$25 Fee to Place a Geocache on PA State Park Lands

[+BikeBill]

Maybe some of you PA cachers know all about this but I just got the information. Another cacher and I were thinking of resurrecting an archived cache that had been at a PA State Park. I contacted the park and they said that they were okay with that, and to follow the instructions at http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/geocaching/permit-process.aspx

 

Now I knew that the PA DCNR required approval to place caches in their parks - and that's fine. I have yet to place one on their lands just because I didn't feel like dealing with their bureaucracy. But I did NOT know that there was a $25 fee for "a review process, including a Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory search (PNDI) that insures its location is compatible with other park and forest activities." I have a feeling that whole process probably takes some ranger about 30 seconds of looking at a map, if even that.

 

Not only is there a substantial fee, but once you get approval, it is only good for three years. Then you have to go through the whole process again and apparently pay the fee again, too. They will forgo the fee if you do something like sponsor a CITO, but even that is up to the individual park.

 

Do other states charge fees for cache placement? Am I justified in being annoyed about this?

[+Student Camper]

Maybe some of you PA cachers know all about this but I just got the information. Another cacher and I were thinking of resurrecting an archived cache that had been at a PA State Park. I contacted the park and they said that they were okay with that, and to follow the instructions at http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/geocaching/permit-process.aspx

 

Now I knew that the PA DCNR required approval to place caches in their parks - and that's fine. I have yet to place one on their lands just because I didn't feel like dealing with their bureaucracy. But I did NOT know that there was a $25 fee for "a review process, including a Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory search (PNDI) that insures its location is compatible with other park and forest activities." I have a feeling that whole process probably takes some ranger about 30 seconds of looking at a map, if even that.

 

Not only is there a substantial fee, but once you get approval, it is only good for three years. Then you have to go through the whole process again and apparently pay the fee again, too. They will forgo the fee if you do something like sponsor a CITO, but even that is up to the individual park.

 

Do other states charge fees for cache placement? Am I justified in being annoyed about this?

 

Everyone is feeling the pinch and the Parks are no different, everyone is looking for ways to increase revenue, they may also may be using this as a tactic to discourage anyone the use of THEIR park for any uses except THEIR own.

Yes, I would feel annoyed, I also would have the choice of accepting their conditions or going elsewhere.

There is a lot of room out there, (in most cases)

[+narcissa]

You're not justified in being annoyed.

 

These parks have a conservation mandate as well as a customer service mandate. They rely on public funds and, maybe, user fees in order to operate.

 

Many state and provincial park authorities have simply said no to geocaching. If a $25 licensing fee is what it takes for them to feel comfortable allowing this game within their boundaries, great.

 

$25 for three years is hardly "substantial." If it's unaffordable for you, that's unfortunate, but I have to wonder what sort of caches you were planning to place if $25 is an insurmountable barrier. A decent, regular-sized container can easily cost $10, not to mention the contents if you choose to stock your caches with trade items.

 

And I certainly hope nobody would waste prime space in a great state park by hiding a film canister.

Edited November 8, 2010 by narcissa

[+narcissa]

Just an aside - there's far more insidious stuff happening in the Pennsylvania geocaching scene. Like this: http://solomonswords.blogspot.com/2010/10/...t-emporium.html

 

I'd rather pay $25 to a state park than see some store using a geocache to advertise.

[+roziecakes]

I think the fee probably weeds out irresponsible cache placements in a way. Those who are willing to shell out the cash for the cache (pardon the pun) are probably more likely to make a quality hide. I would probably pay the money without complaint if it were really a worthy spot.

[+narcissa]

I think the fee probably weeds out irresponsible cache placements in a way. Those who are willing to shell out the cash for the cache (pardon the pun) are probably more likely to make a quality hide. I would probably pay the money without complaint if it were really a worthy spot.

 

If Ontario Parks wanted $100, I'd happily pay it to be able to place a cache on their land.

[+briansnat]

I think a 25 dollar fee is prohibitive. There is a similar fee in NC and the result is that there are few caches hidden in NC state parks. If the goal is to hit us taxpayers up for a little more cash to use our parks, it will fail because people will simply stop hiding caches there. If their goal is to end geocaching in their state park system, it will work.

 

I have probably upwards of 150 caches hidden in state parks and forests. They bring in new visitors to a park system that is complaining that visits are trending downward. They bring in families with children and for some it is their first introduction to the state park system. They get kids outdoors and into the woods and may help create a new generation of advocates for these places.

 

It costs me about $10-$20 per cache right now. Tack on a $25 fee and and you know how many of those 150 caches will stay. Probably zero. I'm not a rich man.

 

Maybe they should be paying me to hide caches.

[+BikeBill]

I guess I suffer from the rather idealistic expectation that those who manage the parks should welcome and encourage activities that attract responsible visitors. I can understand that they would want to have oversight of geocaches in their domain, but I still don’t like the ‘fee’ concept - especially when the onus of thought/planning/labor for the geocaching is on the CO.

 

Unfortunately, I think Student Camper is on the right track; some officials see Geocaching as a possible tool for revenue enhancement and, as SC wrote, some <<may be using this as a tactic to discourage anyone the use of THEIR park for any uses except THEIR own>>. I saw some evidence of the latter when management at the local State Park unilaterally banned all the mountain bikers from the unpaved trails with no warning or consultation with local cyclists. The explanation was trail damage concerns but to this day they still allow horses on those same trails.

 

Fortunately, in our area, there are many fine sites to place a quality cache without paying a fee or having to have it re-authorized periodically.

 

<<I think the fee probably weeds out irresponsible cache placements in a way.>>

They could easily do that without the fee. The fee also weeds out excellent caches by those of lesser means. Grossly unfair, in my opinion.

 

<<I'd rather pay $25 to a state park than see some store using a geocache to advertise.>>

I’d rather not see either.

 

At least PA State Parks don’t charge for admission - yet.

[+Cardinal Red]

I think the fee probably weeds out irresponsible cache placements in a way. Those who are willing to shell out the cash for the cache (pardon the pun) are probably more likely to make a quality hide. I would probably pay the money without complaint if it were really a worthy spot.

 

If Ontario Parks wanted $100, I'd happily pay it to be able to place a cache on their land.

It's not THEIR land. It's YOUR land. They just manage it for you.

[+BikeBill]

I just took a look at the number of caches in the park in question, Tyler. It's a bit over 1700 acres in Bucks County and currently has six caches. About a year ago it had eight. I don't know when the fee scheme started but I could guess!

[+narcissa]

I guess I suffer from the rather idealistic expectation that those who manage the parks should welcome and encourage activities that attract responsible visitors.

 

State parks have many legitimate reasons to be concerned about geocaching. Not all geocachers are responsible. Unless the parks oversee cache placement directly, they can't be sure that the caches are being placed in a responsible manner. And overseeing cache placement uses resources.

 

If the fee limits cache quantity, that may not be a bad thing. Quantity should not be the objective. A small quantity of high-quality caches placed with care is far better than a glut of poorly-considered caches that lead cachers to trample sensitive habitats.

 

It's also worth noting that many state/provincial parks exist for conservation purposes, and increasing the number of visitors is not their objective.

[+BikeBill]

Narcissa said:

 

<<If Ontario Parks wanted $100, I'd happily pay it to be able to place a cache on their land.>>

 

Yeah, but that's only $4 in U.S. money!

[+narcissa]

Narcissa said:

 

<<If Ontario Parks wanted $100, I'd happily pay it to be able to place a cache on their land.>>

 

Yeah, but that's only $4 in U.S. money!

 

That might have been funny several years ago, but the US dollar and the Canadian dollar have hit parity several times in recent years. As of Friday, $100 Canadian would buy $99.85 US.

[+BelKen]

Narcissa said:

 

<<If Ontario Parks wanted $100, I'd happily pay it to be able to place a cache on their land.>>

 

Yeah, but that's only $4 in U.S. money!

 

US$4.00 is about $3.80 australian at the moment isn't it.

[+narcissa]

Narcissa said:

 

<<If Ontario Parks wanted $100, I'd happily pay it to be able to place a cache on their land.>>

 

Yeah, but that's only $4 in U.S. money!

 

US$4.00 is about $3.80 australian at the moment isn't it.

 

Nice.

[+BikeBill]

Narcissa said:

 

<<If Ontario Parks wanted $100, I'd happily pay it to be able to place a cache on their land.>>

 

Yeah, but that's only $4 in U.S. money!

 

That might have been funny several years ago, but the US dollar and the Canadian dollar have hit parity several times in recent years. As of Friday, $100 Canadian would buy $99.85 US.

 

Several years ago? In March, 2009, $100 Canadian wold have bought less than $78.

 

But please excuse me for attempting to inject some levity.

[+katsbear]

Utah State Parks have placed their own caches inside the parks to encourage visitors. They advertise geocaching in their brochures and even have "loaner" gps's that people can borrow. Most parks do charge an entrace fee but many will waive the fee if you are just coming to geocache. Most of the caches are good quality and placed in fun locations. And the parks don't discourage private caches.

[+LukeTrocity]

I'm sorry the parks service isn't getting funds allocated to them but this simply isn't the answer. The sad part is a geocacher clearly outlined the rules for them. I won't be doing any pa hides anytime soon.

[+narcissa]

Narcissa said:

 

<<If Ontario Parks wanted $100, I'd happily pay it to be able to place a cache on their land.>>

 

Yeah, but that's only $4 in U.S. money!

 

That might have been funny several years ago, but the US dollar and the Canadian dollar have hit parity several times in recent years. As of Friday, $100 Canadian would buy $99.85 US.

 

Several years ago? In March, 2009, $100 Canadian wold have bought less than $78.

 

But please excuse me for attempting to inject some levity.

 

$78 != $4

 

They've hit parity several times since 2007, and at times since then, the Can dollar has even exceeded the value of the US dollar.

 

Making inaccurate, nationalistic comments doesn't inject levity.

[AZcachemeister]

I'm guessing there won't be any 'power trails' in PA parks in the near future?

 

If I had found a location really worth hiding a quality cache at, the $25 fee wouldn't stop me.

 

It should stop people from peppering an area with poorly conceived caches, and that's something I can appreciate.

[+Cardinal Red]

I just took a look at the number of caches in the park in question, Tyler. It's a bit over 1700 acres in Bucks County and currently has six caches. About a year ago it had eight. I don't know when the fee scheme started but I could guess!

The $25 Geocache permit policy debate started about mid May 2010. The two caches archived from Tyler were past the 3 year time limit, but the stated reason the missing caches were not replaced was lack of time/inability to maintain.

 

There are several more there longer than three years, and one improperly designated Subscriber Only. Obviously the DCNR is not vigorously enforcing their published guidelines ... yet. If they ever get serious about enforcement I believe most DCNR land will become Geocaching ghost towns.

[+dbrierley]

Considering that other users of natural areas pay fees (hunting, fishing, parking, etc.) it shouldn't be surprising that geocaching would be included as well.

[+FireRef]

Honestly, I think this is silly. They are very unlikely to do anything except look at a map for a short time (maybe a minute or two, if they're not familiar with their park - if they are, even less), and decide if there is anything sensitive near there to disapprove the cache for. Otherwise, they would approve it and collect their $25 for a few cents of the work they are already being paid to do.

 

Next thing you know, we'll be charged to walk through the park, more based on specific locations. There has been talk for years of a fee to be charged for the use of PI state park near me. Nothing has ever been done about it, and if it was, it probably would lose most of its visitors.

 

Dumb idea, folks.

[+BikeBill]

Cardinal Red said:

<<The $25 Geocache permit policy debate started about mid May 2010.>>

 

That's good to know. I looked for a date on that page of regulations and saw none.

 

You may well be right that Tyler rangers aren't enforcing the Geocaching regs. I'm sure they have a lot of other things to do.

 

FYI: The cache we were looking to bring back was http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...=y&decrypt=

 

It's a pretty good puzzle/two stage with a Lord of the Rings theme. To find the first stage you have to translate from Quenya, an Elfin language. That was an education for me, as I'm not a fan of the series. Anyway, the first stage is still intact so we were going to use that and replace the final, then rename it slightly and give the original CO credit for his idea. Now we may take it elsewhere.

[+BikeBill]

dbrierly wrote:

<<Considering that other users of natural areas pay fees (hunting, fishing, parking, etc.) it shouldn't be surprising that geocaching would be included as well.>>

 

All good points, but here's what I think the difference is - hunting requires game and land management, safety enforcement, etc. Fishing requires some of the same plus stocking fish. Parking requires that lots be built and paved. Geocaching requires that the parks .... Um, not that much.

 

In fact, like Briansnat said, maybe they should be paying us to develop and maintain our caches! We are putting the time, money, thought and planning into them. The park's contribution is not that great, especially if one of their goals is to encourage facility use.

 

Now I'm not seriously suggesting that they pay us, but I still think that being charged a fee is over the top. They should be encouraging geocaching like Katsbear said Utah is.

[+briansnat]

I'm guessing there won't be any 'power trails' in PA parks in the near future?

 

If I had found a location really worth hiding a quality cache at, the $25 fee wouldn't stop me.

 

It should stop people from peppering an area with poorly conceived caches, and that's something I can appreciate.

 

And if you found 10 really cool areas for quality caches would the $25 fee stop you?

Edited November 8, 2010 by briansnat

[+narcissa]

dbrierly wrote:

<<Considering that other users of natural areas pay fees (hunting, fishing, parking, etc.) it shouldn't be surprising that geocaching would be included as well.>>

 

All good points, but here's what I think the difference is - hunting requires game and land management, safety enforcement, etc. Fishing requires some of the same plus stocking fish. Parking requires that lots be built and paved. Geocaching requires that the parks .... Um, not that much.

 

What makes you think that geocaching doesn't require anything from the parks?

 

They can't - and shouldn't - trust geocachers to uphold park regulations. They need to make sure a geocache doesn't inadvertently cause unauthorized trails or other damage to occur in the park. If the geocaches cause an increase in the number of visitors, they may need to increase their staffing to cope.

 

Geocachers can get themselves into risky situations just as well as other land users can. Geocachers are also perfectly capable of littering, using parks outside of designated hours, going off trail, peeling bark off trees, and all the other petty little nuisances that parks want to curtail.

 

And, uh, geocachers need to use parking too.

[+narcissa]

I'm guessing there won't be any 'power trails' in PA parks in the near future?

 

If I had found a location really worth hiding a quality cache at, the $25 fee wouldn't stop me.

 

It should stop people from peppering an area with poorly conceived caches, and that's something I can appreciate.

 

And if you found 10 really cool areas for quality caches would the $25 fee stop you?

 

I don't have a compulsive need to fill up every space I find with a geocache just because the space is available. I wish I could say that it's shocking to me that a reviewer would condone that kind of mindless cache placement, but in this case, it isn't.

 

If I found ten good spots for caches, I would tell other cache owners about them. We're pretty saturated here, and I know plenty of other cachers who would love to use Ontario Parks to place good quality caches, even if it means a nominal fee.

[+pppingme]

I think a 25 dollar fee is prohibitive. There is a similar fee in NC and the result is that there are few caches hidden in NC state parks..

But...

 

Since the CO has more "invested" in these caches, do they tend to be higher quality and better taken care of than the average cache?

[+SK6 Blue]

Honestly, I think this is silly. They are very unlikely to do anything except look at a map for a short time (maybe a minute or two, if they're not familiar with their park - if they are, even less), and decide if there is anything sensitive near there to disapprove the cache for. Otherwise, they would approve it and collect their $25 for a few cents of the work they are already being paid to do.

 

 

I love the assumptions going on... yes they could be true... BUT I can guarantee they aren't true at all parks. Some parks may do minimal checking, these parks in my experience tend to have less of a focus on conservation, and tend to have many baseball, soccer, football and multi-use fields as well as rec-centers[a pool, weight room, etc]. Parks with a more minimalistic crossection from an extrenal view tend to be very focused on conservation... many have historical considerations[previously native american land, civil war battle/camp sites, graveyards], rare native species[a 200 year old endagered tree], ecologically fragile areas, etc. Parks like these need to know if there is going to be substantially increased foot traffic to areas in or around higher risk areas.

 

For example a park might allow a cache 50ft from the above mentioned tree, but is unlikely to allow a cache in which potential cachers may be tempted to climb said tree to search for the cache... The small difference in these locations is unlikely to be seen on a map and requires a check in person. I personally would much rather pay a little and have the park check out the location and moniter ecological impact rather than have them say no because it is near an ecological/historical concern. As that place could be the best location you have ever seen for a cache.

 

Many of these park services have the task of promoting conservation, this includes[not limited to] keeping the park free of trash and spider trails. both of which are way to common around under maintained caches. some areas have very good geocaching communities which actively work to CITO on every trip[and have frequant CITO events in conjuntion with the parks], and to remove archived caches belonging to people who are no longer active in geocaching, and avoid bushwacking in areas where it is asked that you dont, but not all areas are this lucky... This means the park is responsible for removing the forgotten archived cache, for cleaning up the glass bottle brought by irresponsible cachers and muggles who decided to follow the unsanctioned 'geotrail', etc.

 

I'm very glad my area doesn't have placement fees, and i would like to think this is because of the large amount of community involvement with the parks. We do however have regulations for placement, some parks are open to cache placement, while others[with greater ecologic/historic concerns] require an extensive approval process.

 

Honestly after finding a disturbingly poorly placed graveyard cache that was little more than a rusty coffee can behind a tombstone, I have come to very much appreciate areas that have an approval process. And for parks that take that process seriously it is not a minimal amount of work.

 

I would much rather have to pay a small fee to place a cache and help ensure that area is maintained for future cachers than have the area disallow cache placement all together. If you really want the fee to disapear, get your geocaching community more involved with your local parks. volenteering at parks, holding CITO events in coordination with them, etc. all help you and the geocaching community to get to know your local park management. and when the local park management comes to see geocaching as a park friendly activity, they are more likely to help you to expand geocaching in the parks in which it is there responsibility to maintain.

[+briansnat]

I would much rather have to pay a small fee to place a cache and help ensure that area is maintained for future cachers than have the area disallow cache placement all together. If you really want the fee to disapear, get your geocaching community more involved with your local parks. volenteering at parks, holding CITO events in coordination with them, etc. all help you and the geocaching community to get to know your local park management. and when the local park management comes to see geocaching as a park friendly activity, they are more likely to help you to expand geocaching in the parks in which it is there responsibility to maintain.

 

A reasonable fee wouldn't bother me. $25 is not reasonable. It would cost me nearly $4,000 for my caches if such a fee were introduced in my state. I unfortunately would have to pull my caches and with a $25 fee I sincerely doubt others would step in and place caches at, or near those locations.

 

That would be unfortunate as most are mindlessly hidden in the kinds of places that I think make geocaching the great sport that it is - at scenic overlooks, hidden waterfalls, mines, interesting geological features, historic ruins and the like.

Edited November 8, 2010 by briansnat

[+addisonbr]

I would probably let a small handful go, but I would have no complaints paying $8/year for most of my cache listings.

[+Castle Mischief]

$25 a pop is too rich for my blood.

[+cw1710]

dbrierly wrote:

<<Considering that other users of natural areas pay fees (hunting, fishing, parking, etc.) it shouldn't be surprising that geocaching would be included as well.>>

 

All good points, but here's what I think the difference is - hunting requires game and land management, safety enforcement, etc. Fishing requires some of the same plus stocking fish. Parking requires that lots be built and paved. Geocaching requires that the parks .... Um, not that much.

 

What makes you think that geocaching doesn't require anything from the parks?

 

They can't - and shouldn't - trust geocachers to uphold park regulations. They need to make sure a geocache doesn't inadvertently cause unauthorized trails or other damage to occur in the park. If the geocaches cause an increase in the number of visitors, they may need to increase their staffing to cope.

 

Geocachers can get themselves into risky situations just as well as other land users can. Geocachers are also perfectly capable of littering, using parks outside of designated hours, going off trail, peeling bark off trees, and all the other petty little nuisances that parks want to curtail.

 

And, uh, geocachers need to use parking too.

You make it like they are going out of their way to check on geocachers. Guess what. They get paid to watch the parks and the parks are given OUR tax money to maintain the lands. They arent doing anything extra for us other than making sure it isn't a sensitive area. If they see a problem with that spot later, then request it be moved or archived. It makes no sense to make someone pay anything other than a nominal entrance fee to use a park that they are paying for. Anyone else that visits the park can put themselves into risky situations, litter, and stay in the park at night so geocachers are no different than the other people that come to the park. An increase in visitors from geocaching would be very unlikely to cause a need for a staff increase.

[+Ike 13]

The application to place a cache in a SC state park says there is a similar fee (I forget the amount but $20 sounds right). From what I've heard they almost always wave that because they have seen how many visits they get due to just geocaching. They also have a 2 year limit, but they have also waived that as long as you turn in a new application and they haven't had any issues.

 

I think they could have the application, make sure the CO has other caches out and they are maintained, and just make sure it's at least a regular container. I think a $5 fee would be bearable.

[+ras_oscar]

Uhhh... to the original poster: has anyone verified this is a legetimate fee? Last time I checked the legislature needs to approve levy of taxes, fees, etc.

[+narcissa]

dbrierly wrote:

<<Considering that other users of natural areas pay fees (hunting, fishing, parking, etc.) it shouldn't be surprising that geocaching would be included as well.>>

 

All good points, but here's what I think the difference is - hunting requires game and land management, safety enforcement, etc. Fishing requires some of the same plus stocking fish. Parking requires that lots be built and paved. Geocaching requires that the parks .... Um, not that much.

 

What makes you think that geocaching doesn't require anything from the parks?

 

They can't - and shouldn't - trust geocachers to uphold park regulations. They need to make sure a geocache doesn't inadvertently cause unauthorized trails or other damage to occur in the park. If the geocaches cause an increase in the number of visitors, they may need to increase their staffing to cope.

 

Geocachers can get themselves into risky situations just as well as other land users can. Geocachers are also perfectly capable of littering, using parks outside of designated hours, going off trail, peeling bark off trees, and all the other petty little nuisances that parks want to curtail.

 

And, uh, geocachers need to use parking too.

You make it like they are going out of their way to check on geocachers. Guess what. They get paid to watch the parks and the parks are given OUR tax money to maintain the lands. They arent doing anything extra for us other than making sure it isn't a sensitive area. If they see a problem with that spot later, then request it be moved or archived. It makes no sense to make someone pay anything other than a nominal entrance fee to use a park that they are paying for. Anyone else that visits the park can put themselves into risky situations, litter, and stay in the park at night so geocachers are no different than the other people that come to the park. An increase in visitors from geocaching would be very unlikely to cause a need for a staff increase.

 

If the state employs some sort of conservation officer, I can see it taking at least an hour for that person to look over the request, visit the spot, and maybe discuss the placement with the cache owner.

 

I don't know about PA, but I wouldn't be shocked if a unionized employee of Ontario Parks made at least $25 an hour (please don't derail the thread with jingoistic comments).

 

Geocaches do have the potential to cause specific problems. Yes, any idiot can go off trail, but many idiots going off trail in exactly the same place can cause a lot of damage.

 

Any increase in visitors means more litter, heavier use of facilities like bathrooms, and more people breaking the rules.

 

As for this MY TAXES ETC. stuff, while's it's a little less pronounced here, there's been a general trend toward tax cuts and corresponding service cuts throughout North America. It's likely that your state park only receives bare bones operating funds from tax money, if that. Many parks have had funding cut to the point where there's nothing to greet you at the gate but a box of envelopes and a pleading sign about the user fee.

[knowschad]

Considering that other users of natural areas pay fees (hunting, fishing, parking, etc.) it shouldn't be surprising that geocaching would be included as well.

The state manages hunting and fishing. The state builds and maintains parking lots. Are they going to do my cache maintenence for me?

 

Personally, I would simply say "no". They can hide their own caches, if they want the activity in their parks.

[knowschad]

dbrierly wrote:

<<Considering that other users of natural areas pay fees (hunting, fishing, parking, etc.) it shouldn't be surprising that geocaching would be included as well.>>

 

All good points, but here's what I think the difference is - hunting requires game and land management, safety enforcement, etc. Fishing requires some of the same plus stocking fish. Parking requires that lots be built and paved. Geocaching requires that the parks .... Um, not that much.

 

What makes you think that geocaching doesn't require anything from the parks?

 

They can't - and shouldn't - trust geocachers to uphold park regulations. They need to make sure a geocache doesn't inadvertently cause unauthorized trails or other damage to occur in the park. If the geocaches cause an increase in the number of visitors, they may need to increase their staffing to cope.

 

Geocachers can get themselves into risky situations just as well as other land users can. Geocachers are also perfectly capable of littering, using parks outside of designated hours, going off trail, peeling bark off trees, and all the other petty little nuisances that parks want to curtail.

 

And, uh, geocachers need to use parking too.

 

First, the $25 fee only applies to the cache hider, not to the cache finders. But moreover, everything you say applies to any cache visitor, not just geocachers, so there should be no discrimination.

 

I'm just glad that I had 6 good years of caching before all of this silliness started.

[+two bison]

Minnesota State Parks is another one of the systems that actively encourages geocaching. They've even set up caches of their own to bring folks to all their parks ... with an prize for the first person to complete the list.

 

So much more sensible than the states that are trying to keep cachers out of their own parks.

[Skippermark]

I think a 25 dollar fee is prohibitive. There is a similar fee in NC and the result is that there are few caches hidden in NC state parks. If the goal is to hit us taxpayers up for a little more cash to use our parks, it will fail because people will simply stop hiding caches there. If their goal is to end geocaching in their state park system, it will work.

Agreed. $25 per cache is crazy.

 

Last year here in CT, the state parks doubled their entrance fees hoping to increase revenue. People fought back, and the fees were still raised, but at a much more reasonable level. If the fees hadn't been lowered, people were just going to stop going, which would have actually decreased revenue.

 

As Brian said, they should be encouraging people to visit the parks. In tough times like this where people aren't taking world-wide vacations, make it attractive for residents to stay home and visit local places. Don't give them an excuse to go somewhere else.

 

Every year there's an event that draws 200+ people to a park. There's 40 caches in the park for the event. People camp, visit for the day and pretty much sell out the park. Visitors pay a lot just to go to the park for the event. Making people pay an additional $1000 to hide caches wouldn't fly.

[+narcissa]

 

Agreed. $25 per cache is crazy.

 

Last year here in CT, the state parks doubled their entrance fees hoping to increase revenue. People fought back, and the fees were still raised, but at a much more reasonable level. If the fees hadn't been lowered, people were just going to stop going, which would have actually decreased revenue.

 

As Brian said, they should be encouraging people to visit the parks. In tough times like this where people aren't taking world-wide vacations, make it attractive for residents to stay home and visit local places. Don't give them an excuse to go somewhere else.

 

Every year there's an event that draws 200+ people to a park. There's 40 caches in the park for the event. People camp, visit for the day and pretty much sell out the park. Visitors pay a lot just to go to the park for the event. Making people pay an additional $1000 to hide caches wouldn't fly.

 

I'm sure the situation is different in every jurisdiction, but in Ontario we've been trying for YEARS to get Ontario Parks to let place caches in provincial parks.

 

Here's the thing - they don't actually want more visitors in the parks. The campgrounds, trails, parking lots, bathrooms are really just a grudging concession to the fact that people will visit these areas no matter what, and the best way to protect the land is to manage the visitors and minimize their impact on the land.

 

We're up against a similar scenario with some of the federal parkland around Ottawa. The mandate of the organization that runs it is focused on conservations, NOT recreation, and they've started banning geocaches in large sections of Gatineau Park.

 

Under the circumstances, I'd be happy to pay $25 a pop to place a cache in an approved spot in a provincial park.

[+myotis]

While I agree the state should be checking to make sure its a good location, this seems like something that should be covered by tax dollars. What does PA's EPA charge for a permit to pollute?

 

What wold be nice would be Groundspeak start charging a $25 fee for numbers caches (ones that do not take you to an interesting spot, a nice walk, a challenge to find, etc). So if you want to place 25 caches in parking lot lampposts, it would cost you $625. That should put a dent in the lame caches!

[Skippermark]

Here's the thing - they don't actually want more visitors in the parks. The campgrounds, trails, parking lots, bathrooms are really just a grudging concession to the fact that people will visit these areas no matter what, and the best way to protect the land is to manage the visitors and minimize their impact on the land.

 

We're up against a similar scenario with some of the federal parkland around Ottawa. The mandate of the organization that runs it is focused on conservations, NOT recreation, and they've started banning geocaches in large sections of Gatineau Park.

That stinks. The lands (at least in the US) belong to the people, and they are for us to use. I can understand conservation and keeping them from becoming a commercialized place, but what good is a huge chunk of land if it's just going to sit without anyone ever seeing it?

 

Here in the US, parts of our National Forests are becoming that way in places. They're "wilderness areas" and have very strict regulations on camping (backpack type camping) and other aspects of people visiting.

 

In the state I live, there's a handful of popular state parks that are setup for recreational use, and then there's a large amount that never sees any visitors except for geocachers. You'll go out on the trail and hike for 10 miles and be the only one who's visited the park in 2 weeks. You can tell no one goes there because the trails are partially overgrown, and you see lots of wildlife. These are the places I like to explore and cache because you're actually out away from people.

 

The state promotes these "less used" places, but because there's nothing there other than trails and woods, most residents don't want to visit. They want to go where there's beaches and drive up parking and things like that.

 

It's definitely a balancing act between keeping places natural but also still allowing access.

[+Ecylram]

While I agree the state should be checking to make sure its a good location, this seems like something that should be covered by tax dollars. What does PA's EPA charge for a permit to pollute?

 

What wold be nice would be Groundspeak start charging a $25 fee for numbers caches (ones that do not take you to an interesting spot, a nice walk, a challenge to find, etc). So if you want to place 25 caches in parking lot lampposts, it would cost you $625. That should put a dent in the lame caches!

Just a suggestion...

 

Since you brought the "Lame Cache" issue up in other threads and it's obviously an important issue to you, how about starting a separate thread solely devoted to "Lame Caches" so that this subject and your concerns about "Lame Caches" be discussed without confusing crosstalk?

[+Ecylram]

That stinks. The lands (at least in the US) belong to the people, and they are for us to use. I can understand conservation and keeping them from becoming a commercialized place, but what good is a huge chunk of land if it's just going to sit without anyone ever seeing it?

 

Here in the US, parts of our National Forests are becoming that way in places. They're "wilderness areas" and have very strict regulations on camping (backpack type camping) and other aspects of people visiting.

 

In the state I live, there's a handful of popular state parks that are setup for recreational use, and then there's a large amount that never sees any visitors except for geocachers. You'll go out on the trail and hike for 10 miles and be the only one who's visited the park in 2 weeks. You can tell no one goes there because the trails are partially overgrown, and you see lots of wildlife. These are the places I like to explore and cache because you're actually out away from people.

 

The state promotes these "less used" places, but because there's nothing there other than trails and woods, most residents don't want to visit. They want to go where there's beaches and drive up parking and things like that.

 

It's definitely a balancing act between keeping places natural but also still allowing access.

I grew up in a state where 1/3 of the land was own by a governmental agency and my county was 85% owned/managed by a governmental agency. Naturally, land use issues were often a hot topic. In the ooooolllldddd days, there was a sliding scale for land use - Wilderness was kept as natural as possible, Parks were kept natural but had roads, buildings, and other improvements, and forest service land could be used for a wide variety of purposes.

 

In the last few years it seems that there is a movement to treat forest service land as parks are treated now and to treat parks more like wilderness areas. And there's a few individuals who think 'man' shouldn't set foot in wildernesses.

 

Getting back to the subject...

 

It seems that the permitting and fees for geocaching use has gotten to be excessive in some areas (including PA State Parks).

[knowschad]

a $25 fee for "a review process, including a Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory search (PNDI) that insures its location is compatible with other park and forest activities."

Since the research is what the $25 is supposedly paying for, I wonder if you get your money back should the location for the cache not be approved.

[+Klatch]

Considering that other users of natural areas pay fees (hunting, fishing, parking, etc.) it shouldn't be surprising that geocaching would be included as well.

My hunting license fee is paid to the Pennsylvania Game Commission.

My fishing license fee is paid to the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission.

 

Day use in State Parks (picnic, hiking, swimming) pay NO fee.

Does geocaching really place more of a strain on the park resources (fiscal and personnel) than these other activities?

Pennsylvania State Forests, which are also administered by the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, have the same permitting process as the State Parks, but do not charge a fee.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I think a 25 dollar fee is prohibitive. There is a similar fee in NC and the result is that there are few caches hidden in NC state parks. If the goal is to hit us taxpayers up for a little more cash to use our parks, it will fail because people will simply stop hiding caches there. If their goal is to end geocaching in their state park system, it will work.

Agreed. $25 per cache is crazy.

 

Last year here in CT, the state parks doubled their entrance fees hoping to increase revenue. People fought back, and the fees were still raised, but at a much more reasonable level. If the fees hadn't been lowered, people were just going to stop going, which would have actually decreased revenue.

 

As Brian said, they should be encouraging people to visit the parks. In tough times like this where people aren't taking world-wide vacations, make it attractive for residents to stay home and visit local places. Don't give them an excuse to go somewhere else.

 

And the statistics actually show that this may be the case. In NY, state park attendance was up 11% over last year, though it might have to do with a threat of some of the State parks being closed due to budget issues.

 

About this time last year I was in California and encountered several Parks/Facilities run by the State parks department that *we're* closed (there was an official sign and everything) due to budget cuts.

[+bobandrobin]

Here in Florida most state parks Charge admission, we pay $60 each annually for a State Parks Pass. This is a bargain for us, we spend all of our free time outdoors and frequent state parks and you won't hear me complain about it. However if the Parks dept. started charging to place a cache I would opt out. Just not right in my opinion and downright greedy. My presence and tax dollars are funding the park.

 

Last weekend we hiked through a Water Management Area and found two caches destroyed by a controlled burn. This poses the question what degree of consideration would the CO expect from the agency if he/she had paid to place the caches there. If the agency charges for the placement, knows the location and type of cache wouldn't it be reasonable to expect them to protect it during maintenance? We have seen caches destroyed by logging, trail clearing and remodeling inside state parks here. Seems there should be some liability with charging for placement.

 

I'm getting off a bit here but something to consider.