Fees for placing caches in parks

[+alien55]

If you want to place a cache in a Pennsylvania state park, you need a permit and there is a $25 fee. The permit is good for three years, after which the cache has to be re-approved and another fee paid. Surprise, surprise - there aren't that many caches in PA state parks. About a year ago, a temporary ban was put on placing caches in my county parks while those in power formulated a geocaching policy. I've just found out (yes, more than a year later) that they expect to have a permit process in place in the New Year and, of course, a fee will be charged.

 

I'm interested in hearing what the deal is for placing caches in parks around the country - state and local. Are permits required? Are fees required? Is bureaucracy and cost killing our pastime in parks in some areas?

[jholly]

In Washington state the state parks require a renewable one year permit. I think they are free. My one time experience was less than satisfying. After three months after I applied they did not know what I was talking about. I hear that has been changed but I am not motivated to find out. My county parks could care less. Surrounding municipalities could care less. We have lots of acreage around here that is privately held tree farms. When asking the company forester about hiding caches the response was "Go for it." Some of the tree farm companies do require an expensive permit to use the land and I think to hide a cache. I have not been able to find any restrictions on state held forests, other than if you drive or park in them you need a permit. The national forests in the west are pretty liberal with cache hiding. They do have restricted areas but with the unrestricted areas so large I don't view that as problem. There is lots of tribal land and as with all private property permission is required. Some tribes do not permit it, some do. I live on a reservation and the local tribe does permit them, but the explicit warning of no metal detectors or digging is given.

[Luckless]

That's too bad as geocaching does bring people into the parks and generates interest and revenue- maybe not a lot, but some. There are no fees for caches in state parks here. We placed twenty caches in a state park here and the park ranger was surprised every time someone commented to him on the caches. He wasn't expecting hearing that much about them and was surprised to see all the interest.

[Mr.Yuck]

If you want to place a cache in a Pennsylvania state park, you need a permit and there is a $25 fee. The permit is good for three years, after which the cache has to be re-approved and another fee paid. Surprise, surprise - there aren't that many caches in PA state parks. About a year ago, a temporary ban was put on placing caches in my county parks while those in power formulated a geocaching policy. I've just found out (yes, more than a year later) that they expect to have a permit process in place in the New Year and, of course, a fee will be charged.

 

I'm interested in hearing what the deal is for placing caches in parks around the country - state and local. Are permits required? Are fees required? Is bureaucracy and cost killing our pastime in parks in some areas?

 

I live in an adjoining State (New York), so don't take my word for it, and I could be totally wrong, but I'm of the opinion the Commonwealth of Pa. led the way on a crazy $25 fee for cache permits. It can't possibly be the first political entity in all of North America to charge a fee, but it probably hadn't (or still hasn't) been done on that scale. Nice to see a County within Pa. following suit with a fee. (that was sarcasm). I think the fee has been in place 2-3 years, so I'm surprised more Counties in Pa. aren't doing the same.

 

By the way, I don't think it's a revenue grab, just some "person at the top who made the policy", who was clueless other States weren't charging.

[+Isonzo Karst]

There are a number of land managers at the city, county, regional and state level in Florida with geocaching permits. All are free.

[+niraD]

Here are a few geocaching policies from around here:

Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department (no permit, no fee)

Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (no permit, no fee, and a program to encourage geocaching)

East Bay Regional Park District (no permit, no fee)

California State Parks (no permit, no fee, and a list of state parks allowing geocaching)

 

Also, the Fort Ord Public Lands (managed by BLM) had a policy that required a permit and a fee (around $90 for 3 years, based on bits and pieces I put together). But the current BLM geocaching policy doesn't say anything about permits or fees.

[+alien55]

That's too bad as geocaching does bring people into the parks and generates interest and revenue- maybe not a lot, but some. There are no fees for caches in state parks here. We placed twenty caches in a state park here and the park ranger was surprised every time someone commented to him on the caches. He wasn't expecting hearing that much about them and was surprised to see all the interest.

Where are you located?

[+NeverSummer]

Minnesota State Parks do not allow caches that have been placed by the general public, and many Minnesota county parks have permits and/or fees.

 

Alaska State Parks require a permit, and each year Advocacy Committee members must renegotiate the terms of the new permit.

 

Many other agencies charge fees or have some kind of permit process, both federal and state.

 

Now, this is the important part:

Parks and public lands do not have the funding resources to devote time to permitting, checking on cache locations for updates to compatability determinations or special use permitting processes, or other projects relating to geocaching as an outside land use input. The fees help to offset 2 things: number of caches to check on, and the time/money it takes to deal with the permitting and use processes related to geocaching activities on their administered land.

 

If you don't want to pay a fee, start working on larger-scale volunteer efforts with those parks and land managing agencies, and vote to increase the funding of those very park and land systems so that they have staff who can work on the required paperwork and logisitics of allowing geocaching activities to occur on their managed lands.

Edited November 14, 2013 by NeverSummer

[+Fridge01]

The county I live in allows us to place geocaches in county parks without asking their permission each time. In exchange we do CITO events at county parks. I'ts kind of an unwritten agreement between us and them. It helps to have a good relation with whoever is in charge. Bureaucrats would rather not deal with it. The town I live in does not allow geocaches in neighborhood parks because they are paid for with local moneys and not intended for non-residents. no Cito's for them. Other managed areas require written permission for each cache which are generally allowed with more stringent saturation limits. Bottom line, every type of park is different.

Edited November 14, 2013 by Fridge01

[Clan Riffster]

Parks and public lands do not have the funding resources to devote time to permitting, checking on cache locations for updates to compatability determinations or special use permitting processes, or other projects relating to geocaching as an outside land use input. The fees help to offset 2 things: number of caches to check on, and the time/money it takes to deal with the permitting and use processes related to geocaching activities on their administered land.

And yet, the vast majority of land managers across the United States manage to deal with geocaching just fine without charging obnoxious fees. I suspect the reason for this is their views on the hobby. Of those who are aware of the hobby, (most are), the vast majority that I've dealt with either personally, or third party, view this hobby as a benign use of their resources, which generate income, without costing them more than a few minutes of time, assuming they have a permit process in place. I think that those land managers who do implement a fee fall into two categories; either they are clueless bureaucrats who feel they have to justify their existence, or they are opposed to the hobby and created a punitive fee system to reduce the number of caches placed on their properties.

[+JL_HSTRE]

Park systems charging a fee for cache placements are actually LOSING money: the fees (nearly always prohibitive) mean few or no caches are placed meaning all the geocachers that could be visiting the parks have alot less of a reason to show up and pay the entry fees that help keep the parks open.

[Luckless]

That's too bad as geocaching does bring people into the parks and generates interest and revenue- maybe not a lot, but some. There are no fees for caches in state parks here. We placed twenty caches in a state park here and the park ranger was surprised every time someone commented to him on the caches. He wasn't expecting hearing that much about them and was surprised to see all the interest.

Where are you located?

 

I'm in New York. You do need to fill out a two year permit to place a geocache in a state park (no fee). There is an admission fee to enter the park when the parks are in operation during the summertime.

[+cerberus1]

Park systems charging a fee for cache placements are actually LOSING money: the fees (nearly always prohibitive) mean few or no caches are placed meaning all the geocachers that could be visiting the parks have alot less of a reason to show up and pay the entry fees that help keep the parks open.

You have entry fees? We don't in PA.

That may be why some other State's parks don't charge for placement.

- They're getting cash from all who show up, possibly far exceeding a one-time 25 dollar fee.

[+giddeanx]

If you want to place a cache in a Pennsylvania state park, you need a permit and there is a $25 fee. The permit is good for three years, after which the cache has to be re-approved and another fee paid. Surprise, surprise - there aren't that many caches in PA state parks. About a year ago, a temporary ban was put on placing caches in my county parks while those in power formulated a geocaching policy. I've just found out (yes, more than a year later) that they expect to have a permit process in place in the New Year and, of course, a fee will be charged.

 

I'm interested in hearing what the deal is for placing caches in parks around the country - state and local. Are permits required? Are fees required? Is bureaucracy and cost killing our pastime in parks in some areas?

 

I live in an adjoining State (New York), so don't take my word for it, and I could be totally wrong, but I'm of the opinion the Commonwealth of Pa. led the way on a crazy $25 fee for cache permits. It can't possibly be the first political entity in all of North America to charge a fee, but it probably hadn't (or still hasn't) been done on that scale. Nice to see a County within Pa. following suit with a fee. (that was sarcasm). I think the fee has been in place 2-3 years, so I'm surprised more Counties in Pa. aren't doing the same.

 

By the way, I don't think it's a revenue grab, just some "person at the top who made the policy", who was clueless other States weren't charging.

 

I would say this (the fee) is more of a soft no. That way they can have less of an activity they don't like and don't have to make a stand at the same time. It also prevents you from making a stand against them. What is more political than that?

[+cerberus1]

If you want to place a cache in a Pennsylvania state park, you need a permit and there is a $25 fee. The permit is good for three years, after which the cache has to be re-approved and another fee paid. Surprise, surprise - there aren't that many caches in PA state parks.

Actually, it's a bit more involved than that.

As per their site:

•A cache may remain at the approved site for no more than three years at which time it must be removed, the site restored to its original condition, and the Park Manager / District Forester informed in writing of the removal. This will control cache abandonment and assist in preventing renegade trail development to the site. Certain conditions may constitute the re-approval of an existing cache that has been on State Park or State Forest lands for three years. If the cache remains a viable attribute to the visitor experience and does not have a current or foreseeable environmental impact on the site, it can be considered for re-approval. Park Managers/District Foresters should use their discretion to determine if the cache(s) meets the aforementioned conditions.

 

- So not all caches are "re-approved" by coughing up the dough.

 

I didn't see it mentioned that the $25. fee had to be paid again if it, "remains a viable attribute to the visitor experience and does not have a current or foreseeable environmental impact on the site" and is allowed to stay.

Please show me were you found that.

[+alien55]

If you want to place a cache in a Pennsylvania state park, you need a permit and there is a $25 fee. The permit is good for three years, after which the cache has to be re-approved and another fee paid. Surprise, surprise - there aren't that many caches in PA state parks.

Actually, it's a bit more involved than that.

As per their site:

•A cache may remain at the approved site for no more than three years at which time it must be removed, the site restored to its original condition, and the Park Manager / District Forester informed in writing of the removal. This will control cache abandonment and assist in preventing renegade trail development to the site. Certain conditions may constitute the re-approval of an existing cache that has been on State Park or State Forest lands for three years. If the cache remains a viable attribute to the visitor experience and does not have a current or foreseeable environmental impact on the site, it can be considered for re-approval. Park Managers/District Foresters should use their discretion to determine if the cache(s) meets the aforementioned conditions.

 

- So not all caches are "re-approved" by coughing up the dough.

 

I didn't see it mentioned that the $25. fee had to be paid again if it, "remains a viable attribute to the visitor experience and does not have a current or foreseeable environmental impact on the site" and is allowed to stay.

Please show me were you found that.

I might have assumed that a new fee had to be paid. Sorry if I got that wrong.

However, the initial fee is proving to be enough to deter cache placement.

[+Touchstone]

Also, the Fort Ord Public Lands (managed by BLM) had a policy that required a permit and a fee (around $90 for 3 years, based on bits and pieces I put together). But the current BLM geocaching policy doesn't say anything about permits or fees.

 

They sort of gave up on that idea. All caches in the Monument must be approved however.

[+NeverSummer]

Parks and public lands do not have the funding resources to devote time to permitting, checking on cache locations for updates to compatability determinations or special use permitting processes, or other projects relating to geocaching as an outside land use input. The fees help to offset 2 things: number of caches to check on, and the time/money it takes to deal with the permitting and use processes related to geocaching activities on their administered land.

And yet, the vast majority of land managers across the United States manage to deal with geocaching just fine without charging obnoxious fees. I suspect the reason for this is their views on the hobby. Of those who are aware of the hobby, (most are), the vast majority that I've dealt with either personally, or third party, view this hobby as a benign use of their resources, which generate income, without costing them more than a few minutes of time, assuming they have a permit process in place.

Yes, and no.

 

Other than agency-wide policies, each station manager (at least so long as we're talking about the Federal agencies) is in charge of their station and its resources. So, yes, those Managers have every right to create a station policy about geocaching. That policy can be based on personal feeling, but is always based on overarching CFR documents which deal with geocaching or related activities on federal public lands.

 

So. The way to work on this is, as we discuss in every single one of these threads, is to get involved in volunteering at the site, work on educating-- not correcting or declaring--managers, and engaging those at the stations whose mission objectives (inputs) would be suitably assisted with the addition of a geocaching program (output).

 

Want to learn more? Contact me through my profile.

 

There are ways to make positive changes to policies if you know how the system works. And, unfortunately, the more people get upset, pout, rant, bloviate or simply all-out ignore existing guidelines, laws, and regulations (or all of the above), the worse it gets, and the harder it is to recover from when someone with the "right" approach comes along.

 

I think that those land managers who do implement a fee fall into two categories; either they are clueless bureaucrats who feel they have to justify their existence, or they are opposed to the hobby and created a punitive fee system to reduce the number of caches placed on their properties.

I'll see your two, and raise you another one. They know, from Natural Resource Management models, theories and general standard operating proceedures that a fee structure is how one deals with a Special Usage of lands in many cases. See: Fees for large gatherings on National Forest Lands, ATV permits, e.g.

 

It doesn't have to be one or the other of what you mention, and I'll guess from personal experience that there are far fewer station managers or even regional directors who would fall into the punitive bureaucrat camp. That's just an easy straw man to create when something doesn't go your way when talking about government.

Edited November 15, 2013 by NeverSummer

[+cerberus1]

I've been bad-mouthing our State parks for years over this cache thing and now I'm not so sure they deserved it.

We've been able to hike, bike, hunt and fish our State parks for years without paying an admissions fee.

 

A few here are saying they pay entrance fees.

One park we visited in another State didn't have an entrance fee, they charged for parking.

Another park (another State) has a friend's caches I won't grab, due to having to purchase a 10 dollar weekend pass, but when we asked "all they had were seasonal left" (really?).

- We'd be there one day (maybe six hours) at most. We visited relatives instead.

 

If a fee's needed for checking cache placement, but everyone can visit for free, maybe they aren't so backwards afterall.

[Clan Riffster]

It doesn't have to be one or the other of what you mention, and I'll guess from personal experience that there are far fewer station managers or even regional directors who would fall into the punitive bureaucrat camp. That's just an easy straw man to create when something doesn't go your way when talking about government.

A question then. Since, in my particular case, everything did go my way, would it be realistic to dismiss my beliefs as strawmen? A few examples:

 

When the Seminole County Natural Lands folks learned about geocaching, they wanted it ended entirely on their properties. Along with a Reviewer and a UCF professor, I sat down with the head dude and we eased their concerns about the hobby, and helped them hammer out a geocaching policy based on facts, not fears.

 

When the Senior Forester of the Little Big Econ State Forest found out about caching, he too wanted it ended. He demanded that all geocaches be removed from their forest, immediately. I sat down with him, and a couple hours later, got his total ban turned into a moratorium against future caches. Then, I spent a couple years getting the moratorium lifted, and a permit process set in place. Now, I act as a volunteer for the Florida Forestry Service, issuing these permits.

 

When Seminole County Parks & Recreation found out about the hobby, they were inquisitive. I was able to convince them that the existing guidelines, enforced by Groundspeak, would protect their interests, and free them from having to deal with a permit system.

 

The local dude in charge of issuing permits for the St. Johns River Water Management District recently expressed concerns that one player was dominating an entire geographic region with, in my opinion, less than stellar hides. I sat down with him and suggested several avenues he could take to avoid this happening again. I haven't heard back yet, if he's opted to implement those changes, but I'm hopeful.

 

When the National Forest Service decided they would impose a fairly steep fee for each cache placed, I researched the rules which were cited in the creation of this fee. Then I started a letter writing campaign all the way up the food chain, demonstrating that the logic trail of the person who cited the rule in question was flawed. The head dude agreed, and now three national forests are open to caching again.

 

All that text was not to blow my own horn. Instead, I wished to demonstrate that I have gotten directly involved, several times, with senior land managers, in a bid to preserve this hobby for future enthusiasts. I not only talk the talk. I also walk the walk. As such, suggesting that I came up with a derogatory motivation for some land managers as a strawman is a bit absurd.

Edited November 15, 2013 by Clan Riffster

[+NeverSummer]

It doesn't have to be one or the other of what you mention, and I'll guess from personal experience that there are far fewer station managers or even regional directors who would fall into the punitive bureaucrat camp. That's just an easy straw man to create when something doesn't go your way when talking about government.

A question then. Since, in my particular case, everything did go my way, would it be realistic to dismiss my beliefs as strawmen? A few examples:

 

When the Seminole County Natural Lands folks learned about geocaching, they wanted it ended entirely on their properties. Along with a Reviewer and a UCF professor, I sat down with the head dude and we eased their concerns about the hobby, and helped them hammer out a geocaching policy based on facts, not fears.

 

When the Senior Forester of the Little Big Econ State Forest found out about caching, he too wanted it ended. He demanded that all geocaches be removed from their forest, immediately. I sat down with him, and a couple hours later, got his total ban turned into a moratorium against future caches. Then, I spent a couple years getting the moratorium lifted, and a permit process set in place. Now, I act as a volunteer for the Florida Forestry Service, issuing these permits.

 

When Seminole County Parks & Recreation found out about the hobby, they were inquisitive. I was able to convince them that the existing guidelines, enforced by Groundspeak, would protect their interests, and free them from having to deal with a permit system.

 

The local dude in charge of issuing permits for the St. Johns River Water Management District recently expressed concerns that one player was dominating an entire geographic region with, in my opinion, less than stellar hides. I sat down with him and suggested several avenues he could take to avoid this happening again. I haven't heard back yet, if he's opted to implement those changes, but I'm hopeful.

 

When the National Forest Service decided they would impose a fairly steep fee for each cache placed, I researched the rules which were cited in the creation of this fee. Then I started a letter writing campaign all the way up the food chain, demonstrating that the logic trail of the person who cited the rule in question was flawed. The head dude agreed, and now three national forests are open to caching again.

 

All that text was not to blow my own horn. Instead, I wished to demonstrate that I have gotten directly involved, several times, with senior land managers, in a bid to preserve this hobby for future enthusiasts. I not only talk the talk. I also walk the walk. As such, suggesting that I came up with a derogatory motivation for some land managers as a strawman is a bit absurd.

Riffster, take a step back. I wasn't calling your observations unfounded. It's just a little tiresome as someone behind the curtain to hear more of the "it's punative and bureucratic" talk.

 

Like I said, in my personal experinence--as well as supported by your examples, it wasn't punitive. It wasn't unnecessarily bureaucratic.

 

People in general like to use that straw man, but you and I see how we can work within the construct of the systems to find common ground and keep land open, open land for use, or develop processes that can protect and maintain the mission-oriented outputs a station wants and needs to have in place.

 

My use of your quote was not intended to call you out more than to add what I said about a third option. That much was "calling you out". And that much was pretty soft, because we agree about this subject. Read it for what I said, and realize that part of it was a response, and the rest of it was a statement put out to the rest of the readers here. You and I are like minded on this subject so far as I can tell...save for the one-of-two options you laid out.

Edited November 15, 2013 by NeverSummer

[+Mn-treker]

Hey NeverSummer I think that your info is wrong here. Minnesota State parks do allow geocache placement. Permit required (free) and I do not know of any county park that has a fee for permits for geocache placement.

There are many county parks that require nothing at all and welcome geocachers. It gets people into the parks, one city parks department even had prize for finding all in a series for a particular cache series.

 

Minnesota State Parks do not allow caches that have been placed by the general public, and many Minnesota county parks have permits and/or fees.

 

Alaska State Parks require a permit, and each year Advocacy Committee members must renegotiate the terms of the new permit.

 

Many other agencies charge fees or have some kind of permit process, both federal and state.

 

Now, this is the important part:

Parks and public lands do not have the funding resources to devote time to permitting, checking on cache locations for updates to compatability determinations or special use permitting processes, or other projects relating to geocaching as an outside land use input. The fees help to offset 2 things: number of caches to check on, and the time/money it takes to deal with the permitting and use processes related to geocaching activities on their administered land.

 

If you don't want to pay a fee, start working on larger-scale volunteer efforts with those parks and land managing agencies, and vote to increase the funding of those very park and land systems so that they have staff who can work on the required paperwork and logisitics of allowing geocaching activities to occur on their managed lands.

[+NeverSummer]

Hey NeverSummer I think that your info is wrong here. Minnesota State parks do allow geocache placement. Permit required (free) and I do not know of any county park that has a fee for permits for geocache placement.

There are many county parks that require nothing at all and welcome geocachers. It gets people into the parks, one city parks department even had prize for finding all in a series for a particular cache series.

 

Minnesota State Parks do not allow caches that have been placed by the general public, and many Minnesota county parks have permits and/or fees.

 

Alaska State Parks require a permit, and each year Advocacy Committee members must renegotiate the terms of the new permit.

 

Many other agencies charge fees or have some kind of permit process, both federal and state.

 

Now, this is the important part:

Parks and public lands do not have the funding resources to devote time to permitting, checking on cache locations for updates to compatability determinations or special use permitting processes, or other projects relating to geocaching as an outside land use input. The fees help to offset 2 things: number of caches to check on, and the time/money it takes to deal with the permitting and use processes related to geocaching activities on their administered land.

 

If you don't want to pay a fee, start working on larger-scale volunteer efforts with those parks and land managing agencies, and vote to increase the funding of those very park and land systems so that they have staff who can work on the required paperwork and logisitics of allowing geocaching activities to occur on their managed lands.

It's been a while, so things might be different now.

I remember when MN State Parks didn't allow caches. Then they had their own sponsored caches for 2 years in a row. For some reason I had it in my head that they didn't allow caches.

 

I'd have to go through every single policy, but here is the link to the current MN lands policies that the MNGCA has on file currently.

[Mr.Yuck]

Park systems charging a fee for cache placements are actually LOSING money: the fees (nearly always prohibitive) mean few or no caches are placed meaning all the geocachers that could be visiting the parks have alot less of a reason to show up and pay the entry fees that help keep the parks open.

You have entry fees? We don't in PA.

That may be why some other State's parks don't charge for placement.

- They're getting cash from all who show up, possibly far exceeding a one-time 25 dollar fee.

 

Eh, I'm no State Park Expert, but I'm not familiar with too many States that charge an entrance fee. New York, of course, but they kill us for everything here. I'm pretty certain I've seen language in the Pa. State Park Policy that makes it clear the fee is for the time wasted by the park rangers filling out the paperwork, and going and looking at the cache location. Not that it actually says "time wasted", that's just implied though.

[4wheelin_fool]

I've found several in NY with the proper permit sticker and all, expired way past its date. I don't think they are doing much monitoring, or are concerned too much about the activity.

Edited November 15, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

[Keystone]

I live in an adjoining State (New York), so don't take my word for it, and I could be totally wrong, but I'm of the opinion the Commonwealth of Pa. led the way on a crazy $25 fee for cache permits. It can't possibly be the first political entity in all of North America to charge a fee, but it probably hadn't (or still hasn't) been done on that scale. Nice to see a County within Pa. following suit with a fee. (that was sarcasm). I think the fee has been in place 2-3 years, so I'm surprised more Counties in Pa. aren't doing the same.

 

By the way, I don't think it's a revenue grab, just some "person at the top who made the policy", who was clueless other States weren't charging.

 

I would say this (the fee) is more of a soft no. That way they can have less of an activity they don't like and don't have to make a stand at the same time. It also prevents you from making a stand against them. What is more political than that?

I think both your theories are wrong as applied to PA State Parks, though they may be correct elsewhere. As the senior cache reviewer for Pennsylvania, who got that job shortly after being part of the group of geocachers who negotiated PA DCNR's original policy, let me explain why.

 

Back in 2002 when PA DCNR announced a desire to regulate geocache placements, the State Parks were more pro-caching than the State Forests. The original policy was a compromise between the two agencies and involved a two-step paperwork process, but no fee. Lots of caches got placed in Parks, who were quick to grant approval and helpful in suggesting good areas, while few caches were placed in State Forests, whose rangers took months to respond to permit requests.

 

From personal experience from 2003 through the time when the fee was introduced, PA State Parks were most definitely pro-geocaching. It is not "an activity they don't like." I published hundreds of state park caches. I hid four myself, in the same park where I hosted the world's first CITO Event.

 

What happened was that the financially strapped DCNR said that all ancillary activities in State Parks had to be self-sustaining, through permits, use fees or otherwise. As noted, there are no entrance fees or park passes in Pennsylvania. The State Parks chose to impose a permit fee to cover the cost of the environmental review, staff time in processing the paperwork, etc.

 

Once the fee went into effect, the rate of state park cache placements plunged faster than a dress on prom night. At the same time, state forest placements picked up a bit, as they do not charge a fee for their permit. State Game Land cache placement rates have skyrocketed, as there's no paperwork OR fee involved there. All three agencies still support geocaching. Several state parks continue to hide caches, including for the "Ranger Rick" series.

 

It's important to note that State Park managers may waive the fee in exchange for the cache owner organizing a CITO event, introduction to geocaching event, trail-building day, or other service to the park. And, they've been pretty good in looking the other way when caches placed prior to the fee system reached their three-year expiration date.

[+hydnsek]

In Washington state, the state parks require a renewable one year permit. I think they are free. My one time experience was less than satisfying. After three months after I applied they did not know what I was talking about. I hear that has been changed but I am not motivated to find out.

 

Washington State has great geocaching policies at all levels - city, county, state, federal - and all are free. Permits are only required at state and federal levels here; no counties or cities require permits (with one exception).

 

Federal - All National Park units (NPS, NRA, etc.) require permission for cache placements, but North Cascades NP has permitted two physical caches so far, and Mt St Helens National Monument has also permitted a couple. All our US Forest Service lands allow caching without permits or fees.

 

State - Washington State Parks requires permits for all caches, but they significantly revised their Geocaching Directive last year based on WSGA's input. Permits are now easier to get and don't have end dates. Jholly aside, cachers and state parks now have a very positive relationship and better understanding of how to work together thanks to our current Washington State Park Centennial GeoTour, which WSGA spearheaded in partnership with the state parks.

 

County, City - All cities and counties in Washington allow caching on their lands without permits or fees; only one community (Anacortes) requires permits. WSGA has successfully negotiated with several cities and counties to avoid permit systems and reverse caching bans, largely through our Park Liaison Program.

 

Having a statewide geocaching organization (WSGA) that actively works with parks on geocaching has had a hugely positive impact on land managers. By educating them on geocaching, its guidelines, recreational aspects, and the way it can drive awareness, visitation, education, and revenue, we've changed minds and developed a lot of great park partners.

Edited November 15, 2013 by hydnsek

[+jellis]

In Washington state the state parks require a renewable one year permit. I think they are free. My one time experience was less than satisfying. After three months after I applied they did not know what I was talking about. I hear that has been changed but I am not motivated to find out. My county parks could care less. Surrounding municipalities could care less. We have lots of acreage around here that is privately held tree farms. When asking the company forester about hiding caches the response was "Go for it." Some of the tree farm companies do require an expensive permit to use the land and I think to hide a cache. I have not been able to find any restrictions on state held forests, other than if you drive or park in them you need a permit. The national forests in the west are pretty liberal with cache hiding. They do have restricted areas but with the unrestricted areas so large I don't view that as problem. There is lots of tribal land and as with all private property permission is required. Some tribes do not permit it, some do. I live on a reservation and the local tribe does permit them, but the explicit warning of no metal detectors or digging is given.

Those were great, the only problem was when they first farmed the trees the caches were easy to find when placed. Later they became harder and the difficulty rating would almost need changing as the trees grew back.

[+jellis]

In Washington state, the state parks require a renewable one year permit. I think they are free. My one time experience was less than satisfying. After three months after I applied they did not know what I was talking about. I hear that has been changed but I am not motivated to find out.

 

Washington State has good geocaching policies at all levels - city, county, state, federal - and all are free. Permits are only required at state and federal levels here; no counties or cities require permits (with one exception).

 

Federal - All National Park units require permission for cache placements, but North Cascades NP has permitted two physical caches so far.

 

State - Washington State Parks requires permits for all caches, but they significantly revised their Geocaching Directive last year based on WSGA's input. Permits are now easier to get and don't have end dates. Jholly aside, cachers and state parks now have a very positive relationship and better understanding of how to work together thanks to our current Washington State Park Centennial GeoTour, which WSGA spearheaded in partnership with the state parks.

 

County, City - All cities and counties in Washington allow caching on their lands, without permits or fees, and only one community (Anacortes) requires permits. WSGA has successfully negotiated with several cities and counties to avoid permit systems and reverse caching bans, thanks to our Park Liaison Program.

I liked WA State Parks' policy. I didn't mine going to the Park Manager and asking to place caches in Rainbow Falls park. They had me fill out the forms and I thought it great because instead of removing a cache if there was an issue, they would contact you and you wouldn't be surprised if your cache was missing because they removed it, cause they knew who owned them, where they were located and how to contact you.

I wish other parks would do it. I have suggested it to our Regional Parks but they said it's too much paper work. I think it less of a hassle then having visitors reporting finding a suspicious container, the having the police coming to blow them up.

$25 is high but paying to hide a few for maybe $5 each would be a nice contribution and they would know you are going to maintain the cache.

[+giddeanx]

I live in an adjoining State (New York), so don't take my word for it, and I could be totally wrong, but I'm of the opinion the Commonwealth of Pa. led the way on a crazy $25 fee for cache permits. It can't possibly be the first political entity in all of North America to charge a fee, but it probably hadn't (or still hasn't) been done on that scale. Nice to see a County within Pa. following suit with a fee. (that was sarcasm). I think the fee has been in place 2-3 years, so I'm surprised more Counties in Pa. aren't doing the same.

 

By the way, I don't think it's a revenue grab, just some "person at the top who made the policy", who was clueless other States weren't charging.

 

I would say this (the fee) is more of a soft no. That way they can have less of an activity they don't like and don't have to make a stand at the same time. It also prevents you from making a stand against them. What is more political than that?

I think both your theories are wrong as applied to PA State Parks, though they may be correct elsewhere. As the senior cache reviewer for Pennsylvania, who got that job shortly after being part of the group of geocachers who negotiated PA DCNR's original policy, let me explain why.

 

Back in 2002 when PA DCNR announced a desire to regulate geocache placements, the State Parks were more pro-caching than the State Forests. The original policy was a compromise between the two agencies and involved a two-step paperwork process, but no fee. Lots of caches got placed in Parks, who were quick to grant approval and helpful in suggesting good areas, while few caches were placed in State Forests, whose rangers took months to respond to permit requests.

 

From personal experience from 2003 through the time when the fee was introduced, PA State Parks were most definitely pro-geocaching. It is not "an activity they don't like." I published hundreds of state park caches. I hid four myself, in the same park where I hosted the world's first CITO Event.

 

What happened was that the financially strapped DCNR said that all ancillary activities in State Parks had to be self-sustaining, through permits, use fees or otherwise. As noted, there are no entrance fees or park passes in Pennsylvania. The State Parks chose to impose a permit fee to cover the cost of the environmental review, staff time in processing the paperwork, etc.

 

Once the fee went into effect, the rate of state park cache placements plunged faster than a dress on prom night. At the same time, state forest placements picked up a bit, as they do not charge a fee for their permit. State Game Land cache placement rates have skyrocketed, as there's no paperwork OR fee involved there. All three agencies still support geocaching. Several state parks continue to hide caches, including for the "Ranger Rick" series.

 

It's important to note that State Park managers may waive the fee in exchange for the cache owner organizing a CITO event, introduction to geocaching event, trail-building day, or other service to the park. And, they've been pretty good in looking the other way when caches placed prior to the fee system reached their three-year expiration date.

 

Ah that is interesting. So the fee really was put in place so they could keep allowing geocaching. With the $25 dollars compensation for the Rangers half-hour to hour of work. Thank you for the history lesson.

[+alien55]

I live in an adjoining State (New York), so don't take my word for it, and I could be totally wrong, but I'm of the opinion the Commonwealth of Pa. led the way on a crazy $25 fee for cache permits. It can't possibly be the first political entity in all of North America to charge a fee, but it probably hadn't (or still hasn't) been done on that scale. Nice to see a County within Pa. following suit with a fee. (that was sarcasm). I think the fee has been in place 2-3 years, so I'm surprised more Counties in Pa. aren't doing the same.

 

By the way, I don't think it's a revenue grab, just some "person at the top who made the policy", who was clueless other States weren't charging.

 

I would say this (the fee) is more of a soft no. That way they can have less of an activity they don't like and don't have to make a stand at the same time. It also prevents you from making a stand against them. What is more political than that?

I think both your theories are wrong as applied to PA State Parks, though they may be correct elsewhere. As the senior cache reviewer for Pennsylvania, who got that job shortly after being part of the group of geocachers who negotiated PA DCNR's original policy, let me explain why.

 

Back in 2002 when PA DCNR announced a desire to regulate geocache placements, the State Parks were more pro-caching than the State Forests. The original policy was a compromise between the two agencies and involved a two-step paperwork process, but no fee. Lots of caches got placed in Parks, who were quick to grant approval and helpful in suggesting good areas, while few caches were placed in State Forests, whose rangers took months to respond to permit requests.

 

From personal experience from 2003 through the time when the fee was introduced, PA State Parks were most definitely pro-geocaching. It is not "an activity they don't like." I published hundreds of state park caches. I hid four myself, in the same park where I hosted the world's first CITO Event.

 

What happened was that the financially strapped DCNR said that all ancillary activities in State Parks had to be self-sustaining, through permits, use fees or otherwise. As noted, there are no entrance fees or park passes in Pennsylvania. The State Parks chose to impose a permit fee to cover the cost of the environmental review, staff time in processing the paperwork, etc.

 

Once the fee went into effect, the rate of state park cache placements plunged faster than a dress on prom night. At the same time, state forest placements picked up a bit, as they do not charge a fee for their permit. State Game Land cache placement rates have skyrocketed, as there's no paperwork OR fee involved there. All three agencies still support geocaching. Several state parks continue to hide caches, including for the "Ranger Rick" series.

 

It's important to note that State Park managers may waive the fee in exchange for the cache owner organizing a CITO event, introduction to geocaching event, trail-building day, or other service to the park. And, they've been pretty good in looking the other way when caches placed prior to the fee system reached their three-year expiration date.

Thanks for that background, Keystone. Are you aware of many PA county park systems that require fees and permits? As I noted in my original post, Bucks county parks are going to introduce permits and fees next year. Is this a trend I wonder?

[+farrtom]

If you want to place a cache in a Pennsylvania state park, you need a permit and there is a $25 fee. The permit is good for three years, after which the cache has to be re-approved and another fee paid. Surprise, surprise - there aren't that many caches in PA state parks. About a year ago, a temporary ban was put on placing caches in my county parks while those in power formulated a geocaching policy. I've just found out (yes, more than a year later) that they expect to have a permit process in place in the New Year and, of course, a fee will be charged.

 

I'm interested in hearing what the deal is for placing caches in parks around the country - state and local. Are permits required? Are fees required? Is bureaucracy and cost killing our pastime in parks in some areas?

 

The Wyoming State Parks that I have contacted about hiding caches in have been great. I don't think they have an official policy (I couldn't find one online) but both times when I have contact the superintendent they have said no problem and just to let them know where we are placing them.

I have also contacted the Idaho Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and they have been very easy to work with. They have not only set up very easy policies to follow but they also have a series of caches throughout the state promoting using public lands. http://www.blm.gov/id/st/en/prog/recreation/what_do_you_want_to/Geocaching.html

 

I guess things are a little easier out here in the west.

[+GeoTrekker26]

Here are a few geocaching policies from around here:

Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department (no permit, no fee)

Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (no permit, no fee, and a program to encourage geocaching)

East Bay Regional Park District (no permit, no fee)

California State Parks (no permit, no fee, and a list of state parks allowing geocaching)

 

Also, the Fort Ord Public Lands (managed by BLM) had a policy that required a permit and a fee (around $90 for 3 years, based on bits and pieces I put together). But the current BLM geocaching policy doesn't say anything about permits or fees.

 

Darin, thanks for the link to the list of California parks geocache policy.

[Keystone]

Thanks for that background, Keystone. Are you aware of many PA county park systems that require fees and permits? As I noted in my original post, Bucks county parks are going to introduce permits and fees next year. Is this a trend I wonder?

Other Pennsylvania counties with geocache permit requirements include Allegheny, Bucks, Centre, Chester, Montgomery and York. None of these have fees associated with the permits. Several counties modeled their policies after the PA DCNR policy.

 

Permits and prohibitions are nothing new, at the state, county or local level. Fees are more the exception than the rule. A quick review of the Regional Land Manager Policy wiki will confirm this.

[Luckless]

I've been bad-mouthing our State parks for years over this cache thing and now I'm not so sure they deserved it.

We've been able to hike, bike, hunt and fish our State parks for years without paying an admissions fee.

 

A few here are saying they pay entrance fees.

One park we visited in another State didn't have an entrance fee, they charged for parking.

Another park (another State) has a friend's caches I won't grab, due to having to purchase a 10 dollar weekend pass, but when we asked "all they had were seasonal left" (reall y?).

- We'd be there one day (maybe six hours) at most. We visited relatives instead.

 

If a fee's needed for checking cache placement, but everyone can visit for free, maybe they aren't so backwards afterall.

 

Here in New York where I am I can look for a cache in a state park now- off season- no admission fee- although some parks have hunting and those areas are restricted for the hunting season.

The admission fee during the summer is applied to the car not how many people in the car (well I'm not sure if there is a limit). People over 62 diving the car do not have to pay to enter the park. I used to always get my mother -over 62- to drive me in to check on my caches- no admission fee. You can also enter without a fee after hours.

Most people paying an entrance fee are probably there visiting the park and would probably pay it ($7) anyway regardless of whether or not they go geocaching. An Empire Passport can be had for $65 which allows you into most any state park throughout the state for that year.

I might pay one or two admission fees a year to visit the park and check on my cache while there.

[+NeverSummer]

Ah that is interesting. So the fee really was put in place so they could keep allowing geocaching. With the $25 dollars compensation for the Rangers half-hour to hour of work. Thank you for the history lesson.

:laughing: :laughing: Bahahahaaha!

 

Yeah, $25 for creating, filling out, filing, maintaining a database, meeting with interested associations or individuals, coordinating with other managers and their superiors if questions or concerns come up, adding routine checks to their patrols. Half-hour to an hour. Right.

 

Therein is another "lazy government" stereotype I don't care much for.

 

Versus putting in 2 hours for a CITO with a dozen or so other geocachers once a year, voting for folks who would replace previous budgets to land agencies, or donating money to "Friends of X Park", or just paying the $25. At least one can actually place a cache there, thanks to the efforts of other advocates who put in their time to get a place to stay open to geocaching or reopen for geocaching.

 

Sorry...burr in my boot today.

[Clan Riffster]

It's just a little tiresome as someone behind the curtain to hear more of the "it's punative and bureucratic" talk.

I speak Bureaucrat fluently.

 

In the examples I cited, I would argue that the call to utterly ban geocaching in the Little Big Econ State Park was both punitive and bureaucratic, based on my working with this particular Senior Forester for about 10 years. (The state forest is in my patrol area) It was a classic case of, big fish / little pond syndrome. It took me quite some time to figure out a way around that one. The Natural Lands folks were just caught unawares, and wanted to keep a handle on things, as they didn't know Groundspeak guidelines already answered many of their concerns. The SJRWMD dude just wants other folks to have the opportunity to place caches.

 

That leaves the National Forest folks. From the emails I've received from the head dude in Tallahassee, I honestly do believe that the root cause was someone embedded in the system, probably lower or mid level management, who decided, for whatever reason, that they didn't like geocaching, (we know there are kooks like that out there), and pushed an agenda, coming up with an off the wall interpretation to a rule, which would result in exorbitant fees being required. This interpretation was forwarded up the chain, and due to the beauty of mindless bureaucracy, other folks slightly higher up the food chain accepted that interpretation without bothering to check it out.

 

There is no way anyone with even reasonable reading comprehension skills could take those rules and interpret them to apply to this hobby. With that in mind, I feel it has to be a matter of an agenda, or incompetence.

[+NeverSummer]

It's just a little tiresome as someone behind the curtain to hear more of the "it's punative and bureucratic" talk.

I speak Bureaucrat fluently.

You and me, both!

 

In the examples I cited, I would argue that the call to utterly ban geocaching in the Little Big Econ State Park was both punitive and bureaucratic, based on my working with this particular Senior Forester for about 10 years. (The state forest is in my patrol area) It was a classic case of, big fish / little pond syndrome. It took me quite some time to figure out a way around that one. The Natural Lands folks were just caught unawares, and wanted to keep a handle on things, as they didn't know Groundspeak guidelines already answered many of their concerns. The SJRWMD dude just wants other folks to have the opportunity to place caches.

 

That leaves the National Forest folks. From the emails I've received from the head dude in Tallahassee, I honestly do believe that the root cause was someone embedded in the system, probably lower or mid level management, who decided, for whatever reason, that they didn't like geocaching, (we know there are kooks like that out there), and pushed an agenda, coming up with an off the wall interpretation to a rule, which would result in exorbitant fees being required. This interpretation was forwarded up the chain, and due to the beauty of mindless bureaucracy, other folks slightly higher up the food chain accepted that interpretation without bothering to check it out.

 

There is no way anyone with even reasonable reading comprehension skills could take those rules and interpret them to apply to this hobby. With that in mind, I feel it has to be a matter of an agenda, or incompetence.

 

See, that would chap my hide as well. But, in the grand scheme of NF lands, that's more of an exception. My experience with geocaching policies and NF lands has been, fortunately, very positive. Between where I've lived and where I've played, I haven't seen something like you describe.

 

And, your perpective about patrol areas and interactions both professionally and as a geocaching citizen certainly would make for a pretty solid argument that these folks are some of the stick-in-the-mud good ol' boys that make for very bad opinions of the vast majority of smart, thoughtful, open-minded managers elsewhere.

[Clan Riffster]

...all ancillary activities in State Parks had to be self-sustaining, through permits, use fees or otherwise.

Unless I've completely blown the definition of "ancillary", the term didn't apply until after they decided to create a permit system. If they had accepted, as Seminole County Parks & Recreation did, that geocaching was a benign activity, and that the existing guidelines would cover whatever concerns they might have, then geocaching would not be an ancillary activity. By creating the permit process, they created the need for the fee.

 

Or did I flub it?

[+Cardinal Red]

Thanks for that background, Keystone. Are you aware of many PA county park systems that require fees and permits? As I noted in my original post, Bucks county parks are going to introduce permits and fees next year. Is this a trend I wonder?

Other Pennsylvania counties with geocache permit requirements include Allegheny, Bucks, Centre, Chester, Montgomery and York. None of these have fees associated with the permits. Several counties modeled their policies after the PA DCNR policy.

 

Permits and prohibitions are nothing new, at the state, county or local level. Fees are more the exception than the rule. A quick review of the Regional Land Manager Policy wiki will confirm this.

 

My initial interest in your post was the absence of Berks County Parks in your list of Pennsylvania County Parks with a geocache permit requirement (also a no fee permit requirement). You mention a quick review of the Regional Land Manager Policy wiki for confirmation. Where is your personal LINK or a Groundspeak LINK to this policy? I went to the Profile Page of the current Eastern PA Reviewer for this : UNITED STATES LINK. Is this the Land Manager Policy you mentioned? Berks County is listed in there. There is also a broader LINK there for Worldwide Policies. I know there is at least one generic Berks Conservancy Permit Requirement missing (but they have been unable to specifically identify their holdings - how do you monitor what you can't identify). There are also some broken links. And that is just for my immediate area. I bet there are quite a few omissions, missing updates, and broken links in the aggregate. Is this updated strictly by Reviewers? That's a big job.

[+wmpastor]

I live in an adjoining State (New York), so don't take my word for it, and I could be totally wrong, but I'm of the opinion the Commonwealth of Pa. led the way on a crazy $25 fee for cache permits. It can't possibly be the first political entity in all of North America to charge a fee, but it probably hadn't (or still hasn't) been done on that scale. Nice to see a County within Pa. following suit with a fee. (that was sarcasm). I think the fee has been in place 2-3 years, so I'm surprised more Counties in Pa. aren't doing the same.

 

By the way, I don't think it's a revenue grab, just some "person at the top who made the policy", who was clueless other States weren't charging.

 

I would say this (the fee) is more of a soft no. That way they can have less of an activity they don't like and don't have to make a stand at the same time. It also prevents you from making a stand against them. What is more political than that?

I think both your theories are wrong as applied to PA State Parks, though they may be correct elsewhere. As the senior cache reviewer for Pennsylvania, who got that job shortly after being part of the group of geocachers who negotiated PA DCNR's original policy, let me explain why.

 

Back in 2002 when PA DCNR announced a desire to regulate geocache placements, the State Parks were more pro-caching than the State Forests. The original policy was a compromise between the two agencies and involved a two-step paperwork process, but no fee. Lots of caches got placed in Parks, who were quick to grant approval and helpful in suggesting good areas, while few caches were placed in State Forests, whose rangers took months to respond to permit requests.

 

From personal experience from 2003 through the time when the fee was introduced, PA State Parks were most definitely pro-geocaching. It is not "an activity they don't like." I published hundreds of state park caches. I hid four myself, in the same park where I hosted the world's first CITO Event.

 

What happened was that the financially strapped DCNR said that all ancillary activities in State Parks had to be self-sustaining, through permits, use fees or otherwise. As noted, there are no entrance fees or park passes in Pennsylvania. The State Parks chose to impose a permit fee to cover the cost of the environmental review, staff time in processing the paperwork, etc.

 

Once the fee went into effect, the rate of state park cache placements plunged faster than a dress on prom night. At the same time, state forest placements picked up a bit, as they do not charge a fee for their permit. State Game Land cache placement rates have skyrocketed, as there's no paperwork OR fee involved there. All three agencies still support geocaching. Several state parks continue to hide caches, including for the "Ranger Rick" series.

 

It's important to note that State Park managers may waive the fee in exchange for the cache owner organizing a CITO event, introduction to geocaching event, trail-building day, or other service to the park. And, they've been pretty good in looking the other way when caches placed prior to the fee system reached their three-year expiration date.

Thanks for that background, Keystone. Are you aware of many PA county park systems that require fees and permits? As I noted in my original post, Bucks county parks are going to introduce permits and fees next year. Is this a trend I wonder?

Registration form but no fee for Upper Dublin Township in suburban Philadelphia.

[+DragonsWest]

Here are a few geocaching policies from around here:

Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department (no permit, no fee)

Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (no permit, no fee, and a program to encourage geocaching)

East Bay Regional Park District (no permit, no fee)

California State Parks (no permit, no fee, and a list of state parks allowing geocaching)

 

Also, the Fort Ord Public Lands (managed by BLM) had a policy that required a permit and a fee (around $90 for 3 years, based on bits and pieces I put together). But the current BLM geocaching policy doesn't say anything about permits or fees.

 

No. 1 in my book why living in California is sooooo awesome!!!

[+geodarts]

 

No. 1 in my book why living in California is sooooo awesome!!!

 

Actually, I might be willing to get a permit or even pay a small fee if the California state parks did not limit caches to those placed within three feet of a designated trail. And I would do the same if our local federal land managers, who control some of the best areas in my county, permitted caching.

Edited November 16, 2013 by geodarts

[+Lieblweb]

Go hiking in PA State Game Lands. No fees, no restrictions.... lots of caches...not a lot of people around and its peaceful.

 

During hunting season....I personally wouldn't go anywhere near game lands unless it was Sunday and I still would wear blaze orange.

[+cerberus1]

Go hiking in PA State Game Lands. No fees, no restrictions.... lots of caches...not a lot of people around and its peaceful.

 

During hunting season....I personally wouldn't go anywhere near game lands unless it was Sunday and I still would wear blaze orange.

Sorry, off topic a bit.

 

Last Sunday I just got done scouting on game lands for coyote, unloaded and stopped along the way for - another DNF on a new hide.

As I was leaving, a small group after the hide showed (they found it- FTF) and all were in blaze.

I was a happy camper.

 

We often cache while hunting, especially with pheasant/grouse in the area.

- That ".....birds with one stone" thing.

 

Back OT...

Gotta agree with Lieblweb. For us, the game lands, our State's largest land owner, is the way to go for cache hides. We temp disable hides during the busy two week rifle season for deer (we don't search hides then either) and we're good the rest of the year.

[+alien55]

Ah that is interesting. So the fee really was put in place so they could keep allowing geocaching. With the $25 dollars compensation for the Rangers half-hour to hour of work. Thank you for the history lesson.

:laughing: :laughing: Bahahahaaha!

 

Yeah, $25 for creating, filling out, filing, maintaining a database, meeting with interested associations or individuals, coordinating with other managers and their superiors if questions or concerns come up, adding routine checks to their patrols. Half-hour to an hour. Right.

 

Therein is another "lazy government" stereotype I don't care much for.

 

Versus putting in 2 hours for a CITO with a dozen or so other geocachers once a year, voting for folks who would replace previous budgets to land agencies, or donating money to "Friends of X Park", or just paying the $25. At least one can actually place a cache there, thanks to the efforts of other advocates who put in their time to get a place to stay open to geocaching or reopen for geocaching.

 

Sorry...burr in my boot today.

Maintaining a database, adding routine checks to patrols.........I doubt it very much. Because of the $25 fee, there aren't enough caches in PA state parks to warrant a database. The back of an envelope is probably more than enough to keep records.

[Keystone]

alien55, it would be more productive if you based your posts on fact rather than idle speculation. Go research the PNDI database and its relevance to geocache permits in Pennsylvania. Come back and let us know what facts you learned.

[+giddeanx]

Ah that is interesting. So the fee really was put in place so they could keep allowing geocaching. With the $25 dollars compensation for the Rangers half-hour to hour of work. Thank you for the history lesson.

:laughing: :laughing: Bahahahaaha!

 

Yeah, $25 for creating, filling out, filing, maintaining a database, meeting with interested associations or individuals, coordinating with other managers and their superiors if questions or concerns come up, adding routine checks to their patrols. Half-hour to an hour. Right.

 

Therein is another "lazy government" stereotype I don't care much for.

 

Versus putting in 2 hours for a CITO with a dozen or so other geocachers once a year, voting for folks who would replace previous budgets to land agencies, or donating money to "Friends of X Park", or just paying the $25. At least one can actually place a cache there, thanks to the efforts of other advocates who put in their time to get a place to stay open to geocaching or reopen for geocaching.

 

Sorry...burr in my boot today.

Wow you put a whole lot more meaning in that than was intended. I was just equating it to a salary. Either at $25 - 50 an hour. I never said anything about lazy government. Some one entering the cache in the database, a preliminary visit, and handling calls if there are any. Also you don't charge the entire cost of "developement" of an excel spreadsheet (database really?)to only one customer.

 

Also if you need to post a sorry at the end of a comment then it dosent need written.

[+alien55]

alien55, it would be more productive if you based your posts on fact rather than idle speculation. Go research the PNDI database and its relevance to geocache permits in Pennsylvania. Come back and let us know what facts you learned.

I don't doubt for one minute that you know what you're talking about. I object to the $25 fee. I was being sarcastic.

You know my opinion, what's yours? You've explained the background to the permits/fees but what do you think about the outcome; i.e., very few caches in PA state parks? The fee is cost prohibitive. I don't think that's idle speculation.

[Keystone]

For those playing along, the "PNDI Database" stands for Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory. It's a GIS database that records the locations of rare plants, endangered species, archaelogical ruins, etc. All proposed cache placements must be checked in the PNDI database prior to a permit being issued.

 

Did you know that Moraine State Park in Western Pennsylvania has a rare patch of untouched prairie grasses, as well as a breed of rattlesnake found nowhere else in the State? You'd find that out if you worked with the park rangers to place a cache there.

 

When I proposed a cache placement in a verdant green forest, the Park Naturalist at Raccoon Creek State Park told me that the PNDI recorded rare ferns in that area. No wonder I liked it so much! Well, we didn't want geocachers trampling down the rare ferns, so the Naturalist pointed me towards a different location that was even better.

 

The PNDI search is a valuable tool, and it's not something written on the back of an envelope.