Michigan State Parks Cache Policy

[+jimbofish]

Below is a copy of the Michigan State Parks & Recreation Bureau Geocaching Policy, #8.19. This policy applies to all State Parks, State Recreation Areas, State Boating Access Sites, and other non-developed properties under their jurisdiction.

 

Although the majority of the items mentioned are basically similar to the Geocaching.com guidelines, the $35 fee and the 4 month time limit appear to be intended primarily to discourage such activities. Also, note that there is a limit of 3 permits for an administrative unit, which may cover several counties.

 

One Park supervisor informed me that they are actively searching geocaching.com for caches on his properties and removing them. He also said that the $35 fee was effectively discouraging any applications and hinted that he preferred it that way.

 

Here is the link to the actual permit:

 

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/UsePermi...ion_82881_7.pdf

 

Parks and Recreation Policy #8.19

April 2004 (Revised)

 

Geocaching

 

POLICY

 

Geocaching involves the placement of a container (a cache) with various items within it in a specific location and

then posts the Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates to a website, and another person goes looking for it.

This activity started soon after the U.S. Department of Defense turned off the selective availability of the GPS

signals in May of 2000. This improved the accuracy of most recreational GPS units to 10 - 20 meters. Contents of

the cache can be anything and typically involves the exchange of items. Another aspect of this activity is virtual

caching. This does not involve the actual placement of a cache; rather, coordinates are provided for a specific

location where there is a unique natural feature, park sign, etc.

 

Geocaches have been placed in our State Parks, Recreation Areas and Boating facilities without the approval of

unit staff. These placements have resulted in the following concerns:

 

• Caches have been placed in sensitive natural or cultural areas.

• Caches may contain inappropriate or dangerous items.

• Caches have lead to the creation of spur trails resulting in resource damage and the possibility of visitors leaving

established trails and becoming lost.

• Caches may be placed in dangerous or inappropriate areas such as on a cliff or underwater.

• The location of a cache may invite the public into an area we do not inspect for hazards.

 

PROCEDURE

 

In consideration of the above concerns it has been decided to manage geocaching through the use permit

procedure. If this activity is found to have a negative impact on the unit resources or presents public safety issues,

the Unit Supervisor may ban, with District Supervisor approval, geocaching from specific unit areas or the entire

facility. The following conditions are to be addressed when issuing a geocaching use permit:

 

• Virtual caches should be encouraged in lieu of physical caches.

• Physical caches will require a $35 fee use permit fee.

• Use permits may be issued for a period not to exceed one year for up to three physical caches at any single

administrative unit (Park, Recreation Area, and their related units).

• $35 permit fee is to be waived for virtual caches.

 

• The person applying for the permit shall provide a valid address and telephone number as well as a location

specification and listing of initial cache items.

• The cache placement location, including GPS coordinates, must be stated on the permit and approved by the Unit

Supervisor to minimize undesirable impacts to cultural and natural resources as well as minimize hazards to the

public.

• A specific time period when a cache may be left in place shall be designated to minimize the creation of spur

trails. At the end of the designated time period the cache is to be removed or moved and the web site posting

retired by the permit holder. The actual time period the cache is permitted to be in one place will be determined by

the Unit Supervisor, not to exceed four months.

• Caches may not be buried, nor may vegetation, logs, stones, etc. be disturbed when selecting cache locations.

• Cache containers are to be transparent and have some form of latch or other closure to deter wildlife.

• Contents of the cache are subject to inspection by park staff at any time. Field staff will have the authority to

remove any items deemed unacceptable. Examples include food, medications of any type, pornography, weapons of

any type, etc. A log book is required and to be supplied by the permittee.

• Staff will be authorized to remove any cache not permitted by 06/01/2004.

• Failure to abide by use permit conditions may jeopardize the ability of that individual to obtain future permits for

caches. Language to that effect should be included in the use permit conditions.

 

Geocaches and their contents that are removed by unit staff are to be documented in an incident report. Unit staff

should periodically review the geo-caching websites to monitor caches placed within their unit.

 

Geocaching web sites are:

 

www.geocaching.com

www.mi-geocaching.org

[+Renegade Knight]

Since geoaching is not an event they are using the wrong form for the wrong purpose.

 

Mi-Go should have better information.

 

However you are 100% correct. The policy is meant to discourage the use of parks for cache locations. MiGo has it's word cut out for it.

Edited November 9, 2004 by Renegade Knight

[+jimbofish]

I compared the MSP policy with the National Forest, HCMetroparks, & Oakland County parks and it is the ONLY one with a fee for the permit, which they all require. The others also issue permits on an annual basis.

 

Having had some experience with Mich State Parks, I'm guessing this policy was enacted by District Supervisors and Lansing staff as a knee-jerk response to local problems at a park(s) near the Detroit area. Generally, there is no public input process in developing policy unless there is some political pressure. Maybe MiGO can exert some influence. I know the mountain bikers organized when a policy was developed to force them off hiking trails a few years ago, and they're much more intrusive.

[+trippy1976]

jimbofish,

 

MiGO is engaged with the MI DNR on this. Originally it was (believe it or not) $35 per cache per quarter but we managed to knock it down to this.

 

The permit is not the problem. The fee is. What they seem to be turning a blind eye to is the benefits that those caches give them. They should be encouraging placement, working with us to ensure that their interests are protected as far a placement area, and embracing the new opportunities for visitors and programs geocaching presents them.

 

We are kind of on their back burner right now due to summer and now hunting season, but plan on approaching them again this winter about it.

 

We're working with University of Minnesota to produce a study of Michigan Geocachers to aid us in this type of conversation. We hope to show that geocachers are also boaters, hikers, hunters, fishers, etc. That geocaching can be a way to introduce a park to a whole group of new visitors that will then re-visit for a large number of reasons.

 

In February, we're co-sponsoring a session with Oakland County Parks on Geocaching at the Michigan Parks and Recreation Association annual convention in Traverse City. The session will be a presentation with panel discussion with myself, Jamie Rich (another MiGO Board member) and several Oakland County Parks staff. Potentially even a County Sheriff. The presentation and discussion will actually be about how geocaching was implemented in Oakland County with the parks and law enforcement, and how positive it's been for them both as a vehicle to bringing new visitors in but also to make some of their existing programs more interesting.

 

We're hoping that between the study and the following we hope to create there that we'll either kick open a door with someone at the DNR such that they hear it straight from the mouth of a large park system that it's a Good Thing and will want to revise their guidelines to be more friendly.

 

Work progresses. It's not an easy nut to crack, if you have an inside track I'd love to hear more about it

[+trippy1976]

Since geoaching is not an event they are using the wrong form for the wrong purpose.

Believe it or not, the DNR considers anything that will attract more than X visitors per Y period to be an "event".

 

Our counter arguements that a tree stand left in a known location in the woods but returned to 20-30 times a season is not really that different from someone leaving a cache container in a known location and having 20-30 different people return to it.

 

In both cases, something is left behind, maintained, and eventually collected when it's done being used. Same amount of traffic.

 

Ours requires a permit, theirs does not.

[+Renegade Knight]

Since geoaching is not an event they are using the wrong form for the wrong purpose.

Believe it or not, the DNR considers anything that will attract more than X visitors per Y period to be an "event".

 

Our counter arguements that a tree stand left in a known location in the woods but returned to 20-30 times a season is not really that different from someone leaving a cache container in a known location and having 20-30 different people return to it....

Ok I can see the strange logic, just not, how shall we say this, the wisdom.

 

It begs the question of how they deal with Flashmobs.

[+trippy1976]

It begs the question of how they deal with Flashmobs.

Ever hear of the Michigan Militia

[+Bjorn74]

Everyone should just move to Ohio. ODNR loves us. Hopefully, we can get enough folk from the State Parks together in July to compare notes unofficially. Scott Zody came to the Geocachers in January 2002 asking for caches. Maybe we can help infect the Directors in other states.

 

Until then, maybe MI SP caches should all include tip jars.

[+jimbofish]

It's not an easy nut to crack, if you have an inside track I'd love to hear more about it

Trippy,

 

I don't know if I have any inside track but I retired from MSP two years ago. Unless the system has changed in the last 2 years, I have some idea of how easily these policies are created. I have also seen them changed just as easily. Let me know if you think I can help.

 

I'm assuming you're dealing with the Parks & Recreation Bureau directly, and not with the DNR in general.

 

With the huge budget cuts in Mich the past two years, one reason for the fee is to raise revenue, but I'm guessing they really aren't getting that much from cache permits.

 

Probably the most effective route would be to get a state rep or senator to push for a change.

 

I also asked Forest Management Division about a geocaching policy for State Forest lands and was told that although there is no specific policy, state land use rules prohibit leaving or removing anything from state property. Once again, an apparent intent to discourage it, but that would really be stretching the rule to include geocaching with littering or removing state property.

[+trippy1976]

I'm assuming you're dealing with the Parks & Recreation Bureau directly, and not with the DNR in general.

 

With the huge budget cuts in Mich the past two years, one reason for the fee is to raise revenue, but I'm guessing they really aren't getting that much from cache permits.

 

Probably the most effective route would be to get a state rep or senator to push for a change.

 

I also asked Forest Management Division about a geocaching policy for State Forest lands and was told that although there is no specific policy, state land use rules prohibit leaving or removing anything from state property. Once again, an apparent intent to discourage it, but that would really be stretching the rule to include geocaching with littering or removing state property.

Yes, for State Rec and Park areas we discuss it with Parks & Rec Bureau. The other stuff is with the wildlife people (I forget their dept. name) but it's all limited by the Pittman Robertson stuff (apparently) and unfortunately is not really up for discussion without changing that law at a national level.

 

They did cite budgetary reasons for the need to charge for permits. Our POV is that the entry fees will more than cover the cost of administration from park to park and MiGO is in a position to monitor most of the placements. We do this with Oakland County Parks already and monitor each cache placed there for adherance to the guidelines in place there. We could do this for the DNR also.

 

Well, we could get reps involved, but my impression of the person we have worked with in the past with the Parks and Rec Bureau (I'd have to look up their name also) is that they are generally very nice and seemed to appreciate our input. They also seemed to be THE policy setter in this respect, so until our work with that person leads to some kind of stalemate - I'd prefer to continue working with them. Will produce a better relationship and results in the long run than convincing a rep to stuff it down their throats I think

 

I'm not sure on the State Forests. As far as I know, you have summarized their policy. We know of several park rangers and conservation officers who know of caching in State Forests and keep an eye to make sure it doesn't get out of line but otherwise have kind of a laissez faire attitude about it.

[+DustyJacket]

.....Having had some experience with Mich State Parks, I'm guessing this policy was enacted by District Supervisors and Lansing staff as a knee-jerk response to local problems at a park(s) near the Detroit area......

What happened to make them hate geocaching?

[+trippy1976]

It's easier than learning and deciding how to manage a new activity. I think that's all it was.

[+DustyJacket]

So, there were no geocaching-specific problems in some Detroit parks.

[+jimbofish]

.....Having had some experience with Mich State Parks, I'm guessing this policy was enacted by District Supervisors and Lansing staff as a knee-jerk response to local problems at a park(s) near the Detroit area......

What happened to make them hate geocaching?

Let's not jump to conclusions... I only said it was my guess. Generally there is no need for a policy regarding an activity unless there are some problems somewhere. Since the majority of the population uses the parks nearest to Detroit, it's the most likely location where problems or concerns will occur. It could very well be something else!

[+jimbofish]

They did cite budgetary reasons for the need to charge for permits. Our POV is that the entry fees will more than cover the cost of administration from park to park and MiGO is in a position to monitor most of the placements. We do this with Oakland County Parks already and monitor each cache placed there for adherance to the guidelines in place there. We could do this for the DNR also.

 

Though I'm new at the geocaching game, I've already seen some caches that were questionable in their placement, so I can see their point in wanting to have some control over the locations. For the most part, the $35 was intended to cover the time involved in issuing the permit. The fact that there is NO fee for virtual caches, which take just as much time to processs, is confusing. In fact, a permit for a virtual cache at all seems pointless, like saying 'everone else can look at this natural feature as much as they want, but geocachers can only look for 4 months'.

 

Now that the policy is in place, getting the fee eliminated will be the hardest part. It would be useful to know:

1) How Many caches are placed in Mi State Parks?

2) How much money was collected from these fee?

3) How many people visited them?

[+trippy1976]

We'll get a lot of valuable information from the study that is currently underway in Michigan and we're also hoping our co-sponsorship of a keynote session at the Michigan Parks and Recreation Association Annual Conference will turn enough heads that they'll reconsider.

 

MiGO and Geocaching has a lot to offer them. Other parks have embraced it to mutual benefit - we're hopeful the DNR will also.

[+jimbofish]

It will be difficult to get the fee eliminated if there is any significant revenue from geocaching permits, given the current budget shortage.

 

I doubt if the argument that the entrance fees will offset the cost, since they also require a fee for fishing tournaments launching out of a boat ramp. These users also pay the entrance fee and then spend most of the rest of the day out of the park anyway. The rational for the permits was to prevent overcrowding from too many tournaments on the same day. This was a common problem at certain lakes which were popular. The fee was added for all sites when they realized how many there were. For the most part, the only time involved by the park was issuing the permit and collecting the fee. My opinion is that this is not going to be a strong argument to use.

 

The use permit policy used to allow the manager to waive the fee for minor events, unless there was a specific fee listed in the policy, which there is in this case. This really is where I believe you should direct your efforts; to get the specific fee removed from the policy.

 

It seems that the policy is overly specific in its requirements and places demands on the park staff. My suggestion would be to point out that geocaching.com already has nearly identical requirements in order to get a cache approved, and the policy is pretty much redundant. By offering that geocaching.com or MiGO will ensure that all caches posted that are in compliance before they are allowed to be posted, there should be very little in the policy that would justify the fee. This is what the mountain biking groups did the get their needs accomodated in the mountain bike policy.

Edited November 25, 2004 by jimbofish

[+pathfind2003]

Hey guys,

 

Thanks for all your work and discussion on the issue.

[+trippy1976]

It will be difficult to get the fee eliminated if there is any significant revenue from geocaching permits, given the current budget shortage.

 

I doubt if the argument that the entrance fees will offset the cost, since they also require a fee for fishing tournaments launching out of a boat ramp. These users also pay the entrance fee and then spend most of the rest of the day out of the park anyway. The rational for the permits was to prevent overcrowding from too many tournaments on the same day. This was a common problem at certain lakes which were popular. The fee was added for all sites when they realized how many there were. For the most part, the only time involved by the park was issuing the permit and collecting the fee. My opinion is that this is not going to be a strong argument to use.

 

The use permit policy used to allow the manager to waive the fee for minor events, unless there was a specific fee listed in the policy, which there is in this case. This really is where I believe you should direct your efforts; to get the specific fee removed from the policy.

 

It seems that the policy is overly specific in its requirements and places demands on the park staff. My suggestion would be to point out that geocaching.com already has nearly identical requirements in order to get a cache approved, and the policy is pretty much redundant. By offering that geocaching.com or MiGO will ensure that all caches posted that are in compliance before they are allowed to be posted, there should be very little in the policy that would justify the fee. This is what the mountain biking groups did the get their needs accomodated in the mountain bike policy.

Yes, well - a $35 event fee for a group of 100+ people converging on a location in a day is one thing. Requiring an individual to pay a $35 event fee for placing a box in the woods is another thing. Trying to prevent 9 groups of 100 coming to a park in a given day is probably justified. Applying the same overcrowding logic to geocachers does not make a lot of sense. A single cache gets 60-100 visits per year I would guess. That's 1 visitor every 3 days.

 

Having an event for geocaching in the park is well within the event permit arena as it WILL draw a significant number of people to the park at the same time.

 

I doubt the DNR can even say for sure if the permit fees from geocaching are significant. If asked to guess, I'd say they are probably sorely dissappointed by the result. I know they lost $20 from me last year and will lose it again in 2005. I won't pay for a permit to the state parks while this policy is in place. I had a cache in a state park. So they are down $5 on me. I wouldn't pay the $35 fee and I won't pay a dime to use their parks while they require geocachers to pay to play. I would encourage others to do the same and to make their complaints known to the DNR as appropriate in polite letters. Polite.

 

I know most of the people involved in this policy are not decision makers so I'm not about to take anything out on local officers or rangers. They don't deserve it, they do their job and do it well. We need to work with the policy makers to see what their concerns are and to help work on an alternate means for addressing them. I think we can find a better solution for everyone. We're organizing our next set of interaction right now and will be re-engaging them soon.

 

We've addressed the guidelines and our involvement with them. That is what got us the first step down this road. Hopefully now that we're a well organized, 501©(7) nonprofit group we can show that we're really not a flash in the pan and that they can feel comfortable in working with us. I think part of their concern stemmed from the fact that our organization was so young. We've come a long way in the past 8 months. Hopefully they'll embrace us more fully.

 

We've also made some contact into the Michigan Mountain Biking Association so perhaps they will be willing to share some of what they were able to acheive with us over time.

[+jimbofish]

Yes, well - a $35 event fee for a group of 100+ people converging on a location in a day is one thing.  Requiring an individual to pay a $35 event fee for placing a box in the woods is another thing.  Trying to prevent 9 groups of 100 coming to a park in a given day is probably justified.  Applying the same overcrowding logic to geocachers does not make a lot of sense.  A single cache gets 60-100 visits per year I would guess.  That's 1 visitor every 3 days.

 

Having an event for geocaching in the park is well within the event permit arena as it WILL draw a significant number of people to the park at the same time.

 

I doubt the DNR can even say for sure if the permit fees from geocaching are significant.  If asked to guess, I'd say they are probably sorely dissappointed by the result.  I know they lost $20 from me last year and will lose it again in 2005.  I won't pay for a permit to the state parks while this policy is in place.  I had a cache in a state park.  So they are down $5 on me.  I wouldn't pay the $35 fee and I won't pay a dime to use their parks while they require geocachers to pay to play.  I would encourage others to do the same and to make their complaints known to the DNR as appropriate in polite letters.  Polite. 

 

I know most of the people involved in this policy are not decision makers so I'm not about to take anything out on local officers or rangers.  They don't deserve it, they do their job and do it well.  We need to work with the policy makers to see what their concerns are and to help work on an alternate means for addressing them.  I think we can find a better solution for everyone.  We're organizing our next set of interaction right now and will be re-engaging them soon.

 

We've addressed the guidelines and our involvement with them.  That is what got us the first step down this road.  Hopefully now that we're a well organized, 501©(7) nonprofit group we can show that we're really not a flash in the pan and that they can feel comfortable in working with us.  I think part of their concern stemmed from the fact that our organization was so young.  We've come a long way in the past 8 months.  Hopefully they'll embrace us more fully. 

Actually, most of those fishing tournaments are from small fishing clubs and attract only 5 to 10 boats because they're only open to members. In fact, many of them could just ignore the permit and hold the event and no one would even notice that it had occurred, but being honest, law-abiding sports(wo)men, they comply with the rule. I realize that one thinks of a tournament as something that would be advertised as open to anyone who wanted to enter, usually for a fee, and the fee seems justified. What I'm trying to show is the other side of the picture that the public doesn't think of, so that you can understand what it might take to make a convincing argument.

 

I would suggest doing some homework in counting the actual number of visits from the logs so you have some real numbers to present. I'm thinking you're overestimating the number of visits to a cache. The point would be to show that there will not be a steady stream of people stomping around looking for a cache.

 

I'm sure PRB has an accurate total of the revenues collected from use permits, but not broken down by type of event. They would probably have to do a survey to determine how much was from geocaching. Possibly, there was a reason for them to have done it for some other reason and they do have the info readily available. Wouldn't hurt to ask.

 

At one time, non-profit groups were not charged a fee for use permits, but that was eliminated a few years ago.

 

BTW, the annual vehicle permit went up to $24 last year so you're even more ahead than you think!

 

PRB policy is made by the Management Team which is comprised of the Bureau section heads and the District Supervisors. They meet monthly for usually two days and policy-making is only one of their functions. You could ask to get some time on their agenda to make a short presentation. One way would be to get any member of the team to request it at their next meeting.

 

Clearly, the use permit form isn't suited for use for caches, but the trend is to minimize any new forms. Perhaps we could develop a simple form to submit for their approval, possibly an on-line form that could be transmitted electronically. This might help to get them thinking about something other than "use permit", and thus, getting away from the fee requirement.

Edited November 30, 2004 by jimbofish

[+trippy1976]

Interesting and encouraging turn of events on this topic. The director of the DNR's Parks and Rec bureau is retiring or moving on and being replaced by a person who was involved in Ann Arbor, MI's park systems and interacted with the Ann Arbor Natural Areas Preservation when we helped them establish their no-fee geocache permitting system.

 

So this person is familiar, at least tangentially we think, with our organization and the success Ann Arbor had with the no-fee permitting. We're encouraged by the change of guard on one hand because it's possible this conversation will become less difficult (as he's already seen our proposed model work) but worried that with transition into a new position we might not be top on his priority list for a while.

 

Will continue to update, but this was a happy development for us. Not that we're glad to see the old guy go, but that having someone new that's familiar with our proposed method and has seen it work is a very good thing.

[+trippy1976]

It was victorymike BTW, our current president, that brokered and developed that relationship with Ann Arbor parks.

 

A great example of how you might end up affecting larger-scale initiatives by your local actions.

 

If someone hadn't stepped up and taken on that relationship and made it positive, we might have an even more difficult path ahead with the DNR. As it stands, the positive effects of the local effort may very well benefit the cachers of the entire state.

 

Think about that when talking with a park system. You never know where you'll run into those guys again. Best course of action is always to be helpful, friendly, and cooperative. If you're confrontational, it might just come back later to bite you in a much larger way.

 

(not directed to anyone, just a general statement)

[+kbjeep]

Greetings! New geocacher, new to mi-go, new to forums......all to familiar with the brilliant programs that seep out of Lansing.

 

What is the status of the parks system "plan"? I am very interested in any letter writing or calling that may be helpful.....although I am equally happy to let others who may already be advancing the issue to continue!

 

Thanks.

[+carrybagman]

First time poster here, and new to the game too!

Lemme just say I'm a tech and music geek that always appreciated the outdoors but never hunted, hiked, camped, etc. Couldn't stand it - didn't see the point (Don't flame me, keep reading). I always knew I should get outdoors more, but I sure didn't have many friends that liked it, and the ones that did went on horribly long - to me - camping trips that would have me screaming in no time. Then I got a GPS. Then things changed. I had an excuse to get to the park and boy did I love it. I realized what I was missing PDQ and felt a new centering, peaceful activity to cool my jets. In short, I saw what I was missing.

I'm subscribing to the "cache in, trash out" lifestyle now and actually read any articles in the newspaper about our parks for a change. While I dig what you campers and hunters are up to more now than ever before, it's still not for me. But that little Garmin GPS means we cross paths now and I'm all the more well-rounded because of it. Hope you appreciate the new face.

My first found cache was wonderful, although I put a sealed case of mints in it, not realizing critters might be attracted (remember: indoor city boy). It was a bummer when someone - as nicely as they put it - called me out on it. My fault - gotta do more reading and preparing.

Now I'm not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater but this just another "the outdoors are scary" obstacle for this sheltered guy. I've talked to another "never steps outside" friend and he felt the same way about geocaching I did: I need to get out more and this sounds like fun. Why the parks don't see this as a way to get people back into the parks - and in turn, CARE about the parks - is beyond me. "Welcome Geocachers" should be posted where everyone can see. It turned me on to the outdoors (quit laughing) and now I can relate to my girlfriend's outdoorsy relatives, I'm getting exercise, loosing weight, loosing stress, caring more about our natural surroundings, becoming a better person.

Sure there's some uncaringly placed caches and wear and tear to the dirt, but I've stepped over too many pop cans and food wrappers to even think about what harm geocaching is doing. Let's lynch the picnic set! Was I out there cleaning the park before geocaching? Heck no! Kinda cared, but not a lot. Now I do care and clean, but this flippant treatment of the geocachers is bringing back the "I dunno anything about the parks and I don't even think you're allowed in there" feeling.

This'll delay my first placing of a cache even more, but I'll get there. I'll keep going outdoors and appreciating the park system - and cleaning it - but it's only Mother Nature I'm growing to love, not her State appointed stewards.

[Dinoprophet]

That's a fantastic post, Carrybagman! Welcome to the game.

 

I see you're from Ypsi. You'll be glad to know the Ann Arbor park system welcomes caching (with restrictions to protect certain areas). The Huron-Clinton Metroparks (Delhi, Dexter-Huron, and Hudson Mills are out your way) go so far as to hide elaborate caches of their own -- and offer prizes for finding them! Oakland County Parks have recently started hiding their own as well. So hopefully the state parks will soon see what a positive effect geocaching has in other systems.

 

Don't go back inside yet!

[+trippy1976]

Just by way of updating everyone MiGO was invited to participate in a planning session with the DNR on the use of permits for various activities. No decisions were made, it was just an opportunity to get some input from groups representing outdoors people.

 

We have also engaged the representatives who serve on the land use committee in Michigan congress.

 

And we spoke at length this weekend with the Director of Long Term Planning for the DNR about geocaching at the Michigan Recreation and Parks Association conference.

 

So, no big developments but work progresses and we're actively on the case. If you have input or suggestions please don't hesitate to contact MiGO at migo@mi-geocaching.org

[+Sandrich]

Well, gosh. I was gonna post the above info, but (as usual ) the golf ball beat me to it. All I can add is that MiGO is being as proactive as possible in this area. The only other state in my research that charges a fee is NC, and the DNR there charges (take a guess) $35.00 as well. Hopefully, bringing in the proper State Rep will help our struggle.

[MapheadMike]

The only other state in my research that charges a fee is NC, and the DNR there charges (take a guess) $35.00 as well.

 

Reading the whole MI policy in the OP, it is NC's policy almost verbatim. The "concerns", the "procedure", the "prohibited items list", etc. The only substanial difference is that MI allows caches for four months, while NC only allows them for three months.

 

If you all in Michigan get this changed, tell the North Carolina cachers how you did it so they can get these awful rules changed down there too.