Jump to content

Caches placed in PA State Parks & Forests


Keystone

Recommended Posts

Recently, the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources contacted Geocaching.com and asked that there not be any premium-members only caches listed on DCNR property (State Parks and State Forests). The reasons for this request are (1) DCNR needs to be able to monitor these geocache sites, and (2) all DCNR Lands are open to the public and thus the geocache sites need to be available for all individuals.

 

If you own a PM-only cache in a State Park or State Forest, and it hasn't already been converted, please edit your cache to open it to all members. You can do this by clicking the "Edit Cache" link on your cache page, un-checking the box that says the cache is for premium and charter members only, and submitting your edits.

 

Please also keep this in mind when placing new caches in PA State Parks and State Forests.

 

We have enjoyed a good relationship with the DCNR since the adoption of their geocaching policy in 2003. Let's keep it that way, by honoring this request. Thanks.

Link to comment

I'm just curious (don't torch me please) but wouldn't it just be easier to give DCNR one premium membership rather than change all the PM caches? I don't have any PMs or DCNR area caches, but this seems like an over-the-top response to their request. All public property everywhere is open to the public, but I don't see you knocking off all the PM caches everywhere else as well. :anicute:

Link to comment

Groundspeak (Jeremy) indicated in the past they will provide FREE premium member access to land managers with official email addresses. So that is not the problem. Re-read that part about "all DCNR Lands are open to the public and thus the geocache sites need to be available for all individuals." I think it would be quite tacky on our part (Geocachers) to tell the DCNR they should accept an "easy" solution instead. And I can't think of a good argument against this request. Just my opinion and I didn't light any torches.

 

Personal Note: My very first hide was a MOC on DCNR property (because of security concerns on my part). After a few uneventfully months in that area I opened it up to all and it's still fine.

Link to comment

Groundspeak (Jeremy) indicated in the past they will provide FREE premium member access to land managers with official email addresses. So that is not the problem. Re-read that part about "all DCNR Lands are open to the public and thus the geocache sites need to be available for all individuals."

 

Thanks CR, but that was kind of my point. I was asking if Jeremy had made the offer. More so I was asking what is the difference between a state (public) park and a city (public) park as far as PMO caches were concerned. I'm all about aiding DCNR in anyway we can (especially CITO), but I was wondering if the wording was going to cause problems down the line for other public properties. :anicute:

 

On a side note, I also think it would be tacky to be telling DCNR anything whereas offering might provide a quicker (and more efficient) solution. The current solution involves getting cachers everywhere to change there settings when many don't even use the forums.

Link to comment

Groundspeak (Jeremy) indicated in the past they will provide FREE premium member access to land managers with official email addresses. So that is not the problem. Re-read that part about "all DCNR Lands are open to the public and thus the geocache sites need to be available for all individuals." I think it would be quite tacky on our part (Geocachers) to tell the DCNR they should accept an "easy" solution instead. And I can't think of a good argument against this request. Just my opinion and I didn't light any torches.

 

Personal Note: My very first hide was a MOC on DCNR property (because of security concerns on my part). After a few uneventfully months in that area I opened it up to all and it's still fine.

 

While in a way (since we're not premium members) we'd kind of welcome this action, I'm kind of surprised they wouldn't just do the other route which is the free premium membership to monitor it. Given how many park managers get concerned (wrongly, though) about geocaching causing too many people to "trample" off the trail and "destroy" things, I'd think they'd * WANT * PM-only caches with the idea that they would generate less such "trampling" and tend to attract cachers who may be more likely to respect being "delicate" when bushwacking.

Link to comment

Groundspeak (Jeremy) indicated in the past they will provide FREE premium member access to land managers with official email addresses. So that is not the problem. Re-read that part about "all DCNR Lands are open to the public and thus the geocache sites need to be available for all individuals." I think it would be quite tacky on our part (Geocachers) to tell the DCNR they should accept an "easy" solution instead. And I can't think of a good argument against this request. Just my opinion and I didn't light any torches.

 

Personal Note: My very first hide was a MOC on DCNR property (because of security concerns on my part). After a few uneventfully months in that area I opened it up to all and it's still fine.

 

While in a way (since we're not premium members) we'd kind of welcome this action, I'm kind of surprised they wouldn't just do the other route which is the free premium membership to monitor it. Given how many park managers get concerned (wrongly, though) about geocaching causing too many people to "trample" off the trail and "destroy" things, I'd think they'd * WANT * PM-only caches with the idea that they would generate less such "trampling" and tend to attract cachers who may be more likely to respect being "delicate" when bushwacking.

It makes sense to me. Commercial activity is strictly regulated in DCNR areas. If you have to pay to cache and the money goes to a for-profit company in Seattle, that's commercial. The DCNR is right to prohibit MOCs in state parks and forests.

Link to comment

While in a way (since we're not premium members) we'd kind of welcome this action, I'm kind of surprised they wouldn't just do the other route which is the free premium membership to monitor it. Given how many park managers get concerned (wrongly, though) about geocaching causing too many people to "trample" off the trail and "destroy" things, I'd think they'd * WANT * PM-only caches with the idea that they would generate less such "trampling" and tend to attract cachers who may be more likely to respect being "delicate" when bushwacking.

 

One consideration when planning a cache is to anticipate how folks will approach it. (We do this all the time when planning an Orienteering course so it has become more or less instinctive to me) If there are two or three equally reasonable routes to a cache the traffic on any one route is diluted, thus extending the lifetime of the cache. Of course keeping the cache away from environmentally sensitive areas is an obvious plus as well. Most of my caches have been in place for some time and as far as I know there is no "geotrail" to any of them.

Link to comment

I'm just curious (don't torch me please) but wouldn't it just be easier to give DCNR one premium membership rather than change all the PM caches? I don't have any PMs or DCNR area caches, but this seems like an over-the-top response to their request. All public property everywhere is open to the public, but I don't see you knocking off all the PM caches everywhere else as well. :P

 

I agree with your thoughts. Seems like a no brainer to just give land managers premium accounts. Why affect 100's of people when a solution can be found by only affecting a few?

 

I just recently had two caches changed and now I expect to eventually just pull them. I had very good reason to make them for premium only. I expect the old problems I had with them to return, so if they do...I'll just pull them.

 

Salvelinus

Link to comment

...and please don't feed me DCNR's ranting about keeping them available to the public. They are only just looking at the control aspect.

 

When DCNR closes an entire State Forest to public use for an entire weekend, just for the exclusive use of a private road rally which pays them big $$$$ to hold their event...they are talking out of both sides of their mouth.

 

Salvelinus

Link to comment

I agree with your thoughts. Seems like a no brainer to just give land managers premium accounts. Why affect 100's of people when a solution can be found by only affecting a few?

Perhaps you missed my earlier post, or I wasn't clear.

 

Groundspeak offered the idea of premium memberships, but the DCNR explained that they wanted the on-site managers for each State Park and State Forest (for example, the park superintendent and the park naturalist) to be able to look at the cache pages. That would have meant dozens or hundreds of premium memberships, not "a few," so DCNR opted to stick with their initial request.

 

So, your options are to let your caches stay in place as regular caches instead of MOC's, or to archive them. I sure hope that you choose to keep them.

Link to comment

...and please don't feed me DCNR's ranting about keeping them available to the public. They are only just looking at the control aspect.

 

When DCNR closes an entire State Forest to public use for an entire weekend, just for the exclusive use of a private road rally which pays them big $$$$ to hold their event...they are talking out of both sides of their mouth.

 

Salvelinus

 

I am aware of DCNR property being closed to the public for a weekend to allow deer hunting by permit. Can you provide specifics about this road rally event?

Link to comment

I'm usually the quiet lurker but I do have a comment and query on this dialogue. I myself subscribe as a Premium member and enjoy the many benefits as well as the opportunity to contribute.

 

First off, I fully understand and agree with the desire to make ALL Geocaches within Park boundries available to all. This is a sport to be enjoyed by all and PA's Parks offer a great opportunity and playing field. Members only caches, in my opinion, provide an ability to place a "special" cache for a special reason but if the cache is intended as a regular on going cache I feel it should be there to share with everyone.

 

Secondly, there are many PA State Parks that are Geo-Friendly and I am ever so grateful for these Land Managers understanding and generosity...but there are also quite a few Parks that are not at all Geo-friendly. I fully understand the sensetive and protected areas issue for some areas.

 

I have seen over the last 2 years that the PA Parks offer GPS education classes and note they will be searching out geocaches. This is a great idea and I would really like to see it stay and expand. Some of the Parks offering this class are not Geo-friendly (don't allow caches) and have no in-boundry caches listed on Geocaching.com. My assumption is they are placing temporary caches for their class use and they are not listing to the general public.

 

But, here is my query. So, if they have all this great land, offer GPS classes (with Geocaching as the key activity) and do not want Members only caches so everyone can Geocache. Then Why-o-Why do they not allow us to place caches in these parks or at the least place and publish their own caches for public consumption.

 

OK, so either I raised a respectable question for discussion (I hope) or I'm just making trouble (not my intention).

 

MtnDave

Edited by mtndave
Link to comment

I have been reading this thread and it has not been one of the nicer ones.

 

DCNR has decided that ALL geocache are to be open for everyone and not MOC. Keystone put it out as he should. Their are people who are not being nice about this rule. Well Keystone can not do anything about this. IF you do not like this rule then go and contact DCNR it self. Ranting and raving here will not change a thing. Lets use some of the brains that God gave you and take it to the people who can do something about it.

 

I also saw a post about DCNR closing a park for permit deer hunting. Well would anyone want to be in a park with people with hi-powered rifles shooting at deer? I know I would not. So they took SAFETY into account and shut it down for YOUR safety and LIVE. I am shore you would NOT like to be shot.

 

I also saw something about shutting down a park for a road rally. A road rally is a race with vehicles running much speed. Is it safe to be on the same road as these racers and not be in the race. NO. That is why they close this park down.

 

And please note. If someone got hurt in the two above areas then everyone would be gunning for the people who did not take the above action.

 

I have never liked the ideal of MOC's to start with. They are a means of Excluding people not Including people. When you work to Exclude people you are hurting what every you are trying to do.

 

Well that is my $.o2 anyhow.

 

If you have a complaint about DCNR's rules then contact your senator and rep and the head of DCNR and complain to them. They are the ones who can do something.

 

Paul

kf4oox

Link to comment

I have been reading this thread and it has not been one of the nicer ones.

 

DCNR has decided that ALL geocache are to be open for everyone and not MOC. Keystone put it out as he should. Their are people who are not being nice about this rule. Well Keystone can not do anything about this. IF you do not like this rule then go and contact DCNR it self. Ranting and raving here will not change a thing. Lets use some of the brains that God gave you and take it to the people who can do something about it.

 

I also saw a post about DCNR closing a park for permit deer hunting. Well would anyone want to be in a park with people with hi-powered rifles shooting at deer? I know I would not. So they took SAFETY into account and shut it down for YOUR safety and LIVE. I am shore you would NOT like to be shot.

 

I also saw something about shutting down a park for a road rally. A road rally is a race with vehicles running much speed. Is it safe to be on the same road as these racers and not be in the race. NO. That is why they close this park down.

 

And please note. If someone got hurt in the two above areas then everyone would be gunning for the people who did not take the above action.

 

I have never liked the ideal of MOC's to start with. They are a means of Excluding people not Including people. When you work to Exclude people you are hurting what every you are trying to do.

 

Well that is my $.o2 anyhow.

 

If you have a complaint about DCNR's rules then contact your senator and rep and the head of DCNR and complain to them. They are the ones who can do something.

 

Paul

kf4oox

 

Wow :) Did you actually READ the posts or this just your justification to rant about your dislike of PMOCs?

Link to comment

DCNR wants to expand the use of their parks. MOC's reduce the number of visitors. Simple.

 

Not quite so simple. Yes in PA they send in a weekly usage report every Monday morning and yes it does impact their funding to some extent, but I'll bet very few have the caches watchlisted to make a real count. They make up a number and use it. I think that if it is percieved to be a private activity they feel it has no business on public land. Most private gatherings in public parks have some sort of usage fee attached. We don't. Going along with the parks on this issue may prevent having a fee attached to the permission process.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...