Unwarranted Cost Increase at Florida Springs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jj1987

Is this in line with what the rest of you are sending?

---

This is a good idea. However about half of your examples have nothing to do with the problem. Your just going to muddy the problem and cause people problems if you don't keep things accurate.
Rose, Woodville Karst Plain, and Karst Underwater Research all have permits with the state. Those caves are not open to the public and have nothing to do with the state pass program. Hart Springs is owned by Gilchrist County and charges $20. which includes the park entrance fees.
Water's journey was funded by the state springs initiative and you might want to ask Wes before you use his name. You could endanger any funding he is trying to get at this point.
You can add that when Manatee springs was threatened by a lime rock mine it was cave divers who reported the problem, gathered information and went to the water permitting board to get that stopped. They were able to stop that mine and keep the water clear. Talk to Annette or Mark Long. They were the head of that project.
I'll think and see if I can remember any other things we did. I know there were also some clean ups at Lafeyette Blue which will also be affected.

Tracy and I have had an annual family pass for the last 6 years and always counted them money well spent. Even when the cost doubled a year or so ago we still felt that the park passes were a good deal and a way to support Florida's excellent state parks.

But the only reason we come to Florida is to go cave diving. For our two two-week trips a year we usually spend a total of about $7,000. Quite a bit for just two people. Since we cook (well, Tracy does...) more than eat out, and since we don't do much of anything but cave dive while we're in Florida, I'm sure that many divers spend a lot more than we do. If we have to pay an additional fee for diving, we'll have no reason to buy park passes anymore.

I'm guessing that this idea germinated in the small grey mind of some bureaucrat, sitting in his cubicle thinking of ways to increase the state's revenue stream. Since the bureaucrat's first commandment is: "Never do anything for which you might be criticized.", perhaps brewing up a political sh*tstorm will be effective.

I'll be mailing all the people that metaldector was kind enough to identify, and as a member of the NSS-CDS, NACD, and NFSA, I'll rely on these organizations to make this issue a top priority.

Mike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cindy

This is a good idea. However about half of your examples have nothing to do with the problem. Your just going to muddy the problem and cause people problems if you don't keep things accurate.
Rose, Woodville Karst Plain, and Karst Underwater Research all have permits with the state. Those caves are not open to the public and have nothing to do with the state pass program. Hart Springs is owned by Gilchrist County and charges $20. which includes the park entrance fees.
Water's journey was funded by the state springs initiative and you might want to ask Wes before you use his name. You could endanger any funding he is trying to get at this point.
You can add that when Manatee springs was threatened by a lime rock mine it was cave divers who reported the problem, gathered information and went to the water permitting board to get that stopped. They were able to stop that mine and keep the water clear. Talk to Annette or Mark Long. They were the head of that project.
I'll think and see if I can remember any other things we did. I know there were also some clean ups at Lafeyette Blue which will also be affected.

---

Thanks for the input. My goal was to demonstrate that cave divers are traditionally a positive influence when it comes to conservation and responsible usage of natural resources across the board. Do you think you could help provide me with enough examples specifically related to state parks and non permit systems to prove that point? If I changed my text to "Cave divers have provided the following services to state, county, and individuals" (this is what I MEANT to say, albeit I did a poor job), do you think that would be more effective, or should I keep it to only open-diving state parks only?

My key points were that diving
-Tends to lead people towards being more aware of their effects on the environment.
-Economically impacts local business.
-Has historically provided the public with knowledge that is needed to preserve resources.
-Tends to lead people into being more willing to help with volunteer projects.

Any that you would suggest avoiding, or adding?

Question goes out to Jill, Jerry, Ben, Kelly, Brian/Heather etc who have experience working with landowners and the state and are on this forum as well. I'm sure many of us are willing to help, but I don't have the historical knowledge that you guys do, so I'll need some guidance. I have concern that without guidance our letters can raise a lot of noise and do very little good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by john

Apparently Troy Springs already is enforcing it.

When we were a Cathys on Friday Ron said Cathy was told she had to pay the 15 dollar fee.

---

I'm quite certain you will find this is not true. I happened to be diving with Cathy at Troy on the day mentioned and we both spoke with the park ranger. He discussed this issue with us but did not ask us for any money nor did he seem inclined to immediately inforce the collection a diving fee for those with a park pass. I also dove Manatee and Peacock this weekend with no collection of a fee for park pass holders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jj1987

Thanks for the input. My goal was to demonstrate that cave divers are traditionally a positive influence when it comes to conservation and responsible usage of natural resources across the board. Do you think you could help provide me with enough examples specifically related to state parks and non permit systems to prove that point? If I changed my text to "Cave divers have provided the following services to state, county, and individuals" (this is what I MEANT to say, albeit I did a poor job), do you think that would be more effective, or should I keep it to only open-diving state parks only?

My key points were that diving
-Tends to lead people towards being more aware of their effects on the environment.
-Economically impacts local business.
-Has historically provided the public with knowledge that is needed to preserve resources.
-Tends to lead people into being more willing to help with volunteer projects.

Any that you would suggest avoiding, or adding?

Question goes out to Jill, Jerry, Ben, Kelly, Brian/Heather etc who have experience working with landowners and the state and are on this forum as well. I'm sure many of us are willing to help, but I don't have the historical knowledge that you guys do, so I'll need some guidance. I have concern that without guidance our letters can raise a lot of noise and do very little good.

---

Try to keep your requests and examples to the problem at hand. I have worked with quite a few agencies and they only know what is in their lap. This forum used to keep track of clean ups etc. and may be able to provide you some help there. I would have to point out the building of the steps at Peacock, Lafayette etc donated and time spent by Cave Divers, also the changing room at Peacock. I'll try to keep my thinking cap on and send more examples.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cindy

Try to keep your requests and examples to the problem at hand. I have worked with quite a few agencies and they only know what is in their lap. This forum used to keep track of clean ups etc. and may be able to provide you some help there. I would have to point out the building of the steps at Peacock, Lafayette etc donated and time spent by Cave Divers, also the changing room at Peacock. I'll try to keep my thinking cap on and send more examples.

---

The steps and deck area at Emerald were built by volunteer divers with materials purchased by them as well. There used to be a porta john and trash can there and the path was nicely kept, now the porta john is gone, together with the trashcan, and the place is unkempt. SO, where are these $15.00 plus $1.05 tax really going to?

I might mention that other than the far and few in between reports on viz posted on the boards the park personnel do not have the foggiest idea whether the site is diveable or not. If such a diver tax (let's call a spade a spade) is to be levied by the state on diving the sites, then I would expect some sort of "service" for it. Porta John (so we don't crap and pee in the woods like silly bears) and reliable conditions reports that are not 6 months old, among others...

Dive safe,

Celia

error-new format

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benthic

Don't "discuss"..."do". This not the time for organizations who claim to support the interests of cave divers to "discuss". It's time for them to "do" something to protect the interests of their membership.

Brian

---

Things are in the "do" phase. The "do" and "get something accomplished" can be more successful when organizations have members,and those members support the organization. When you go to a party with "x" number of members,then it can carry more weight

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TONY CHANEY

Great work James...you nailed it. All that I could add is to stress the vast amount of income that those of us outside Fl. bring in.:clapper

---

Being outside of Florida is not a handicap,but a benefit,because the state depends on tourism,especially with the oil spill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jj1987

Thanks for the input. My goal was to demonstrate that cave divers are traditionally a positive influence when it comes to conservation and responsible usage of natural resources across the board. Do you think you could help provide me with enough examples specifically related to state parks and non permit systems to prove that point? If I changed my text to "Cave divers have provided the following services to state, county, and individuals" (this is what I MEANT to say, albeit I did a poor job), do you think that would be more effective, or should I keep it to only open-diving state parks only?

My key points were that diving
-Tends to lead people towards being more aware of their effects on the environment.
-Economically impacts local business.
-Has historically provided the public with knowledge that is needed to preserve resources.
-Tends to lead people into being more willing to help with volunteer projects.

Any that you would suggest avoiding, or adding?

Question goes out to Jill, Jerry, Ben, Kelly, Brian/Heather etc who have experience working with landowners and the state and are on this forum as well. I'm sure many of us are willing to help, but I don't have the historical knowledge that you guys do, so I'll need some guidance. I have concern that without guidance our letters can raise a lot of noise and do very little good.

---

In the past when I have discussed cave diving with land owners,there are certain key points. I think there is an awareness by the state of the positive effects cave divers provide be it exploration,cartography,water sampling etc,and our concern for conservation is generally noted. Cave divers provide a direct impact on the parks with monetary support,and an area impact as well. For Example,when Peacock is flooded,places like Luraville Country Store and Cindy's motel in Mayo are dead. Hence an alteration in fees could see a significant decline in direct income,but the have the people who would feel the area impact aware of any changes? How about Chamber of Commerces,County Commissions etc. Bill Huth has some great numbers for economic impact,and even though it is for Jackson Co,they can be some generalization.