+_Shaddow_ Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Interesting Jeff, I had a conversation with Landrover about Loch Katrine Monster, and although it is outside of the Hancock area, the question was raised it you had to walk through the edge of Hancock to get there, LR indicated that there were several roads from the FS road into the area but thought that there wasn't a route that didn't make you enter Hancock. I was wondering the same Quote Link to comment
+_Shaddow_ Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) Potty Mouth - Very close to the public road, but coordinates place it on Hancock land Forgotten Bridge at Deep Creek - Very close to the public road, but coordinates place it on Hancock land One cache, STUMPHI, has coordinates that place it within the public road right of way (according to King County iMAP). As far as I can tell, grabbing that cache would not require a Hancock permit, at least if the coordinates are accurate. All of these are about the same distance from the road, and yes, on Hancock property. Though I would argue close enough for a quick grab and go without a permit needed, just depends on how strict they want to be about it Edited January 12, 2012 by _Shaddow_ Quote Link to comment
+B+L Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Uh, I purposely was vague about the particulars of that cache because I was not trying to embarrass the reviewer. Thank you very little for providing the details. Yeah, because it's a big state secret, isn't it? And here I thought I was defending that listing. No, it's not a secret, but surely you can understand why some discretion would be desirable, especially when your specificity adds nothing to your argument. Ok maybe I am having a stupid day, but I don't get it. The answer is no, I don't understand why some discretion is desireable, or why the CO/Reviewer has any reason to feel embarrassed. There is a TC that was crosslisted, maybe this is what you feel they should be embarrassed about? It happens to be in an area where there is an access fee. The land owners are aware of our hobby and know that there are caches on their land. Based on those last two sentences, how is this different then the caches in Rainier or at St Helens, or any other area you pay to access the land? Or if you feel that it is an unfair access issue, how is it much different then when a group of us went out and placed a cache at the end of the Middle Fork two days before they closed the last 8 miles to cars, knowing that the closure was going to happen? I guess I don't get what the big stink is all about. I really don't like the fee, won't pay it, and therefore will stop using their land. As far as I am concerned they are now on my list of bad landowners. How is asking a question a big stink? It is a simple question that I am curious about. I am not trying to make a statement and I was trying to avoid dragging third parties into it. My question was about whether caches on Hancock land are violating the *commercial* guideline. Paying access fees to a government entity is non-commercial, so Discovery Passes, Forest Passes, NP etc, are unrelated to my question. The Middle Fork road was only closed to vehicle traffic and there are no fee demanding trolls under the bridges, so I'm not sure how it would be related. Quote Link to comment
+AndrewRJ Posted January 12, 2012 Author Share Posted January 12, 2012 Uh, I purposely was vague about the particulars of that cache because I was not trying to embarrass the reviewer. Thank you very little for providing the details. Yeah, because it's a big state secret, isn't it? And here I thought I was defending that listing. No, it's not a secret, but surely you can understand why some discretion would be desirable, especially when your specificity adds nothing to your argument. Ok maybe I am having a stupid day, but I don't get it. The answer is no, I don't understand why some discretion is desireable, or why the CO/Reviewer has any reason to feel embarrassed. There is a TC that was crosslisted, maybe this is what you feel they should be embarrassed about? It happens to be in an area where there is an access fee. The land owners are aware of our hobby and know that there are caches on their land. Based on those last two sentences, how is this different then the caches in Rainier or at St Helens, or any other area you pay to access the land? Or if you feel that it is an unfair access issue, how is it much different then when a group of us went out and placed a cache at the end of the Middle Fork two days before they closed the last 8 miles to cars, knowing that the closure was going to happen? I guess I don't get what the big stink is all about. I really don't like the fee, won't pay it, and therefore will stop using their land. As far as I am concerned they are now on my list of bad landowners. How is asking a question a big stink? It is a simple question that I am curious about. I am not trying to make a statement and I was trying to avoid dragging third parties into it. My question was about whether caches on Hancock land are violating the *commercial* guideline. Paying access fees to a government entity is non-commercial, so Discovery Passes, Forest Passes, NP etc, are unrelated to my question. The Middle Fork road was only closed to vehicle traffic and there are no fee demanding trolls under the bridges, so I'm not sure how it would be related. Well that really didn't get to my question as to why some discretion is desireable but I try to answer your questions. The stink... poor wording on my part, however I have heard in person several cachers raising the commercial question and being generally irritated about this. I am one of those irritated people but it wasn't really your question, but a general tone both here and in person that caused me to use those words. Again you asking the question wasn't a big stink, the situation seems to be. I guess I don't make a distinction between a private, public, or governmental organization. There is an entity requesting compensation (money) for a service (access). This to me is commercial in the relm that we are talking about, goods for services. To me it doesn't matter if the entity is a government or a private land owner. Maybe another example? The Event held at the Cougar Mountain zoo? had to pay to get in. Money for access by a non governmental organization. Again these are my opinions and I am not trying to downplay your opinions. I realize that we could be construed at discussing shades of gray here. Quote Link to comment
+Lightning Jeff Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) Interesting Jeff, I had a conversation with Landrover about Loch Katrine Monster, and although it is outside of the Hancock area, the question was raised it you had to walk through the edge of Hancock to get there, LR indicated that there were several roads from the FS road into the area but thought that there wasn't a route that didn't make you enter Hancock. Valid point. What I can't tell from looking at the maps I have available right now is whether those roads are public/National Forest Service roads. I believe that the road from NF-5700 (which is public) that heads south towards Sunday Lake (identified as NF-5720 in NW Topos) is public. That enters the National Forest, then a branch heads west back out of the NF, and switchbacks up and back into the NF towards Katrine. iMAP does NOT show these as public right of way, but I think that's just because they aren't state or county roads at that point. So, a very good question for the Forest Service: Are all of the NF- prefixed roads open to public travel, even if they cross Hancock land, because they lead to public land? Potty Mouth - Very close to the public road, but coordinates place it on Hancock land Forgotten Bridge at Deep Creek - Very close to the public road, but coordinates place it on Hancock land All of these are about the same distance from the road, and yes, on Hancock property. Though I would argue close enough for a quick grab and go without a permit needed, just depends on how strict they want to be about it Yeah, I think one would be pretty safe doing a quick grab for those. Edited January 12, 2012 by Lightning Jeff Quote Link to comment
+_Shaddow_ Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) The stink... poor wording on my part, however I have heard in person several cachers raising the commercial question and being generally irritated about this. I am one of those irritated people but it wasn't really your question, but a general tone both here and in person that caused me to use those words. Again you asking the question wasn't a big stink, the situation seems to be. Wait, I'm not sure how to read this, you are defending putting caches in places that require a private fee? I guess I don't make a distinction between a private, public, or governmental organization. There is an entity requesting compensation (money) for a service (access). This to me is commercial in the relm that we are talking about, goods for services. To me it doesn't matter if the entity is a government or a private land owner. Maybe another example? The Event held at the Cougar Mountain zoo? had to pay to get in. Money for access by a non governmental organization. There's a BIG difference between public and private. For one, the government (read us as in you, me and everyone else) are charging the fee only for the cost to build and maintain and the gain is for us all, not charging over and above that ie profit ie personal gain for a single person or small group. This really doesn't seem like the place to discuss this further so I won't go on, but I do encourage you to see, understand and accept the differences. Not sure personally about the zoo event and certainly it is hard to discuss on so few details. One quick thing comes to mind, perhaps the event was outside the zoo and entering the zoo wasn't mandatory for logging an attendance for the event, could be? Edited January 12, 2012 by _Shaddow_ Quote Link to comment
+B+L Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Well that really didn't get to my question as to why some discretion is desireable but I try to answer your questions. The stink... poor wording on my part, however I have heard in person several cachers raising the commercial question and being generally irritated about this. I am one of those irritated people but it wasn't really your question, but a general tone both here and in person that caused me to use those words. Again you asking the question wasn't a big stink, the situation seems to be. I guess I don't make a distinction between a private, public, or governmental organization. There is an entity requesting compensation (money) for a service (access). This to me is commercial in the relm that we are talking about, goods for services. To me it doesn't matter if the entity is a government or a private land owner. Maybe another example? The Event held at the Cougar Mountain zoo? had to pay to get in. Money for access by a non governmental organization. Again these are my opinions and I am not trying to downplay your opinions. I realize that we could be construed at discussing shades of gray here. I ignored that part about discretion because it is not what I really wanted to discuss, however I'll take a stab at it. I only mentioned a particular cache, because it caused me to wonder about the guideline. My intention was not to criticize the cache owner, but it could easily be perceived that way, especially since it is a common practice in these forums to question someone's motives for asking a question or starting a topic, rather than just addressing the subject matter at hand. My point was neither to start a discussion about one particular cache, nor was it to shine the glare of a spotlight on one particular reviewer, so I left out the all details. The guidelines do say it is possible to get permission for commercial caches, such as your Cougar Mountain Zoo example, so I would assume that was the case there. Quote Link to comment
+Lightning Jeff Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 I'm not responding to any one comment here, but just thought I'd express my thoughts on the "commercial" and "pay to play" elements here. I might be accused of being hypocritical, because in prior posts I've groused about the Discover Pass, and yet here I am saying I don't really have a problem with Hancock charging for recreational use of its land. I'm no staunch property-rights advocate, and I know that Hancock/its predecessors didn't pay "fair market value" for the property, but still I can't fault them for looking for a way to make money on what is their private property. (They sold the development rights of the property to King County a few years back, meaning the land can't be turned into another Snoqualmie Ridge for massive profit.) For me, gates with a possibility to gain entry for a fee are better than gates, period. And unlike the state trying to soak us by having us pay two and three times for permits (e.g., one Discover Pass for each car; and you need a Discover Pass even if you buy a daily Sno-Park pass) to use public land, Hancock is selling access to land we don't otherwise have any right to access. I agree that the price seems high, especially if your only interest is in finding a few caches. On the other hand, buying the $225 motorized use permit might well pay for itself if you factor in the ability to collect 5 cords of firewood, and the ability to get back to what may be some great, seldom-fished lakes with native trout populations. Some will pay, some will say no thanks, and that's all fine in my book. I guess my main point is that our activity fights a constant battle against land owners and managers restricting the placement of caches. Here's a vast working forest where the landowner doesn't seem to mind our activity, assuming we pay for entry. There are elements of caching that don't appeal to all of us, so we ignore those elements (e.g., for me, challenges, most virtuals, most micros, most 1-terrain caches). I guess I don't see pay-to-access caches as any different, whether we're talking about public land where fees are required, or private land where fees are required. We all get the difference between those two things, but in terms of the personal decision that has to be made about whether paying the fee is "worth it," I agree with Andrew's point (if I understood it correctly) that there really isn't much functional difference to a cacher. Quote Link to comment
+B+L Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 I'm not responding to any one comment here, but just thought I'd express my thoughts on the "commercial" and "pay to play" elements here. I might be accused of being hypocritical, because in prior posts I've groused about the Discover Pass, and yet here I am saying I don't really have a problem with Hancock charging for recreational use of its land. I'm no staunch property-rights advocate, and I know that Hancock/its predecessors didn't pay "fair market value" for the property, but still I can't fault them for looking for a way to make money on what is their private property. (They sold the development rights of the property to King County a few years back, meaning the land can't be turned into another Snoqualmie Ridge for massive profit.) For me, gates with a possibility to gain entry for a fee are better than gates, period. And unlike the state trying to soak us by having us pay two and three times for permits (e.g., one Discover Pass for each car; and you need a Discover Pass even if you buy a daily Sno-Park pass) to use public land, Hancock is selling access to land we don't otherwise have any right to access. I agree that the price seems high, especially if your only interest is in finding a few caches. On the other hand, buying the $225 motorized use permit might well pay for itself if you factor in the ability to collect 5 cords of firewood, and the ability to get back to what may be some great, seldom-fished lakes with native trout populations. Some will pay, some will say no thanks, and that's all fine in my book. I guess my main point is that our activity fights a constant battle against land owners and managers restricting the placement of caches. Here's a vast working forest where the landowner doesn't seem to mind our activity, assuming we pay for entry. There are elements of caching that don't appeal to all of us, so we ignore those elements (e.g., for me, challenges, most virtuals, most micros, most 1-terrain caches). I guess I don't see pay-to-access caches as any different, whether we're talking about public land where fees are required, or private land where fees are required. We all get the difference between those two things, but in terms of the personal decision that has to be made about whether paying the fee is "worth it," I agree with Andrew's point (if I understood it correctly) that there really isn't much functional difference to a cacher. Good post. To your point about "worthfulness", Hancock sold out the Kapowsin tracts in less than 12 hours. 1200 permits at $350.00 a pop, so obviously some people see plenty of value there. I have no idea if Hancock is actually aware of geocaching, but I kind of suspect that if they were, they'd be charging an additional fee for hiding caches. I asked the question not because I think Hancock has no right to charge for access, but because it is not clear to me how the guidelines are suppose to function here. It's funny that you mention hypocrisy, because geocaching sometimes seems to be more about managing the hypocrisy to keep it at tolerable levels than it does about finding geocaches. The list of caches we ignore is infinitely larger than the list of caches we find, but that's just us. Everyone else is welcome to choose their own list. There are times when it seems the whole thing is a big charade and the guidelines are just pixels arranged into patterns like rorschach blots. Hmm, that might make a good puzzle cache. Quote Link to comment
+_Shaddow_ Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) I'm not responding to any one comment here, but just thought I'd express my thoughts on the "commercial" and "pay to play" elements here. I might be accused of being hypocritical, because in prior posts I've groused about the Discover Pass, and yet here I am saying I don't really have a problem with Hancock charging for recreational use of its land. I'm no staunch property-rights advocate, and I know that Hancock/its predecessors didn't pay "fair market value" for the property, but still I can't fault them for looking for a way to make money on what is their private property. (They sold the development rights of the property to King County a few years back, meaning the land can't be turned into another Snoqualmie Ridge for massive profit.) For me, gates with a possibility to gain entry for a fee are better than gates, period. And unlike the state trying to soak us by having us pay two and three times for permits (e.g., one Discover Pass for each car; and you need a Discover Pass even if you buy a daily Sno-Park pass) to use public land, Hancock is selling access to land we don't otherwise have any right to access. I agree that the price seems high, especially if your only interest is in finding a few caches. On the other hand, buying the $225 motorized use permit might well pay for itself if you factor in the ability to collect 5 cords of firewood, and the ability to get back to what may be some great, seldom-fished lakes with native trout populations. Some will pay, some will say no thanks, and that's all fine in my book. I guess my main point is that our activity fights a constant battle against land owners and managers restricting the placement of caches. Here's a vast working forest where the landowner doesn't seem to mind our activity, assuming we pay for entry. There are elements of caching that don't appeal to all of us, so we ignore those elements (e.g., for me, challenges, most virtuals, most micros, most 1-terrain caches). I guess I don't see pay-to-access caches as any different, whether we're talking about public land where fees are required, or private land where fees are required. We all get the difference between those two things, but in terms of the personal decision that has to be made about whether paying the fee is "worth it," I agree with Andrew's point (if I understood it correctly) that there really isn't much functional difference to a cacher. Good post. To your point about "worthfulness", Hancock sold out the Kapowsin tracts in less than 12 hours. 1200 permits at $350.00 a pop, so obviously some people see plenty of value there. I have no idea if Hancock is actually aware of geocaching, but I kind of suspect that if they were, they'd be charging an additional fee for hiding caches. I asked the question not because I think Hancock has no right to charge for access, but because it is not clear to me how the guidelines are suppose to function here. It's funny that you mention hypocrisy, because geocaching sometimes seems to be more about managing the hypocrisy to keep it at tolerable levels than it does about finding geocaches. The list of caches we ignore is infinitely larger than the list of caches we find, but that's just us. Everyone else is welcome to choose their own list. There are times when it seems the whole thing is a big charade and the guidelines are just pixels arranged into patterns like rorschach blots. Hmm, that might make a good puzzle cache. I think we're all in general agreement here and just want to note that there is a fundamental between the Hancock fees and the various state fees. Yes, the public land is our land, but it costs to maintain the roads, protect it against damage and so on. We have to provide that money (note that I didn't say 'pay') one way or another, either through taxes or fees -there is no other way- and therefore they aren't 'soaking us' so much as finding a way to get these funds that they currently desperately need. I also try to kind in mind that collecting funds in this way is just perceived as a more direct hit to my pocket book then the vague generalness of taxes aka it -seems- like a soaking, but that is just a feeling and not the reality. Edited January 12, 2012 by _Shaddow_ Quote Link to comment
+Dgwphotos Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 The stink... poor wording on my part, however I have heard in person several cachers raising the commercial question and being generally irritated about this. I am one of those irritated people but it wasn't really your question, but a general tone both here and in person that caused me to use those words. Again you asking the question wasn't a big stink, the situation seems to be. Wait, I'm not sure how to read this, you are defending putting caches in places that require a private fee? I guess I don't make a distinction between a private, public, or governmental organization. There is an entity requesting compensation (money) for a service (access). This to me is commercial in the relm that we are talking about, goods for services. To me it doesn't matter if the entity is a government or a private land owner. Maybe another example? The Event held at the Cougar Mountain zoo? had to pay to get in. Money for access by a non governmental organization. There's a BIG difference between public and private. For one, the government (read us as in you, me and everyone else) are charging the fee only for the cost to build and maintain and the gain is for us all, not charging over and above that ie profit ie personal gain for a single person or small group. This really doesn't seem like the place to discuss this further so I won't go on, but I do encourage you to see, understand and accept the differences. Not sure personally about the zoo event and certainly it is hard to discuss on so few details. One quick thing comes to mind, perhaps the event was outside the zoo and entering the zoo wasn't mandatory for logging an attendance for the event, could be? The Zoo event was free, as long as you mentioned that you were with the geocaching group. Quote Link to comment
+_Shaddow_ Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Great info, thanks. I still want to hear it from the PTB so will follow up with a call to the ranger station; telling the enforcement officer 'I heard it was ok by a guy in an online forum' won't fly very far Ok, here's the 'word' The main road up the valley is actually a county owned and maintained road called County Road 57 though I've noted that maps often show it as NF 5700. The road is public property and you can access National Forest land at the end without paying any Hancock fees. If you step of the road right away then you would be on Hancock property and subject to the fee. There is, at this time, no free access to the Sunday Lake valley or indirectly the Loch Katrine valley. However, the ranger as made it top priority, either through land purchase or land swap, to transfer NFD 5270 for the short 1/2 from the main road to the forest boundary. Quote Link to comment
+Lightning Jeff Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) Ok, here's the 'word' The main road up the valley is actually a county owned and maintained road called County Road 57 though I've noted that maps often show it as NF 5700. The road is public property and you can access National Forest land at the end without paying any Hancock fees. If you step of the road right away then you would be on Hancock property and subject to the fee. There is, at this time, no free access to the Sunday Lake valley or indirectly the Loch Katrine valley. However, the ranger as made it top priority, either through land purchase or land swap, to transfer NFD 5270 for the short 1/2 from the main road to the forest boundary. Thanks for posting that - and, dang. Guess I'll edit my prior post with respect to Loch Katrine Monster. It's tempting to ask Hancock, except it's probably one of those deals where it's better not to know their answer... Edited January 12, 2012 by Lightning Jeff Quote Link to comment
+_Shaddow_ Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Ok, here's the 'word' The main road up the valley is actually a county owned and maintained road called County Road 57 though I've noted that maps often show it as NF 5700. The road is public property and you can access National Forest land at the end without paying any Hancock fees. If you step of the road right away then you would be on Hancock property and subject to the fee. There is, at this time, no free access to the Sunday Lake valley or indirectly the Loch Katrine valley. However, the ranger as made it top priority, either through land purchase or land swap, to transfer NFD 5270 for the short 1/2 from the main road to the forest boundary. Thanks for posting that - and, dang. Guess I'll edit my prior post with respect to Loch Katrine Monster. It's tempting to ask Hancock, except it's probably one of those deals where it's better not to know their answer... I didn't think I saw that post, maybe I don't have a watch on that cache. Well, she did mention indirectly something like she thought that Hancock 'might' be allowing access up that road for now, but when pressed on it she kind of avoided it, and I got the feeling that was something like a rumor or something that she overheard and that she didn't want to give out inaccurate info. Personally, I think there is some chance that they would allow use of that road without a fee. I say ask, all they can say is no. I think approaching them the right way will go a long way. And hopefully they have some heart or at least know that it's in their best interest to play nice. Quote Link to comment
+Lightning Jeff Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) I didn't think I saw that post, maybe I don't have a watch on that cache. I just meant my post in this thread - I updated it. Well, she did mention indirectly something like she thought that Hancock 'might' be allowing access up that road for now, but when pressed on it she kind of avoided it, and I got the feeling that was something like a rumor or something that she overheard and that she didn't want to give out inaccurate info. I think Hancock is unlikely to push the issue, if one is simply traveling the road through their property to access the National Forest, not leaving the road and not otherwise causing problems. As far as I know, other than the perennial washouts, there's never been a problem with crossing that short stretch of Hancock (or Weyerhaeuser) land to get to Sunday Lake. (I've done so several times over the last 25 years and saw nary a soul nor sign, though admittedly haven't been there in a few years.) Of course, they've never asked $75 to hike on their property before, either, so who knows. It doesn't seem like they're giving much away these days. But I do think there's an argument in favor of ingress to the USNF land. (I also assure you that is not legal advice!) Edited January 13, 2012 by Lightning Jeff Quote Link to comment
+_Shaddow_ Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) I didn't think I saw that post, maybe I don't have a watch on that cache. I just meant my post in this thread - I updated it. Well, she did mention indirectly something like she thought that Hancock 'might' be allowing access up that road for now, but when pressed on it she kind of avoided it, and I got the feeling that was something like a rumor or something that she overheard and that she didn't want to give out inaccurate info. I think Hancock is unlikely to push the issue, if one is simply traveling the road through their property to access the National Forest, not leaving the road and not otherwise causing problems. As far as I know, other than the perennial washouts, there's never been a problem with crossing that short stretch of Hancock (or Weyerhaeuser) land to get to Sunday Lake. (I've done so several times over the last 25 years and saw nary a soul nor sign, though admittedly haven't been there in a few years.) Of course, they've never asked $75 to hike on their property before, either, so who knows. It doesn't seem like they're giving much away these days. But I do think there's an argument in favor of ingress to the USNF land. (I also assure you that is not legal advice!) Yeah, she was very clear there is no legal right for them to ensure access; it's apparently a big issue because, out of their control, land swaps are being done with land being transferred to the national forest for rights to develop other land plots. There's no guarantee that this land will be -attached- to the existing forest and they've needed up with lots and lots of isolated land plots that is, in her words, a nightmare to manage. There is one on the Google map, just to the NW of the valley road and road 5720 to Sunday Lake. I agree with you, but I'm not sure I want to be the one to go out and test the theory in person... though that touches on something I've been wondering, how will they enforce it? It's not like they can write a ticket. And law enforcement will quickly get tired of responding to trespassing calls. I've heard about the idea of enforcement at choke points, but who's going to pay an officer to enforce that private fee? It better not be public funds... Edited January 13, 2012 by _Shaddow_ Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.