ACRES Land Trust in NE Indiana FEES!

[+Candyman & PussyKat]

We have an organizion (ACRES) that runs/manages Nature Preserves here in NE Indiana. We placed a Multi back in March and just received an email from a Geocaching User that is actually a rep for the ACRES organization. Informed us that it will cost us a $25 membership fee plus a $10 Cache Placement fee to keep the cache on the property per year.

 

We really are disgusted at this, as the ENTIRE idea behind this sport it to keep it free and not for profit! We dont pay a thing to keep an account at geocaching.com UNLESS we want the features of upgraded membership. In our opinions, it would be better for them (ACRES) to just prohibit caches on their properties and not try to fund their goals off of what has been and will continue to be a free sport for the entire family worldwide!

 

As you have guessed, we archived our cache and will place it in a more deserving location. Has any other of you folks ran into this type of fee request in your own travels?

 

Just a bit of info for those out there to keep in mind in the event you are considering donateing to or partronizing any of the ACRES properties.

 

Candyman & PussyKat

Fort Wayne, Indiana

Edited August 28, 2006 by Candyman & PussyKat

[+sbell111]

We have an organizion (ACRES) that runs/manages Nature Preserves here in NE Indiana. We placed a Multi back in March and just received an email from a Geocaching User that is actually a rep for the ACRES organization. Informed us that it will cost us a $25 membership fee plus a $10 Cache Placement fee to keep the cache on the property per year.

 

We really are disgusted at this, as the ENTIRE idea behind this sport it to keep it free and not for profit! We dont pay a thing to keep an account at geocaching.com UNLESS we want the features of upgraded membership. In our opinions, it would be better for them (ACRES) to just prohibit caches on their properties and not try to fund their goals off of what has been and will continue to be a free sport for the entire family worldwide!...

On the other hand, if the money goes to manage the preserve, what's the harm? How is this different from those parks who charge a fee to everyone who goes to seek a cache?

 

Edited to fix an irritating grammatical issue, even though my post was already quoted and, therefore, my error was saved for future irritations.

Edited August 28, 2006 by sbell111

[+Candyman & PussyKat]

On the other hand, if the money goes to manage the preserve, what's the harm? How is this different than those parks who charge a fee to everyone who goes to seek a cache?

 

Our concern is where will this lead in what is currently and what should be kept a free sport? As for the State Parks and such that charge entry fees, we do not place caches in them. We only will hunt caches in those when we are there camping and have paid the park fees for that purpose. We will not put a cache where seekers will be charged any fees to find them.

Edited August 28, 2006 by Candyman & PussyKat

[+briansnat]

From what I read ACRES is a private land trust. They can set whatver rules they want. In fact their website says, "No placing of geocaches without our expressed permission."

 

If they require that you become a member and want to charge $10 a year, that is their right, as would it be their right to declare a total ban.

 

Personally, if I lived in the area I'd happily pay to join what appears to be a fine organization and if an area was interesting enough, I'd pay the $10 to place a cache.

[Rupert2]

This discussion is also going on this the Midwest forums.

 

I had an issue with one of my recent caches located in a non-DNR nature preserve. The land manager was very supportive and ended up taking my case all the way up to the big cheese over the division of nature preserves. His "ruling" was the geocaches are outright banned from being placed in any nature preserve in Indiana (not limited to DNR administered properties). That not only conflicts with the specific language of bulletin #46, but is also going to cause a very interesting situation with ACRES given that they are collecting fees based on geocache placement (for up to 2 years).

 

It is all very disappointing any way you look at it. Unfortuantely, were are still grouped with the list of "undesireable users" with respect to DNR division of nature preserves and most of the other Land Trusts that administer their own nature preserves.

 

Edited August 29, 2006 by Rupert2

[+Candyman & PussyKat]

Quote:

It is all very disappointing any way you look at it. Unfortuantely, were are still grouped with the list of "undesireable users" with respect to DNR division of nature preserves and most of the other Land Trusts that administer their own nature preserves.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

 

We agree entirely with your concern over all of us being grouped as "undersieable users". After all, my wife and I just got done building new sign-in in boxes and birdhouses for the aformentioned group as volunteers. Gosh knows what we would have been able to accomplish had we been respectable users!

 

Their policy is their policy and as you mentioned it is worth noting they still allow them, but call us old fashioned in our thinking when we think either it should be either free or nothing, and lets leave the 21st century capitolism for some other sport or next thing you know we will be getting out our wallets for the city parks as well!

Edited August 28, 2006 by Candyman & PussyKat

[+Team GCHound]

Who is the geocacher user that is sending the emails? I will ban them from all of my caches in my area. Since I am a City employee and this is my rule.

[+kc8bdr]

Here in Michigan I adopted a cache that was in the Pontiac Lake State Park. I knew at the time I would need to get a permit to keep it in place, at the time there was a charge of $35.00 for this permit.

 

However when I managed to make contact with the park office, I was told that the park manager would not allow geocaches in the park at all. I was also told to check back in a year that was in March of 2005 (Per the state rules this was his choice to make). So I archived it. I did check back this past spring, again told to check back next year. (With hopes of placing a new cache in the same area)

 

Well I learned by way of the grape vine that things had change, so I stopped by the park office and asked again a couple of weeks ago, I was told that yes I could summit an application for a permit, but the permit would cost me $50.00. I did not have $50 to hand over to them but may still pay it when I have $50 extra to spend.

 

But a state park that is tax supported and to use the park you need to pay $6.00 a day or get an annual park sticker $24.00, I do not think should be charging $50.00 for a cache placement. I have no problem with a permit and would not mind paying $10.00 or do for paperwork processing but $50.00?

 

I had adopted it because the former owner had dropped out and had not checked it in about 18 months prior to my making an offer to adopt it. It was not being maintained and was in a great spot so I hated to see it archived. This is why I just might try to muster up the $50.00 to get an active cache back up there.

 

Jim

kc8bdr

 

Oh and here is the listing.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...c6-12b09f6c7637

[+SixDogTeam]

[+The Herd]

You should all note that there is also no such person as Tennyson Jelinek, listed on the ACRES Board and staff.

 

Board and Staff

 

but you should not that "one of our own " is listed there .

 

Star

 

Why does it seem to be such a GREAT mystery that "one of our own" is listed as a staff member? Look again, closely...it is actually "two of our own." Brad, and myself(Brad more than I). Yes, that's right, we are BOTH listed on the site. This has been public knowledge for the entire 13 months that we have lived in our home...which is on an ACRES property. For those that we didn't tell personally...it states so right here... WING HAVEN CACHE I see logs for many cachers posting in forums that "they can't believe a cacher is a member/staff/supporter of ACRES on this cache. Some of those same cachers recently attended the picnic we hosted here at our house. Just because Brad and I are caretakers for them, doesn't mean we agree/support all decisions made by them. Just because we are on the site, does NOT mean that we are the people behind this policy. Anyway....sorry to take the limelight but this mystery is solved....I "outed" us...a LONG time ago.

I don't think boycotting ACRES is going to get you very far. Yes, it seems like the "thing to do" at the moment. But, honestly, geocachers are a VERY VERY tiny part of the people that visit ACRES preserves. They are an even smaller part of the people that pay to become members/donate money to them. I do stand by ACRES for all they have done to save/preserve some amazing land that otherwise would now be developed or destroyed. If it weren't for them, I wouldn't have the chance to live in the home I do, and raise my kids in the type of environment that I do. I will still pay my membership, not because I have to, (I don't HAVE to) but because I want my kids and grandkids to have places like these to visit when they come of age to...and not just because geocaching took them there. I find myself needing to remind myself often that cachers are NOT the only people that use these types of properties...we are probably the tiniest percent of users of Nature Preserves, state owned land.

 

That being said...While I may not agree with the policy ACRES put into place...I am but one voice. I tried to get them to see things in a better light a long time ago. My one voice didn't work. Perhaps if, as stated by others, you made your voices heard as well, they may actually see the effect this is going to have on the visitor count to their preserves. If people would like to email me privately, I will make sure that each and every email is personally forwarded to the persons in charge of this whole thing. Of course, there is always the option of contacting them yourselves, either by visiting the office, making a call, or sending them a direct email. I really think that these types of actions will produce the best results.

 

On a side note...Team GCHound...despite allegations that have been made on several sites recently, it is NOT a geocacher sending out these emails. At least, not that I am aware of!

Amber...........one of "us" listed on the ACRES site.

[Rupert2]

You should all note that there is also no such person as Tennyson Jelinek, listed on the ACRES Board and staff.

 

Who is Tennyson Jelinek?

What is his role?

Is the seperate $10 going to support ACRES or going in this guys pocket?

[+The Herd]

You should all note that there is also no such person as Tennyson Jelinek, listed on the ACRES Board and staff.

 

Who is Tennyson Jelinek?

What is his role?

Is the seperate $10 going to support ACRES or going in this guys pocket?

 

I believe the $10.00 is going to the person that is PERMITTING the caches. There is some paperwork/map study/other stuff I don't understand, involved with permitting caches on ACRES preserves, as MANY of them are State Dedicated. If they aren't totally dedicated, then certain acreage is, and I am sure it isn't easy figuring out what areas are dedicated, etc.

Could be way off base, but this would be my guess...as it is listed as a "permitting fee"

[+Team Tigger International]

I think you misunderstand Amber ...

 

No one is attacking you , and I am sure you did your best to voice your

opinion to our best interests(geocachers in INDIANA that is ) .

 

Plus I don't really think that geocachers would be that "put off" by becoming members ... its 10 dollar permit per cache that personally has me in a tizzy ....

 

Not only do they want to demand that we become members first but then they also want to add the additional cost of 10 bucks per cache placement ...

 

It just seems extreme for a "not for profit " organizition .

 

Most of the ACRES properties we are talking of do not have lakes nor historic artists homes on them such as the winghaven preserve does . Therefore some of these properties are basically "lost" to the average person that would Discover them and their beauty if it werent for geocaching .

 

My favorite ACRES preserve is almost totally unknown to everyone except the local people , and the cachers that the caches I will now archive brought to them .

 

I can name other ACRES perserves that are the same .... virtually unvisited except for "local area persons" that are aware of them .

 

Most of these people are mushroom hunters , or illegal hunters of another sort that should not even be there.

 

Star

[+Captain Spaulding]

I don't like th policy mucjh either but unfortunately it is private land and is the situatation we live with. Hopefully over time a policy can be made that can help both sides make the most of this land. I have seen some good moves with the dnr so hopefully we can work on a good relation with acres as well.

[+Team Tigger International]

If we rush to agree with such policies .. we as a caching community are setting ourselves up for more policies of the same general order.

 

These policies are the reason so many of the "quality" caches that some on these forums like to complain are in demise .

 

These are the reasons that more and more you are seeing Micros at Walmart parking lots.

 

Not everyone that caches has money that they can just throw out in order to place caches for policies like this.

 

I have nothing against supporting the Preserves , and State Lands . They are great causes.

 

I keep mulling this thing over in my head ... and well for me its just to much .

 

Star

[Rupert2]

permitting caches on ACRES preserves, as MANY of them are State Dedicated

Just for clarification and consistency purposes: In Indiana, if it is not state dedicated, then it is not a nature preserve. People tend to throw this term around fairly loosely and there is nothing loose about it.

 

Sorry, it is not my intention to nit-pick, but…

 

BTW: Thanks for participating in the discussion. I realize that you do not speak for ACRES, nor are completely in the loop on this issue. I am too far way to be significantly impacted by this policy, but definately do not want to see it spread on to other land trusts within Indiana. Your insight will be helpful in now all of us interact with our local land trusts.

Edited August 30, 2006 by Rupert2

[+sbell111]

My advice is to become members and work to influence the board.

[+The Herd]

permitting caches on ACRES preserves, as MANY of them are State Dedicated

Just for clarification and consistency purposes: In Indiana, if it is not state dedicated, then it is not a nature preserve. People tend to throw this term around fairly loosely and there is nothing loose about it.

 

Sorry, it is not my intention to nit-pick, but…

 

BTW: Thanks for participating in the discussion. I realize that you do not speak for ACRES, nor are completely in the loop on this issue. I am too far way to be significantly impacted by this policy, but definately do not want to see it spread on to other land trusts within Indiana. Your insight will be helpful in now all of us interact with our local land trusts.

 

Rupert....

Anything can be called a Nature Preserve, if they want to call it that. Where the confusion lies is in the State Dedicated part. By being State Dedicated, it means that the owners of that land must abide by IDNR policies. However, if it is NOT listed as a State Dedicated preserve, it is still a preserve, just isn't "controlled" by the IDNR. All Nature Preserve really means is that it is land that someone (owner) has decided to protect.

Thank you for the thank you...though there isn't really much I can say in regards to ACRES, I can only state what I know. And, having worked with them for the past 13 months, I can agree with several earlier posts, including one of my own...they don't know your upset unless you tell them. People NEED to contact ACRES, and let them know how they feel about this policy. AFTER taking a deep breath! I can't say for sure it will get you anywhere, but you don't know unless you try! Doesn't mean you have to become a member just to contact them. Maybe some that are current members could contact them, and let them know that they WON'T be renewing their memberships, and tell them why!

Edited August 30, 2006 by The Herd

[+RPW]

At the risk of (mostly) duplicating a post I made elsewhere.

 

I went to the Fort Wayne Geocacher's bulletin board to read up what they were saying about the ACRES fees (since they are physically much closer to ACRES than I am). Two posts on it caught my eye. The first is from "The Herd" who is an ACRES board member:

 

I went out and pulled the sign in sheets for [a particular ACRES land preserve] ...out of 43 sheets, dating back to 10-22-05, only 2 were signed by "geocachers." .... I have never, in the 13 months we've been caching ACRES preserves, seen another cachers sig. in a registration box. Yes, they may have used their real name, but if that is the case, they didn't put that they were there for "geocaching."

 

The second is from "sandVB" who wrote:

 

... We USUALLY sign the log book, but I have never put geocaching down as my reason for being there, so that may be why your book doesn't have any [signature of my personal name]. I was unsure if the ACRES people knew about the caches, so I just kept quiet and said we were there for hiking. ...

 

Personally I act like "sandVB"; i.e., often sign the log book but then do not put down that I am at a preserve for Geocaching. In retrospect this is not a good idea If we want our voice to be heard then we should start speaking up. Not only at DNR or land trust board meetings but also "on the trail." It is our very anonominity that will doom us to be marginalized. From now on when I am at a preserve with a log book I will sign it "here for Geocaching" or, if the preserve does not have any cache in it, "would be here more often if there were Geocaches."

 

I respectfully ask that the rest of Indiana Geocachers do the same.

 

My local land trust does not, at this time, have any restrictions (nor policy) on Geocaches. However once they eventually do have a policy it would be nice if they were influenced by the number of Geocachers visting their land.

[+The Herd]

quote]

... We USUALLY sign the log book, but I have never put geocaching down as my reason for being there, so that may be why your book doesn't have any [signature of my personal name]. I was unsure if the ACRES people knew about the caches, so I just kept quiet and said we were there for hiking. ...

 

Personally I act like "sandVB"; i.e., often sign the log book but then do not put down that I am at a preserve for Geocaching. In retrospect this is not a good idea If we want our voice to be heard then we should start speaking up. Not only at DNR or land trust board meetings but also "on the trail." It is our very anonominity that will doom us to be marginalized. From now on when I am at a preserve with a log book I will sign it "here for Geocaching" or, if the preserve does not have any cache in it, "would be here more often if there were Geocaches."

 

I respectfully ask that the rest of Indiana Geocachers do the same.

 

 

RPW,

That's kinda what I was getting at when I wrote that. ACRES doesn't really know how many people visit their preserves because geocaching brought them there. I send them links to logs, tell them how many people attend events here, etc. but again, I am one voice. It's kinda too late now, but if everyone started signing that they were there to "geocache" then these types of places would have solid evidence of just how big of an impace geocaching has on their visitor counts. You just kinda wrote it out better than I did.

[+TEAM RETRIEVER]

I'll just throw in my two cents worth...

 

Instead of getting so upset about the policy and such, may I suggest that a group of Indiana cachers do the following...

 

1) Form a committee to speak on the behalf of Indiana geocachers immediately. A good starting point would be to have representatives from the various geocaching organizations in this state. Or start in the Indiana forums and see who would be interested. I think "The Herd" would be most valuable on this "committee", considering their knowledge of both parties. Be sure whoever is going to speak on our (geocachers) behalf is a good speaker when in front of people and presents themself in a professional manner. Sorry, but I think Patrick would just lick himself or something. LOL!

 

2) The committee should meet, more than once if necessary, and form an alternative solution that is acceptable to both ACRES and geocachers.

 

3) Present this solution to ACRES. Both parties should keep an open mind and listen to each other.

 

Just some ideas (smile).

[+SixDogTeam]

It's our opinion that ACRES doesn't really want a lot of people visiting their preserves. Except for their website, they don't do very much to publicize where their properties are. Even locals don't know where a lot of them are. And a number of them are not open to the public. They do allow some nice guided tours for Birdwatchers, Geology buffs, and Wildflower fans, but these are for the most part limited to the trails.

 

They are trying to protect the flora and fauna and the more people walking around, stepping on plants, the more they get uptight.

 

It's probably better that we don't geocache on their properties. Their properties are for the nature, not Human Beings.

 

But just out of curiosity, Who is "Tennyson" and why is he being paid Ten Bucks to approve caches. Can't ACRES staff do that? Readers of this thread, and the other one in the Midwest Forum and the one on Ft. Wayne Geo Board know the answers but are keeping it secret. Maybe they have good reason, but I wish they'd share.

 

BTW Thanks to the mods for letting us discuss this issue here.

[+sbell111]

You bring up a point that I was wondering about when I read the recent posts. I wonder which would be more helpful to the cause, arguing that there are alot of geocachers that are affected by this rule or that these geocaches get very few visitors and, therefore, aren't anything to be concerned with.

[+CYBret]

BTW Thanks to the mods for letting us discuss this issue here.

 

You're welcome

 

Bret

[+The Herd]

RPW,

Before some reads it wrong and flames on, I REALLY need to clear something up that you posted. I am sure it was just a mistype on your part, but, I feel it needs fixing none the less.

I am NOT, nor is Brad, an ACRES board member. 13 months ago, I was living in Michigan, driving almost daily to come visit Brad. It came to our attention that Wing Haven was in need of a caretaker, and Brad asked for the opportunity to do so. They thought he would be the best match for the job/property. So, I moved down here to live with him. We are actually just caretakers of the property. Though, Brad doesn more of the "caretaking" than I do. Yes, we do work closely with ACRES, but, we have no say on final decisions. We can just try to influence them before hand...which, in this case had NO effect. (just wanted to make that clear...hehe!)

 

Secondly...To say that ACRES doesn't want people visiting on their preserves is a little too much. I know first hand that ACRES preserves this land for people to enjoy. They do advertise, just not as much as a group with more money probably could. Most of their advertising is done by donations. (have you ever heard the land-trust radio spots...they are hilarious!!!!!!) I do believe that places like this receive more grants/funding/etc. if they have more visitors. As far as them putting this policy into place to discourage visitors...I just honestly don't think that is true. I think they just didn't realize the impact this would have on a LARGE group of people, as Brad and I were the only ones giving them feedback...and they just, well, missed on this one.

Edited August 31, 2006 by The Herd

[+TEAM RETRIEVER]

It's our opinion that ACRES doesn't really want a lot of people visiting their preserves.

 

One way to find out for sure is to create that committee of geocachers that I spoke of and ASK them! I see a lot of speculation on this topic. The people of ACRES might just be more open minded than ya think. But you won't know unless you try. If the voice is loud enough, they won't have a choice but to listen.

 

Thanks for your input on all of this Herd. I'm listening!

[+The Herd]

It's our opinion that ACRES doesn't really want a lot of people visiting their preserves.

 

One way to find out for sure is to create that committee of geocachers that I spoke of and ASK them! I see a lot of speculation on this topic. The people of ACRES might just be more open minded than ya think. But you won't know unless you try. If the voice is loud enough, they won't have a choice but to listen.

 

Thanks for your input on all of this Herd. I'm listening!

 

Team Retriever,

I agree with what you are saying...but should add...I think the key to contacting ACRES is to do so in a calm, thoughtout manner. I think they would probably listen A LOT better if they were approached by someone/s with a calm demeanor who is prepared in what they want to say.

[+TEAM RETRIEVER]

It's our opinion that ACRES doesn't really want a lot of people visiting their preserves.

 

One way to find out for sure is to create that committee of geocachers that I spoke of and ASK them! I see a lot of speculation on this topic. The people of ACRES might just be more open minded than ya think. But you won't know unless you try. If the voice is loud enough, they won't have a choice but to listen.

 

Thanks for your input on all of this Herd. I'm listening!

 

Team Retriever,

I agree with what you are saying...but should add...I think the key to contacting ACRES is to do so in a calm, thoughtout manner. I think they would probably listen A LOT better if they were approached by someone/s with a calm demeanor who is prepared in what they want to say.

 

EXACTLY, Herd!!! That is my entire point!!!! I don't mean that we should form a lynch mob and light up the torches! LOL! A group of well spoken individuals should approach them after formulating a proposal.

[+SixDogTeam]

BTW Thanks to the mods for letting us discuss this issue here.

 

You're welcome

 

Bret