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

[+LukeTrocity]

Just doing some reading on the internet - it looks like Pennsylvania's state government is planning massive cutbacks to the parks and threatening the closure of 35 parks.

 

Tax dollars, huh?

The government is in a state of crisis and I doubt there will be enough caches placed to sustain the entire park system.

[+John in Valley Forge]

Can I stop having my tax money allocated to them now?

 

Judging by your cache finds I suspect your tax dollars are not being paid into the Pennsylvania Department of the Treasury, so you have nothing to worry about.

 

You also mention that MN parks charges a $5 admission fee. I also read someone say that Florida parks charge admission. I think that would be far more onerous on the general population's use of the parks than a $25 cache placement fee.

[+narcissa]

Just doing some reading on the internet - it looks like Pennsylvania's state government is planning massive cutbacks to the parks and threatening the closure of 35 parks.

 

Tax dollars, huh?

The government is in a state of crisis and I doubt there will be enough caches placed to sustain the entire park system.

 

Now you're getting it. It's not a pointless cash grab - it's part of a larger, last-ditch effort to keep the parks open.

[+LukeTrocity]

Just doing some reading on the internet - it looks like Pennsylvania's state government is planning massive cutbacks to the parks and threatening the closure of 35 parks.

 

Tax dollars, huh?

The government is in a state of crisis and I doubt there will be enough caches placed to sustain the entire park system.

 

Now you're getting it. It's not a pointless cash grab - it's part of a larger, last-ditch effort to keep the parks open.

We can agree to disagree........!

[+narcissa]

Just doing some reading on the internet - it looks like Pennsylvania's state government is planning massive cutbacks to the parks and threatening the closure of 35 parks.

 

Tax dollars, huh?

The government is in a state of crisis and I doubt there will be enough caches placed to sustain the entire park system.

 

Now you're getting it. It's not a pointless cash grab - it's part of a larger, last-ditch effort to keep the parks open.

We can agree to disagree........!

 

But... you just agreed with me.

[+John in Valley Forge]

 

Sorry, I thought my tax dollars paid for the land and maintenance.

 

Right. And all the tax money from the casinos is going to make Atlantic City a nice place to live.

 

There are limits to how much tax money there is to go around. There are a lot of things that get higher priority than parks. So the parks get a smaller budget. They then have to decide how to spend it. They lay off park workers. The remaining workers time becomes more valuable since the workload has not changed. They can no longer afford to process geocache application at no cost.

 

At the park I go to occasionally, there is no admission fee, no fee to picnic, no fee to play frisbee, no fee to row your boat. No fee to swim in the pool. You pay if you want to rent a boat, from a private company that leases the boathouse. You can pay for a burger at the snack bar, run by a private company.

 

If they are running short of money, what can they cut? You aren't going to stop renting the concessions. Charge for picnicking or swimming? I don't think so. That is a favorite threat of politicians short on dough "we cant take away swimming pools from the underprivileged kids".

 

So where else can they generate revenue? "Oh, look at those rich folk using billion dollar satellites to find Tupperware in our park. They pull in here in those fancy SUVs and run rampant through the woods, trampling over delicate wild flowers. Then they jump back in their cars, shout "Numbers Run, GO GO GO!" and leave. They didn't rent a boat or buy a burger."

 

So in the end, does the politician shut the pool filled with migrant farm worker kids or charge for caches?

 

Am I exaggerating a bit here for illustration? Yes, a bit, but to make a point.

[+briansnat]

Just doing some reading on the internet - it looks like Pennsylvania's state government is planning massive cutbacks to the parks and threatening the closure of 35 parks.

 

Tax dollars, huh?

The government is in a state of crisis and I doubt there will be enough caches placed to sustain the entire park system.

 

I suspect if their goal is revenue, it will be miserable failure. People just won't pay the fee and the sport will be essentially dead in PA state parks once the currently existing permits expire.

 

Even if I'm wrong and geocching is sustained at its current level, the revenue generated is so meager it won't make the slightest difference.

[+John in Valley Forge]

Just doing some reading on the internet - it looks like Pennsylvania's state government is planning massive cutbacks to the parks and threatening the closure of 35 parks.

 

Tax dollars, huh?

The government is in a state of crisis and I doubt there will be enough caches placed to sustain the entire park system.

 

I suspect if their goal is revenue, it will be miserable failure. People just won't pay the fee and the sport will be essentially dead in PA state parks once the currently existing permits expire.

 

Even if I'm wrong and geocching is sustained at its current level, the revenue generated is so meager it won't make the slightest difference.

 

I certainly don't disagree with that, Brian, but I've learned to never overestimate the intelligence of the legislature.

[+narcissa]

Just doing some reading on the internet - it looks like Pennsylvania's state government is planning massive cutbacks to the parks and threatening the closure of 35 parks.

 

Tax dollars, huh?

The government is in a state of crisis and I doubt there will be enough caches placed to sustain the entire park system.

 

I suspect if their goal is revenue, it will be miserable failure. People just won't pay the fee and the sport will be essentially dead in PA state parks once the currently existing permits expire.

 

Even if I'm wrong and geocching is sustained at its current level, the revenue generated is so meager it won't make the slightest difference.

 

I sincerely doubt that the future of geocaching is a concern when the mere existence of the parks is in question.

 

As I understand it, the parks have had a permit system without a fee for some time. They're obviously counting pennies at this point. If that permit system even gives the appearance of being a financial burden on a cash-strapped park system, it's going to come up for question in budget discussions. So what to do about it?

 

Banning geocaching seems unfair, given the previous good relationship.

 

Removing the permit system and giving geocachers complete freedom could be an option, but it's not a wise one if they still hope to protect sensitive habitats.

 

It would be ideal (for geocachers) if they did look to a model like MN and used geocaching as part of a larger plan to increase revenue and visitorship. Why don't they do that? Because there would be an initial outlay of costs and they aren't in any position to be adding new items to the budget at this time. Unfortunately, budget committees have a hard time drawing causal connections between expenditures and revenues, especially over time.

 

They are allowing cache owners to volunteer instead of pay the cash. That seems like a pretty fair deal, given the circumstances.

Edited November 16, 2010 by narcissa

[+John in Valley Forge]

They are allowing cache owners to volunteer instead of pay the cash. That seems like a pretty fair deal, given the circumstances.

 

That is up to the park manager. A Pennsylvania cacher already noted that his local park will not accept volunteer work, just cash. Very shortsighted in my mind. CITO is worth a lot more than $25

[+narcissa]

They are allowing cache owners to volunteer instead of pay the cash. That seems like a pretty fair deal, given the circumstances.

 

That is up to the park manager. A Pennsylvania cacher already noted that his local park will not accept volunteer work, just cash. Very shortsighted in my mind. CITO is worth a lot more than $25

 

Geocaching is still suffering from a lot of bad press. I'm sure that some of these park managers stubbornly believe that we violate the environment with no remorse, and nothing will convince them otherwise. It doesn't help that there are a handful of staunch and vocal extremists who want to completely eliminate geocaching from parks and forests.

 

It also doesn't help that the latest trend in geocaching is these asinine "record runs" of power trails. Way to make the game and its participants look completely inane, folks. Of course, Groundspeak shares in the culpability for allowing that nonsense to happen in the first place.

 

Actually, now would be a good time for another listing site to rise up and make deals with land managers who are understandably wary about what's happening at this one.

[+briansnat]

Actually, now would be a good time for another listing site to rise up and make deals with land managers who are understandably wary about what's happening at this one.

 

The newer listing sites seem to be going the other way, with little or no oversight. Where is the serious review process in Terracaching? It's just peer review. Caches get turned down here all the time for good reasons and wind up listed over there. Opencaching is even worse. Yet these sites are springing up largely because some people feel that this site is too "restrictive".

 

You honestly think there would be a market for an even more restrictive site.

 

BTW most of the press I've seen about geocaching has been very positive.

[+narcissa]

Actually, now would be a good time for another listing site to rise up and make deals with land managers who are understandably wary about what's happening at this one.

 

The newer listing sites seem to be going the other way, with little or no oversight. Where is the serious review process in Terracaching? It's just peer review. Caches get turned down here all the time for good reasons and wind up listed over there. Opencaching is even worse. Yet these sites are springing up largely because some people feel that this site is too "restrictive".

 

You honestly think there would be a market for an even more restrictive site.

 

BTW most of the press I've seen about geocaching has been very positive.

 

I didn't mention either of those sites. The existing alternatives are pretty lackluster at this point. I would like to see Groundspeak clean up its act a bit and reverse some of the really detrimental decisions they've made lately. If they don't, I wouldn't be surprised to if someone else popped up to seize on geocaching's growing popularity and strike some deals with land managers who have been scared off by what's been going on at this site.

 

I have Google alerts set up for all news and blogs about geocaching. Most of the non-blog press geocaching gets consists of poorly-researched fluff pieces that draw little, if any, attention. There are a ton of those fake blog articles written for commercial purposes, every day.

 

The stories that get attention and stick in people's minds are negative far more often than they are positive. Geocaching bomb scares and similar situations (like the fake coffin that got geocaching banned in one of the Dakotas) get a lot of attention and tons of comments and related blogs.

 

The inane stories with headlines like "High tech treasure hunt brings family fun to local park" don't get much attention at all. Sometimes there are really good news items, like those geocachers who rescued people in the desert, or a great big CITO that gets a lot of press, and that is always really nice to see.

 

Some of these land managers formed their assumptions about geocaching a long time ago. If they're not engaged in geocaching now and not open to learning more, it's tough to get them to change their minds. I don't like that any more than you do, but pretending it's not true really isn't productive.