. And I wouldn't see every park system get razed for more soccer fields either. But that's a soapbox for another day.

[+tozainamboku]

I see that Bob is not objecting to the park fee but to that fact that the cache was hidden by the state parks themselves to promote the park. So it gives the appearance that the reason they placed the cache was to make money off it. I look at caches placed in any park by the managing agency as likely put there for several reasons and that at least some of the reasons happen to be good for geocaching:

1. Promote the park
   
2. Promote geocaching as a legitimate activity in the park
   
3. Be a part of a special promotion like the celebration of the park's anniversary
   
4. Be a pilot cache for the managers to evaluate the effect of geocaching on the park to determine whether to allow more caches, including caches placed by geocachers
   
5. Educate the rangers and local park staff about geocaching
   
6. Establish communication between the parks, GC.com, and local geocaching organizations to develop rules to allow further geocaching. Especially important if prior caches were placed without permission in archeological or environmentally sensitive areas.
   
7. Make a lot of money in fees collected from geocachers hunting this cache
   

Edited February 15, 2007 by tozainamboku

[CoyoteRed]

What, is Jeremy Irish & Co. the only people allowed to make money off geocaching?

Isn't that how the commerical guidelines are set up?

 

I was referring to what seemed like the "how dare any one charge for geocaching" attitude that I was picking up. If no one else but Groundspeak was allowed to make money off geocaching then they wouldn't allow commercial caches or geocaching-based advertising on this site.

 

Be honest. You're trying to co-opt the topic.

 

Pfft! Not in the least. Sounds like you're a little touchy on the subject.

 

I'm happy that folks are able to make money off geocaching. Folks provide a service whether it's caching supplies, geocoins, hosting the caches, or creating caches folks would pay to find. If they provide a service folks are willing to pay for then all the better. I just don't get the idea that only you and Groundspeak are the only ones that should be making money. Statements like "...it seems inappropriate that a State of the Union is getting into the Geocaching game for a fee."

 

It seems like you read my comments exactly the opposite of what I intended.

 

Personally, I think all state parks would benefit from placing their own caches. These employees almost always know the park better than the visitors. They have a vested interest in highlighting the park's feature to their best advantage. This, in general, makes for a more interesting hunt. Here in SC we are fortunate that we have a few rangers who place their own caches in their parks. We welcome that.

[+Bob Rich]

I see that Bob is not objecting to the park fee but to that fact that the cache was hidden by the state parks themselves to promote the park. So it gives the appearance that the reason they placed the cache was to make money off it. I look at caches placed in any park by the managing agency as likely put there for several reasons and that at least some of the reasons happen to be good for geocaching:

1. Promote the park
   
2. Promote geocaching as a legitimate activity in the park
   
3. Be a part of a special promotion like the celebration of the park's anniversary
   
4. Be a pilot cache for the managers to evaluate the effect of geocaching on the park to determine whether to allow more caches, including caches placed by geocachers
   
5. Educate the rangers and local park staff about geocaching
   
6. Establish communication between the parks, GC.com, and local geocaching organizations to develop rules to allow further geocaching. Especially important if prior caches were placed without permission in archeological or environmentally sensitive areas.

Very good points. Many I hadn't thought of when starting this thread. Promoting geocaching in parks and at the same time educating land managers to the fact that normally geocaching is not as great an environmental threat as they might have originally thought. This appears to be a change for the better from "NO unless you can prove it to be beneficial" to perhaps "OK, let's give it a try." I'm all for that philosophy after giving up with the local BLM people here.
 

Make a lot of money in fees collected from geocachers hunting this cache

Here's where I have a problem. I still feel the sense that even State Parks are operating commercially if they hide caches in order to bring people to their "business" with the intent to get them to spend more money for their goods and services. You may agree or disagree perhaps depending on whether you feel these particular services are worthwhile to you personally or not. But the quality of services should not be a criteria for allowing commercial placements. This is entirely different if Joe Cacher hides a cache in a State Park that requires a fee. The same Joe might hide a cache very close to a Starbucks, perhaps in a mall that requires a parking fee. But if Starbucks hid the same cache(s) near their store(s), that would be commercialism to me.

 

Again my wife's correct, I should just let it go. But those are my feelings. I will hunt the cache soon, and pay the $5.00 fee (my federal and state annual permits don't apply to Utah). Maybe I'll feel different about this after I see the cache.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Again my wife's correct, I should just let it go. But those are my feelings. I will hunt the cache soon, and pay the $5.00 fee (my federal and state annual permits don't apply to Utah). Maybe I'll feel different about this after I see the cache.

 

5 Minutes talking with an enthusiastic park official who loves the concept of geocaching would probably change your mind. That kind of enthusiams is infectiouse. Other than that, give it time for everthing to sink in and see what you think in a few months.

[+knoffer]

OK so this cache may involve a bit of a commercial tone. However since this is Non-trade cache. It is fairly close to being the same as any other cache based on the small fee to enter the Park and the items that are included in the cache requiring you leave nothing.

Please do not leave trade items in the cache. Just take a small souvenir and sign the log book. Stop back often to check for other souvenirs, State Parks coupons, and a special State Parks 50th Anniversary geocoin

The items listed are probably worth anywhere from $2.00 to $5.00 maybe more. I have seen lots of trade items that were in this price range and when trading left something of similar value. I had to purchase or make the items that I left for trade out of my own pocket. That money is never returned to me. I chose to purchase these trade items as part of the Sport. True I don't have to take something or leave something and quite seldom I don't.

 

They are trying to increase revenue for the Park. This is a good thing. Where the money goes is up to the State Government. The State most likely splits the revenue among areas where needed.

 

If the park shows increased numbers then they should get more money for improvements and such. If the park has decreased interest then the Park is most likely in danger of no longer existing. If the Park no longer exists there goes another area that Geocachers can no longer enjoy or place caches.

 

I know here is WI I buy an annual State Park sticker which I did before I Geocached. There is also some local counties that charge a fee to enter their Parks that are seperate from a State Park sticker. I have on more then one instance mentioned that I was grabbing a few caches and they say OK go ahead and don't charge me to enter.

 

I think it is cool that the State Park system is acknowledging and promoting Geocaching in their Parks. I wish that more States did this instead of banning it and saying we (Geocachers) are causing damage to the environment.

 

Would the fee deter from hunting this cache?? Certainly not.

 

I see this as simply a free way for the State Parks to increase their revenue. Since it is free to post on GC.com and their is no advertisement expenditures. This again saves them money that is hopefully used for a cause.

 

I suppose their is a Gray area here.

[+Bad_CRC]

nothing more wasteful than a park. what a horrible place for money to go.

 

 

take the advice of so many on here and bulldoze then pave the place.

[+sbell111]

nothing more wasteful than a park. what a horrible place for money to go.

 

take the advice of so many on here and bulldoze then pave the place.

If they were to bulldoze it, I wish they would install some lightpoles so we could hide some caches.

[+ReadyOrNot]

nothing more wasteful than a park. what a horrible place for money to go.

 

I see, so waste is okay as long as the waste is going towards something that you enjoy? I'm sorry, but waste is waste. Whether they waste the money watching ketchup run downhill or they waste money elsewhere, it doesn't matter. There should be plenty of money to do all this and more if they manageed it more efficiently. They certainly don't need more money and they won't be getting any more of mine.

[+sbell111]

nothing more wasteful than a park. what a horrible place for money to go.

I see, so waste is okay as long as the waste is going towards something that you enjoy? I'm sorry, but waste is waste. Whether they waste the money watching ketchup run downhill or they waste money elsewhere, it doesn't matter. There should be plenty of money to do all this and more if they manageed it more efficiently. They certainly don't need more money and they won't be getting any more of mine.

How do you know?

 

Of all the money that could go to the park, which of it is being wasted? I mean, I have an idea about a few hundred billion dollars that could have been used differently, but there's no way we're all going to agree on that.

 

At the end of the day, the park needs money and one way that they get it is by charging visitors.

Edited February 15, 2007 by sbell111

[+Moose Mob]

Let's get this back on topic please.

[+sbell111]

Wow. That was close. I mean 'sorry'.

 

To find my way back to topic:

 

1. In older threads related to this issue, it was decided that entrance fees for parks don't fall under the commercial guideline.

2. Most people would agree that parks that place caches for us to find make us all warm and fuzzy inside.

3. It is many people's opinion that if an area requires an access fee, it should be addressed on the cache page so people can decide whether they want to spend the money.

 

Based on these points, the cache is all good.

Edited February 15, 2007 by sbell111

[+ReadyOrNot]

nothing more wasteful than a park. what a horrible place for money to go.

I see, so waste is okay as long as the waste is going towards something that you enjoy? I'm sorry, but waste is waste. Whether they waste the money watching ketchup run downhill or they waste money elsewhere, it doesn't matter. There should be plenty of money to do all this and more if they manageed it more efficiently. They certainly don't need more money and they won't be getting any more of mine.

How do you know?

 

Of all the money that could go to the park, which of it is being wasted? I mean, I have an idea about a few hundred billion dollars that could have been used differently, but there's no way we're all going to agree on that.

 

At the end of the day, the park needs money and one way that they get it is by charging visitors.

 

I didn't say that the park is wasting the fees they collect. We pay property taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, fuel taxes, beer taxes, cigarette taxes, telephone taxes, cellphone taxes, taxes on our electric bills. On top of that, they take more money from us for social security.. When is enough enough? They ought to be able to take care of everything with the money they already have, we shouldn't have to give them any more of our money.. That's all I'm saying. The government is very inefficient and very good at wasting our money. As long as we keep giving them more of it, they are going to continue to increase spending and waste more of it, which will cause them to raise taxes and take more of our money... It's not the fault of the parks department, but it's a symptom of the problem..

 

At the end of the day, they may need the money, but continually <removed> "Forcibly taking our money" is not the answer.

Edited February 15, 2007 by ReadyOrNot