Jump to content

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


BikeBill

Recommended Posts

 

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

 

 

While it's nice to think that all geocachers and cache owners are careful and responsible, that's not necessarily the case. We can't work with these agencies in an effective manner if we blind ourselves to the potential problems.

 

A geocache attracts visitors to a particular small area which often causes vegetation damage and may disturb wildlife.

 

Geocaches are certainly the cause of unauthorized trails in some places. Even experienced geocachers often try to take the shortest route to a cache without considering the consequences. For many park authorities, bushwhacking is a very big concern.

 

Of course, unauthorized trails and bushwhacking can also happen when there's something else to attract people to something off-trail - a nice view, for example, or a short-cut to the outhouse. :) But it is definitely a risk when it comes to geocaches. I've been advocating the use of multi-caches in sensitive areas where staying on trail is of paramount importance.

 

Geocaches might attract visitors at times of year when the park isn't really equipped to handle a lot of visitors. Many parks are only staffed during their peak season, and it's possible they would have to adjust and add staffing to accommodate a change in visitor traffic.

 

I could go on, but my point is that it's unrealistic and unproductive to insist that geocaching doesn't have the potential to cause problems or demand any additional resources.

 

If you want to puff up your chest and bark about "MY TAX DOLLARS," fine, but that kind of talk is unconvincing to the agencies that manage these lands. The tax money they're receiving is likely very limited and decreasing all the time. The money they do receive is likely earmarked for particular things, which may or may not include facilitating recreation.

 

It's very easy for a land manager to deem geocaches simply incompatible with their objectives, and ban the game entirely. It's happened in many places already. If a $25 fee to cover the expenses involved in a cache placement is what it takes to shift things more in our favour, I'll take it.

 

And hey, if it keeps some of the more unscrupulous cache owners from spamming up a park with caches just because the space is there, that's great too.

Link to comment

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.

 

You're going to have throw a coin worth more than a nickel in the fountain if you want to have any sort of impact.

Link to comment

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.

 

The state gets stuck with the unpublished and archived caches that are not retrieved by those that placed them. The state has to deal with caches placed in inappropriate areas. Anything that is left behind in a park adds to management concern.

 

As mentioned earlier in the thread, some parks do place their own geocaches or letterboxes (Connecticut placed a series of letterboxes).

 

There probably are few public parks that have a problem with inactivity. Actually, "overuse" is a term that is often mentioned. Parks have trouble keeping up with both the increasing population and the increasing number of uses; much of the existing parkland was set aside long before mountain biking, geocaching, ATVs, etc. were around.

 

Considering that geocaching is banned in some areas, a fee might not be so bad. So far, only Pennsylvania state lands have been mentioned, so there is no trend.

Link to comment

 

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

 

<snip>

If you want to puff up your chest and bark about "MY TAX DOLLARS," fine, but that kind of talk is unconvincing to the agencies that manage these lands. The tax money they're receiving is likely very limited and decreasing all the time. The money they do receive is likely earmarked for particular things, which may or may not include facilitating recreation.

I beg your pardon, where did I say that?

 

My only point was that all the other activities utilize resources, but none of them requires a fee.

Link to comment

I could go on, but my point is that it's unrealistic and unproductive to insist that geocaching doesn't have the potential to cause problems or demand any additional resources.

The issue isn't potential problems so much as in relation to other activities that don't have to pay additional fees. Geocaching visitors don't cause more issues than the hikers, bikers, picnickers, amatuer geologists, swimmers, rock skippers, and the other users of the park system that don't pay extra fees. I'd venture to say that the typical geocacher is better than average park citizen.

Link to comment

<<I'd venture to say that the typical geocacher is better than average park citizen.>>

 

I agree. As a group, geocachers seem to be better environmental citizens than a lot of other groups. I doubt that most of the junk out in the woods or at the edge of a river/lake came from cachers.

 

I'm not patting myself on the back about this as I'm a relative newcomer compared to some of you. I'm just relating what I've seen in the habits of other cachers. I've been impressed with their environmental awareness (okay, so there is the matter of geo-trails). Parks should be happy to have us.

Link to comment

I already said this once but is was apparently ignored... GET TO KNOW YOUR LOCAL PARK OFFICIALS AND MANAGEMENT TEAMS. It is amazing how often they are more than willing to work with you if you get to know them[and act friendly and responsible], as opposed to you attacking policies that came from above their heads.

 

directed at the person that said it would cost him $4000[and that it is unreasonable]... if that is the case i find it hard to believe you can afford to properly maintain 160 caches. oh and just a thought lets say the parks choose to have a daily entrance fee instead[as many parks around the US do], you go out to search for a place[$8], you come back to check the location after a huge storm the next day and check your co-ordinates[+8], you then go out one last time to actually place the cache and get one last GPS reading before having it published[+8]... well now is cost you 24 bucks of entrance fees just to place this one cache, as a good CO I assume you are going to go out there anytime an NM log shows up, or after large storms to make sure the cache didn't washout or get destroyed by a falling tree etc..... so in the long run a 25 dollar fee that covers 3 years cost you NO MORE than visiting your cache once a year at a park that charges an $8 entrance fee[such as a MI state park], and as a CO I hope you check you caches more than once a year. and your cache will get more traffic[attempt] since with the $25 fee only get charged to you, and not to everyone wanting to search for it.

 

There is no Right to place hundreds or thousands of caches. People place the number of caches they can afford to put together, place and maintain. as an example If i were completely dirt poor, i wouldn't expect to be able to place 200 caches, i wouldn't think its my right to place 1 cache if i cant afford to put it together and maintain it.

 

a 25dollar fee every three years does not prevent caches from being placed in the park.... it does deter junker caches made out of peanutbutter containers with holes in them placed 30 at a time. making it a fee that recurs every couple years allows for the park to easily know if the cache is still being maintained by the owner if or if it has been abandoned[so the staff can know that they need to make a special trip out to a rarely used area] and the once cahe now trash should be cleaned out... ITS A SAD FACT THAT MANY CACHES ARE ABANDONED AND DO TURN INTO LITTLE MORE THAN GEO TRASH.

So if you found 30 good spots for caches, why not narrow it down to 5 amazing spots, or 2 breathtaking ones, and use the extra money to make sure the cache stays in a condition that is fitting of the location you found/selected

Link to comment

 

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

 

<snip>

If you want to puff up your chest and bark about "MY TAX DOLLARS," fine, but that kind of talk is unconvincing to the agencies that manage these lands. The tax money they're receiving is likely very limited and decreasing all the time. The money they do receive is likely earmarked for particular things, which may or may not include facilitating recreation.

I beg your pardon, where did I say that?

 

My only point was that all the other activities utilize resources, but none of them requires a fee.

 

other activities do requires fees at MANY OTHER PARKS... your argment is only going to make sure PA parks adopt this method even sooner.... the park athorities that manage these lands dont fold to "but they dont pay", but they do listen, and soon "they" will pay, and so will you, over and over and over again... think about what you are fighting for and what you want the end result to be when constructing argments

Link to comment

We should charge 20$ to throw a frisbee in a park or 15$ to bring my dog. Oh wait my dog has 4 legs so make that 30$...

 

Imagine if your State Parks system said that it was planning to institute a permit system (including a placement fee). Would you put up a huge fuss about it because they're charging you to use 'your' land? Would you prefer they ban geocaching altogether? If they did ban geocaching, I bet that your opinions on paying for a permit would change quite quickly.

 

I can think of one Provincial Park system that demanded that we remove existing caches and refrain from placing new ones. I'd love to be able to pay $25 and place a cache in a Provincial Park! But, then again, I'm not morally opposed to being asked to pay the piper.

Link to comment

ITS A SAD FACT THAT MANY CACHES ARE ABANDONED AND DO TURN INTO LITTLE MORE THAN GEO TRASH.

Our state geocaching organization, along many many others around the country, have an active program for retrieving archived caches. This is in addition to the CITO efforts.

 

to think these groups get everything, or even the majority of geotrash is simply foolish. and i'm not saying these groups aren't doing a great job, they do[i am a member of such a group]. and that is wonderful for caches that are already archived by a reviewer.... what about the thousands of caches that are rotting with a couple DNFs or NM logs. people stop going to these, and since they dont bother going to what they assume isn't there, it never gets an NA log[that the reviewers gets CCed on] and doesn't get archived... atleast not until someone else comes along and decides they want this spot for their own cache and pushes for its being archived.

Link to comment

The issue isn't potential problems so much as in relation to other activities that don't have to pay additional fees. Geocaching visitors don't cause more issues than the hikers, bikers, picnickers, amatuer geologists, swimmers, rock skippers, and the other users of the park system that don't pay extra fees. I'd venture to say that the typical geocacher is better than average park citizen.

 

I don't think it's reasonable to put geocachers on a pedestal like this. Geocachers often cause problems. Don't blind yourself to that just because you're a geocacher too.

 

Parks do charge additional fees for some users. In Ontario, provincial parks charge for camping, extra cars on a campsite, boat launching, emptying your septic tank, trailer storage, etc.

 

Geocaching is new, and these parks are still figuring out how geocaching will effect the lands they manage. It's going to take a while before there's a decent amount of impartial data showing the long term impact. They're not just going to take our word for it. Think about all the bad publicity that's been in the media - bomb scares, buried caches, gigantic fake coffins on park land. They are justified in being a bit wary and wanting to keep a close eye on things, at least at the beginning.

Link to comment
directed at the person that said it would cost him $4000[and that it is unreasonable]... if that is the case i find it hard to believe you can afford to properly maintain 160 caches. oh and just a thought lets say the parks choose to have a daily entrance fee instead[as many parks around the US do], you go out to search for a place[$8], you come back to check the location after a huge storm the next day and check your co-ordinates[+8], you then go out one last time to actually place the cache and get one last GPS reading before having it published[+8]... well now is cost you 24 bucks of entrance fees just to place this one cache, as a good CO I assume you are going to go out there anytime an NM log shows up, or after large storms to make sure the cache didn't washout or get destroyed by a falling tree etc..... so in the long run a 25 dollar fee that covers 3 years cost you NO MORE than visiting your cache once a year at a park that charges an $8 entrance fee[such as a MI state park], and as a CO I hope you check you caches more than once a year. and your cache will get more traffic[attempt] since with the $25 fee only get charged to you, and not to everyone wanting to search for it.

 

Since this was directed at me, I assure you I'm able to maintain my 160ish caches in state parks and forests. And as far as the cost of maintaining the caches in the the parks that charge admission, I don't pay admission, but if I did would it really be fair to tack another $25 onto that?

 

So if you found 30 good spots for caches, why not narrow it down to 5 amazing spots, or 2 breathtaking ones, and use the extra money to make sure the cache stays in a condition that is fitting of the location you found/selected

 

5 amazing spots comes to $125. That's on top of the roughly $80-100 the 5 caches cost to begin with for container, swag, logbook, etc. I can swing the 80-100 dollars. More than double the cost and it puts cache hiding out of my reach.

Link to comment

And as far as the cost of maintaining the caches in the the parks that charge admission, I don't pay admission, but if I did would it really be fair to tack another $25 onto that?

 

What? :)

 

I don't know about New Jersey but in NY, for $65 one can get what's called an Empire Passport that's good for every in almost every State park in NY for a year. Perhaps that's what briansnat is talking about.

Link to comment

 

So if you found 30 good spots for caches, why not narrow it down to 5 amazing spots, or 2 breathtaking ones, and use the extra money to make sure the cache stays in a condition that is fitting of the location you found/selected

 

5 amazing spots comes to $125. That's on top of the roughly $80-100 the 5 caches cost to begin with for container, swag, logbook, etc. I can swing the 80-100 dollars. More than double the cost and it puts cache hiding out of my reach.

 

you missed the point on this one.... someone immpled if they found 30 spots they needed to place caches at all of them, and couldn't afford it with the charge...

 

my point isn't that an added fee, adds to the fee, DUH! but that placeing 2 stunning caches or even 5 great caches with the fee, is still considerably cheaper than placeing 30 caches[it also allows the cache owner to put more effort and quality to the caches they place].... i have nothing against people that place many extremely high quality caches over time... but i know we all have seen the results of the people that place mass quantities of caches just to do so, quality of the cache tends to suffer a little and maintence often suffers

Link to comment

And as far as the cost of maintaining the caches in the the parks that charge admission, I don't pay admission, but if I did would it really be fair to tack another $25 onto that?

 

What? :)

 

I don't know about New Jersey but in NY, for $65 one can get what's called an Empire Passport that's good for every in almost every State park in NY for a year. Perhaps that's what briansnat is talking about.

 

No, I'm a volunteer who does trail maintenance and construction work for the state parks and forests and they don't charge us admission. I'm not sure if its an official policy, but the people at the gate wave me through.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

And as far as the cost of maintaining the caches in the the parks that charge admission, I don't pay admission, but if I did would it really be fair to tack another $25 onto that?

 

What? :)

 

I don't know about New Jersey but in NY, for $65 one can get what's called an Empire Passport that's good for every in almost every State park in NY for a year. Perhaps that's what briansnat is talking about.

 

No, I'm a volunteer who does trail maintenance and construction work for the state parks and forests and they don't charge us admission.

 

I figured there must be a reasonable explanation. I wonder how many jumped to the conclusion that you snuck in around the entry kiosk to avoid paying the entrance fee.

Link to comment

ITS A SAD FACT THAT MANY CACHES ARE ABANDONED AND DO TURN INTO LITTLE MORE THAN GEO TRASH.

Our state geocaching organization, along many many others around the country, have an active program for retrieving archived caches. This is in addition to the CITO efforts.

 

to think these groups get everything, or even the majority of geotrash is simply foolish. and i'm not saying these groups aren't doing a great job, they do[i am a member of such a group]. and that is wonderful for caches that are already archived by a reviewer.... what about the thousands of caches that are rotting with a couple DNFs or NM logs. people stop going to these, and since they dont bother going to what they assume isn't there, it never gets an NA log[that the reviewers gets CCed on] and doesn't get archived... atleast not until someone else comes along and decides they want this spot for their own cache and pushes for its being archived.

 

Since I maintained a trail in a state park for fifteen years, I can assure you that the amount of garbage that I pulled out in one year far exceeded the volume of caches in that section of the park. And, Lock and Locks are so much nicer than broken beer bottles.

Link to comment

ITS A SAD FACT THAT MANY CACHES ARE ABANDONED AND DO TURN INTO LITTLE MORE THAN GEO TRASH.

Our state geocaching organization, along many many others around the country, have an active program for retrieving archived caches. This is in addition to the CITO efforts.

 

to think these groups get everything, or even the majority of geotrash is simply foolish. and i'm not saying these groups aren't doing a great job, they do[i am a member of such a group]. and that is wonderful for caches that are already archived by a reviewer.... what about the thousands of caches that are rotting with a couple DNFs or NM logs. people stop going to these, and since they dont bother going to what they assume isn't there, it never gets an NA log[that the reviewers gets CCed on] and doesn't get archived... atleast not until someone else comes along and decides they want this spot for their own cache and pushes for its being archived.

 

Since I maintained a trail in a state park for fifteen years, I can assure you that the amount of garbage that I pulled out in one year far exceeded the volume of caches in that section of the park. And, Lock and Locks are so much nicer than broken beer bottles.

 

...and well hidden from view. Big difference.

 

BTW I was on your old trail last weekend doing a maint run on one of my caches. I have to say it's taken a turn for the worst since you've retired. I filled up my pack with beer bottles and cans and plastic water bottles and barely made a dent in the mess. Sad that such a beautiful area is being trashed.

Link to comment

And as far as the cost of maintaining the caches in the the parks that charge admission, I don't pay admission, but if I did would it really be fair to tack another $25 onto that?

 

What? :)

 

I don't know about New Jersey but in NY, for $65 one can get what's called an Empire Passport that's good for every in almost every State park in NY for a year. Perhaps that's what briansnat is talking about.

 

No, I'm a volunteer who does trail maintenance and construction work for the state parks and forests and they don't charge us admission.

 

I figured there must be a reasonable explanation. I wonder how many jumped to the conclusion that you snuck in around the entry kiosk to avoid paying the entrance fee.

 

Some of that too. Not that it's sneaking. They only charge vehicles that enter through the main gate. There is no charge for people entering on foot via backcountry trails and I do much of my exploring for new cache sites that way.

Link to comment

When I first placed caches in a Florida State park, staff treated me as a trail volunteer - I drove in free for cache maintenance. It was a pleasant surprise (and quite the opposite of the PA state policy).

 

There's been enough turn-over in staff that no recognizes me; if I drive in now, I pay.

 

I usually paddle in, or hike - both provide free access. and I enjoy them, especially the paddle.This is perfectly okay by park management - free access by bike trail, foot trail or paddle craft.

Link to comment
I can think of one Provincial Park system that demanded that we remove existing caches and refrain from placing new ones. I'd love to be able to pay $25 and place a cache in a Provincial Park! But, then again, I'm not morally opposed to being asked to pay the piper.

What is Provincial Park? I wonder if it's similar to a "National Park" here in the US?

Link to comment
you go out to search for a place[$8], you come back to check the location after a huge storm the next day and check your co-ordinates[+8], you then go out one last time to actually place the cache and get one last GPS reading before having it published[+8]... well now is cost you 24 bucks of entrance fees just to place this one cache

Most people I know take a variety of containers with them when they plan on hiding a cache. They find the spot(s) they want, take their reading and hide it, all in one day.

 

to think these groups get everything, or even the majority of geotrash is simply foolish. and i'm not saying these groups aren't doing a great job, they do[i am a member of such a group]. and that is wonderful for caches that are already archived by a reviewer.... what about the thousands of caches that are rotting with a couple DNFs or NM logs. people stop going to these, and since they dont bother going to what they assume isn't there, it never gets an NA log[that the reviewers gets CCed on] and doesn't get archived... atleast not until someone else comes along and decides they want this spot for their own cache and pushes for its being archived.

Cache abandonment can happen no matter where caches are placed. What are you suggesting be done about it?

 

Not sure what things are like where you live/cache, but around here, cache abandonment is not a big issue. When caches are archived, they are usually archived by the owner who has either picked it up or confirmed that it was missing, or if the owner is no longer active, after a previous finder has confirmed that it was indeed missing.

Edited by Skippermark
Link to comment

Huh, I swore I posted here.

 

Michigan State Parks of course had no policy when geocaching started. Once it came to their attention, they came dangerously close to banning it. Some very hard workers in MiGO got it brought down to a fee per cache, somewhere around $25-30. Through constant interaction with the DNR, placing caches eventually became free for hiders, with MiGO paying one fee (annual? I don't know) to cover it all, requiring only a no-fee permit. I'm not sure whether even that MiGO fee is still in place. Our state parks are very on board with caching today, holding programs and hiding their own on top of allowing them.

Link to comment

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.

 

I think the problem that all of this boils down to is that some irresponsible turkey ruined it for everyone else, and it is true that the fee weeds out excellent cachers of lesser means. My suggestion in that case would be to go in on a group hide, like have three or four cachers chip in a few bucks and then make a really excellent hide together that wouldn't cost everyone too much.

Link to comment
I can think of one Provincial Park system that demanded that we remove existing caches and refrain from placing new ones. I'd love to be able to pay $25 and place a cache in a Provincial Park! But, then again, I'm not morally opposed to being asked to pay the piper.

What is Provincial Park? I wonder if it's similar to a "National Park" here in the US?

 

It's equivalent to a state park. We don't call them state parks because we have provinces instead of states. :)

 

We have national parks as well.

 

Then in the Ottawa area, we have yet another type of park that is administered by a body called the National Capital Commission. They have a federal mandate to protect lands in the capital region, but their parks are not national parks.

 

It's confusing.

Link to comment

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.

 

I think the problem that all of this boils down to is that some irresponsible turkey ruined it for everyone else, and it is true that the fee weeds out excellent cachers of lesser means. My suggestion in that case would be to go in on a group hide, like have three or four cachers chip in a few bucks and then make a really excellent hide together that wouldn't cost everyone too much.

 

You're assuming some "irresponsible turkey" ruined something. Cachers and the PA state parks have had a pretty good relationship. There has been a permit system in place for quite some time and it has worked to the benefit of the caching community and the state parks.

 

If there is a irresponsible anybody, it is some bureaucrat sitting in an office who probably counted the caches in all the parks and saw dollar signs.

Link to comment

I would see this as a huge opportunity for the PA geocachers who are interested in this problem to work with the parks and improve the perception of geocaching by the parks. Obviously there was some problem which resulted in this fee. Responsible geocachers could volunteer to monitor the caches adn help police them and the placements. Maybe knock that fee out based on taht.

Link to comment

North Carolina has the same fee, $25 for a permit to place a cache in a state park. There's even a cache in the Eno River state park called "Eno $25 cache."

 

I don't see a problem with it. Just because a place COULD have a geocache, doesn't mean that it MUST have a geocache. The park ranger has to evaluate the spot, make sure that whatever traffic it attracts isn't going to interfere with other park activities, etc. I see it as just another user fee, much like the fee I pay to launch my boat or to camp overnight.

 

Sure, it means I'm not going to place dozens of caches in a state park. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

Link to comment

I'm pretty sure the PA residents already pay the taxes to keep that land up and running, INCLUDING the salaries of the folks that want to charge you $25/geocache.

 

So these parks are funded by taxes and are intended to generate surplus revenue? What does that revenue go to?

 

It seems more likely that they don't get much in the way of tax dollars and charging fees is how they make up the shortfall. Someone mentioned that PA parks don't charge day use fees. If that's true, then charging someone a $25 license for a special kind of semi-permanent land use may be preferable to other options, like bringing in fees for regular user.

 

"Public" doesn't mean you're entitled to do whatever you want on it. Public lands of all sorts are managed so they can stay intact for everybody's benefit.

 

It's unfortunate that some cache owners seem unable to look past their self-congratulatory rhetoric and recognize that this game has drawbacks as well as benefits. It's natural to be annoyed at the idea of a fee, but all this talk of tax dollars and the moral superiority of geocachers is not based in fact. Just scan this forum or do a news search for articles about geocaching and you'll see that there are many geocachers who act with a considerable lack of regard for the law, the environment, and other people.

 

Most of us don't need to throw down a cache every 0.1of a mile just because we can. I'd love to have just one nice cache in my favourite spot in a provincial park.

Link to comment

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

 

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 would choose the best of the best, and hide maybe 2 or 3.

Seriously, the maintenance issues would probably overshadow the fee issue.

 

Then again, maybe I would make it a multi cache and run you all around those woods! :)

Link to comment

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

 

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 would choose the best of the best, and hide maybe 2 or 3.

Seriously, the maintenance issues would probably overshadow the fee issue.

 

Then again, maybe I would make it a multi cache and run you all around those woods! :)

 

I'm glad I'm not alone in thinking the $25 fee is a fantastic idea. I think Groundspeak should charge everyone $25 to place a cache. That one move alone would fix everything I currently dislike about geocaching. If $25 is too steep, then make it $10. Same effect.

Link to comment

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

 

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 would choose the best of the best, and hide maybe 2 or 3.

Seriously, the maintenance issues would probably overshadow the fee issue.

 

Then again, maybe I would make it a multi cache and run you all around those woods! :)

 

So does a multi require a fee for each stage that has a hidden container containing coordinates? Would a four stage multi cache run you a $100?

Edited by Luckless
Link to comment

So does a multi require a fee for each stage that has a hidden container containing coordinates? Would a four stage multi cache run you a $100?

 

I hope not. I wish more people used multis in parks. They're a great way to encourage cachers to follow a particular route to a cache, so they can be used to keep people on the trail.

 

Psst, multis are way less maintenance and way more fun when you use things like signs and plaques instead of containers.

Link to comment

So does a multi require a fee for each stage that has a hidden container containing coordinates? Would a four stage multi cache run you a $100?

 

I hope not. I wish more people used multis in parks. They're a great way to encourage cachers to follow a particular route to a cache, so they can be used to keep people on the trail.

 

Psst, multis are way less maintenance and way more fun when you use things like signs and plaques instead of containers.

 

And, that way they only drop one proximity circle, instead of several!

Link to comment

 

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.

 

 

Not entirely accurate.

 

I've been to several meetings with Parks Ontario and Conservation Ontario, and some of the membership Parks/Conservation authorities. The Parks DO want to attract visitors to them and they were quite worried when the USA passport requirements came into effect as it would cut tourism to the Parks and Conservation Areas. Many of these Parks are making up their operating revenue from Tourism as the Ministry of Natural Resources sure isn't as generous as they could be.

 

To be accurate, they don't want more visitors to sensitive areas of the parks. Areas of Natural and Scientfic Interest to be specific. Parks Canada had similar concerns about heritage sites. The parks want you to visit, and set up areas they would like you to visit so your impact on the park is not permanent.

 

Geocachers have a tendency to wander off trail. To a Park admin this is a shockingly bad idea, and the fastest way you can wander into a non-sanctioned area. For example, there is a fine in Short Hills Provincial Park of ~$110 for wandering off trail. For any reason - be that for a geocache, or for a cool photo, or what ever reason someone comes up with 20 years from now.

 

Ontario Parks officially has a ban in place for Geocaches, but a Park Superintendent can override that. Look at the caches published in the last couple years in the Highway 60 corridor section of Algonquin Park (the Crown Jewel of the Ontario Parks System) for an example.

Link to comment

If you want to puff up your chest and bark about "MY TAX DOLLARS," fine, but that kind of talk is unconvincing to the agencies that manage these lands. The tax money they're receiving is likely very limited and decreasing all the time. The money they do receive is likely earmarked for particular things, which may or may not include facilitating recreation.

 

It's very easy for a land manager to deem geocaches simply incompatible with their objectives, and ban the game entirely. It's happened in many places already. If a $25 fee to cover the expenses involved in a cache placement is what it takes to shift things more in our favour, I'll take it.

 

And hey, if it keeps some of the more unscrupulous cache owners from spamming up a park with caches just because the space is there, that's great too.

 

I agree with this. We've lost a lot of good will with park authorities over the years and if this is a step toward embracing the activity, I'm good with that.

Link to comment

After years of banning caching in Minnesota State Parks, they eventually came to the conclusion that geocacing could increase attendence. The State Parks charge people to enter the parks, so obviously, increased attendence meant increased income. In other words, geocaching does not cost the parks... it makes money for them! So, why would they want to risk keeping caches out by charging hiders even one dime to place a cache? It boggles the mind. :laughing: (< boggled)

Link to comment

After years of banning caching in Minnesota State Parks, they eventually came to the conclusion that geocacing could increase attendence. The State Parks charge people to enter the parks, so obviously, increased attendence meant increased income. In other words, geocaching does not cost the parks... it makes money for them! So, why would they want to risk keeping caches out by charging hiders even one dime to place a cache? It boggles the mind. :laughing: (< boggled)

 

The park needs to see concrete evidence that geocaching is a benefit before it can bank on that.

 

Thankfully, there are more and more success stories about parks and communities using geocaching to boost visitor traffic.

 

As someone mentioned, the PA parks apparently don't charge admission, so they don't stand to gain any revenue by increased traffic - just increased operating costs.

Link to comment

After years of banning caching in Minnesota State Parks, they eventually came to the conclusion that geocacing could increase attendence. The State Parks charge people to enter the parks, so obviously, increased attendence meant increased income. In other words, geocaching does not cost the parks... it makes money for them! So, why would they want to risk keeping caches out by charging hiders even one dime to place a cache? It boggles the mind. :laughing: (< boggled)

 

The park needs to see concrete evidence that geocaching is a benefit before it can bank on that.

They have that. I think we just finished the third summer of caching in our State Parks

 

Thankfully, there are more and more success stories about parks and communities using geocaching to boost visitor traffic.

 

As someone mentioned, the PA parks apparently don't charge admission, so they don't stand to gain any revenue by increased traffic - just increased operating costs.

True... perhaps they should change that, then instead of charging those that wish to add value to the parks.

Link to comment

Are PA state parks intended to earn a profit? Public parks usually don't have that sort of mandate - the fees are there to cover operating costs, not for generating surplus revenue.

 

Ummmm, yes, indirectly. Not just from entrance fees. Parks attract visitors, hikers, campers, tourists. Those people spend money in and around the park. The economic impact of a good park system can be huge.

 

Pennsylvania's parks return an estimated $7.62 to the people of the Commonwealth for every $1 spent by the Commonwealth on the parks. That includes money spent at the gas stations and grocery stores next to the entrances, hotels, bars, etc. Plus some parks generate revenue through campsite fees, marina fees, ski lift tickets etc. They also create a lot of jobs.

 

NY parks are said to return $5 for every tax dollar spent. CA is $30.

This is not all going back to the general fund of the state, but to the economy of the areas around the park.

 

Speaking as a taxpayer in PA, though, I don't mind this new fee. I want my tax dollars to go to maintaining and preserving the parkland. The fee is specific to the activity of geocaching, which has a limited audience. So does boating. I don't want tax dollars spent on giving boat owners access to a lake, so I don't mind if boat owners are charge a ramp fee. If you camp you pay a fee for the site, even if you are tenting and using no resources (ie electricity).

 

Edit: add Source of economic claims.

Edited by John in Valley Forge
Link to comment

Are PA state parks intended to earn a profit? Public parks usually don't have that sort of mandate - the fees are there to cover operating costs, not for generating surplus revenue.

 

Ummmm, yes, indirectly. Not just from entrance fees. Parks attract visitors, hikers, campers, tourists. Those people spend money in and around the park. The economic impact of a good park system can be huge.

 

Pennsylvania's parks return an estimated $7.62 to the people of the Commonwealth for every $1 spent by the Commonwealth on the parks. That includes money spent at the gas stations and grocery stores next to the entrances, hotels, bars, etc. Plus some parks generate revenue through campsite fees, marina fees, ski lift tickets etc. They also create a lot of jobs.

 

NY parks are said to return $5 for every tax dollar spent. CA is $30.

This is not all going back to the general fund of the state, but to the economy of the areas around the park.

 

Speaking as a taxpayer in PA, though, I don't mind this new fee. I want my tax dollars to go to maintaining and preserving the parkland. The fee is specific to the activity of geocaching, which has a limited audience. So does boating. I don't want tax dollars spent on giving boat owners access to a lake, so I don't mind if boat owners are charge a ramp fee. If you camp you pay a fee for the site, even if you are tenting and using no resources (ie electricity).

 

Edit: add Source of economic claims.

So do the fees collected for geocaching somehow flow directly to the geocaching activity? I would be interested in hearing about that. I bet most of the boat ramp fees are to support and maintain the boat ramps. Not everyone throws a frisbee. Do the parks charge people for the activity of throwing a frisbee? Or how about birding? That is not a hugely popular pastime, do they charge birders? No, I'm sorry, but this fee is all about collecting money from a group of people that do not have any political clout. Guido has come to collect his protection money. In Washington state every auto license renewal has a $5 parks fee for the support of the parks. You can pay or you can opt out. I find this far more palatable than singling out an group that does not have the representation to object.

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...