Off-trail

[+Kenderwolf]

Apologies in advance as I'm sure this topic has come up in the past, so please forgive a "newbie" question.

 

On my second geocaching day, I took a friend, my father, and my stepmother. Today, the friend and I were shopping for hiking sticks, pedometers, etc. and got to chatting a bit about geocaching. He encouraged me to get a map of the local trails, etc. and it turns out that he was very upset about our "bushwhacking" off-trail when we out seeking the other day. I have admitted to him that I'm bad about it, that I'm finding myself more likely to crash through the underbrush in a straight line than to stay on-trail. (And enjoying it more that way, actually.) I know I shouldn't go off-trail - it's a horrible habit. I think I find myself more likely to do it because the desert doesn't show as much damage, though I realize I'm doing it. I earned a little favor by telling him how I cached-in-and-trashed-out, but he still grumbled about damaging the area.

 

What are people's thoughts on this? Most caches are at least a little off-trail. Do people usually try and stay on trails as much as possible? If not, what do you say to defend your off-trail trompings?

Edited January 4, 2006 by Kenderwolf

[+Miragee]

See my signature line . . .

 

But, seriously, it is better to stay on the trail, until it become obvious you have to get off the trail to finally get to the cache.

 

Depending on the habitat, Geotrails can develop and it may be hard for the vegetation to recover if the soil gets compacted by lots of traffic.

[+Alan2]

Damaging the desert? What's left after you wear out the sand? More sand?

[+Airmapper]

Guilty, but unintentionally of course.

 

I follow the GoTo arrow way to closely sometimes, ("But it's only 500 feet that way.....") I try and find the right way in, but sometimes I just bushwhack. One great cache I done was supposed to be done from the water. Not me, I went through the woods and found it from land. (It was public land.)

[+gsmX2]

The desert is not "just sand". It is actually some very hearty plants trying to survive is very harsh conditions. Follow the trail as best you can. The plants will thank you for it.

[+Mudfrog]

Im one of those who likes short cuts so i sometimes like to take that straight line approach to a cache too. My shortcuts hardly ever pan out so it's usually best to just stay on the trail until i get as close as i can before heading off. Mainly because it ends up being alot easier. That bushwhacking can get old after a bit (we have alot of briars that grab at ya around here).

 

As far as damaging the terrain,, it all depends on what terrrain you are on. To me it seems pretty easy to see when an area is more fragile. I take a few steps and if it looks like i will be breaking alot of limbs, mowing down vegetation, or leaving a geotrail, then i'll rethink my route!

[Tahosa and Sons]

Read a map, use the lay of the land. Don't believe that trails are where they show them to be. Get as close as possible then go for it. But a lot depends on the time of the year, and the geographical location as to wheather you will make a social trail. And if a social trail does start to develop then just move the cache to a better location.

[+Criminal]

When Bertha Bear and Ernie Elk stay on the damnn trails, so will I. Until then, I walk where I choose. Sheeesh. Sorry if that's not PC enough for you.

[+briansnat]

If the park rules say stay on the trail, I'll stay on the trail. If not, I see no reason I can't follow the hunters, wildlife photographers, orienteers, bird watchers, mushroomers, backpackers, etc... off trail.

 

In high traffic areas, trails are important to concentrate use and protect the area. In most other places, a few people going off trail now and then is not a problem.

[+wilkintj]

I don't really have a policy ... if the cache description says it's near the trail, I'll usually stay on the trail until I'm really close, within 40 feet or so, just because it's a nicer hike not having to push through thorns and overgrown weeds or whatever. But I guess that also depends on the terrain ... if it's a nice mature forest or some other area where walking around off the trail is easy enough, then I may go off trail. I'm lazy, I'll do whatever's easier, but with that being said, the animals have trails of their own, but don't always stick to them, so I feel no need to always stick to them myself.

[BRTango]

I typically try and stick to the trail... mainly because I find it easier and get less sticks in the eye that way. Also I have a very short legged dog (Basset Hound) that doesn't really care for wading through shoulder high underbrush. However, I've done quite a bit of off-trail bushwaking since I've started caching. I think bushwaking is fine when it's necessary... trail-blazing is not. Push branches aside, don't break them off.

[+CamoCacher]

If the park rules say stay on the trail, I'll stay on the trail. If not, I see no reason I can't follow the hunters, wildlife photographers, orienteers, bird watchers, mushroomers, backpackers, etc... off trail.

 

In high traffic areas, trails are important to concentrate use and protect the area. In most other places, a few people going off trail now and then is not a problem.

I'm also witht his camp. Before Geocaching I did (still do now I just combine the two) alot of photography and was off trail alot unless the park prohibited it. I will try to use deer trails and the like but I can tell you the best shots are the ones that you took the hard road out to and sat quietly waiting for somewhere of trail. I do try to look what is around and find the easiest path of least resistance and damage tho.

[+JDandDD]

I think bushwaking is fine when it's necessary... trail-blazing is not. Push branches aside, don't break them off.

That's pretty much my philosophy. I bushwack only when necessary and then carefully. Most areas have sensitive plants so I watch what I'm reading on and try not to break branches etc. So I stick to the trail until I get close, however, you still can get fooled by a trail that hooks around and actually comes closer. In those cases you end up bushwaking more than you need.

 

Stay on the trail is a good guide. Most hiders don't put their caches too far off the trail.

 

JDandDD

[+Olar]

As mentioned a few times above stay on the trail until you have determined without a doubt that the last stretch must be through the bush. Then use some common sense as to the least damaging path from there. Utilizing a compass is very helpful in this regard. From the trail, sight a line to the cache area (your GPS will give you the correct bearing regardless of where your arrow is pointed) and pick out a landmark of some sort. Then look around and visualize the best way in.

 

Stay on the trail is a good guide. Most hiders don't put their caches too far off the trail.

 

A large number of my favorite finds have been either right on the trail or a few short meters off. Bushwacking the final bit doesn’t turn me off at all but on the same token it’s not necessary for a hider to think it would be more enjoyable.

 

Cheers, Olar

[Zoptrop]

When you look at the "big picture" it's kinda silly to trip the light fantastic around a bunch of dirt and plants. After all, it only takes one well-aimed lightning strike and the whole point is moot when everything goes up in flames. Or a good winter of snowfall and the rabbit trail goes bye-bye as well. - And by dirt and plants I don't mean endangered species. Erosion is a part of nature too. Really. If you don't believe me then take a look at the Grand Canyon sometime. Should we back-fill it in the name of conservation?

 

Now... having said that, it doesn't do any good to win the battle and lose the war. Meaning, if the action gets you (and geocaching) banned from the park, then you've lost.

[Lowsky]

have you ever heard of "the butterfly effect"?

take nothing but pictures leave nothing but footprints.

 

 

random thought : I 95 started as a walking path as did I 76

[+Kenderwolf]

have you ever heard of "the butterfly effect"?

take nothing but pictures leave nothing but footprints.

While I generally agree with that, does it really hold true for geocaching? If everyone only left footprints, there would be no caches to find.

[+Kai Team]

Read a map, use the lay of the land.  Don't believe that trails are where they show them to be.  Get as close as possible then go for it.    But a lot depends on the time of the year, and the geographical location as to wheather you will make a social trail.  And if a social trail does start to develop then just move the cache to a better location.

Uh - don't move caches unless you own them. As a finder, you can notify the owner if a social trail develops, so they can move the cache (and change the coordinates accordingly)

 

I stay on trail for two reasons:

 

1) 99% of the time it's the easiest, most fun approach to the cache (unless you like briars, sticks in the eye and twisted ankles),

2) although the damage one person may do bushwhacking to a cache may be small, 50 people seeking the same cache can do considerable damage.

 

Analogies to "hunters, wildlife photographers, orienteers, bird watchers, mushroomers, backpackers, etc" are not valid because they are not all going to the same exact spot and that does make a difference.

 

I geocache because I like to be in natural looking settings (not "PC", just selfish motivation because that's what I like). If you prefer settings that look like Walmart parking lots, that's where you should cache (no worries about going off trail there! ).

[+CamoCacher]

Read a map, use the lay of the land.  Don't believe that trails are where they show them to be.  Get as close as possible then go for it.    But a lot depends on the time of the year, and the geographical location as to wheather you will make a social trail.  And if a social trail does start to develop then just move the cache to a better location.

Uh - don't move caches unless you own them. As a finder, you can notify the owner if a social trail develops, so they can move the cache (and change the coordinates accordingly)

 

I stay on trail for two reasons:

 

1) 99% of the time it's the easiest, most fun approach to the cache (unless you like briars, sticks in the eye and twisted ankles),

2) although the damage one person may do bushwhacking to a cache may be small, 50 people seeking the same cache can do considerable damage.

 

Analogies to "hunters, wildlife photographers, orienteers, bird watchers, mushroomers, backpackers, etc" are not valid because they are not all going to the same exact spot and that does make a difference.

 

I geocache because I like to be in natural looking settings (not "PC", just selfish motivation because that's what I like). If you prefer settings that look like Walmart parking lots, that's where you should cache (no worries about going off trail there! ).

Kai the analogies work because like those listed I highly doubt cachers are all going to all take the exact same trail unless the area is extremely dense and there is only one way in. I knwo for the few caches I have visited I have taken different routes into each, each time.

[+briansnat]

Analogies to "hunters, wildlife photographers, orienteers, bird watchers, mushroomers, backpackers, etc" are not valid because they are not all going to the same exact spot and that does make a difference.

 

Where I come from you are quite likely to find permanent tree stands far off trail, which makes me think that hunters go back to that exact same spot repeatedly. I've also encountered well used backpacker campsites well off trail, while orienteering events have numerous people following generally the same course.

 

Generally speaking, the farther off the trail a cache is, the fewer visits the cache receives and the farther from the trail it is the less chance there is of social trails developing.

[+Alan2]

The original poster was talking about the desert!. I think back to those days of yesteryear when the mask avenger and others with their covered wagons stormed across our tv's and the footless trails and the praries. I mean unless you take a baseball bat and get personal with a yucca plant or unless there's some specific spot posted because it has some rare vegetation, how do sand trails hurt the environment or cause anything but extremely temporary dislocation of a plant or too? I mean your steps aren't committing specie's herbicide are they?

[+Renegade Knight]

In a park where they make trails, pave them up and slab them over then post signs that say "stay" on the trail, I'll stay on the trail.

 

Beyond that it's a big world full of all kinds of things worth seeing that are not on trails and which don't need trails to be created for no better reason than to post signs for us to stay on them.

 

Where your friend was misguided is that a trail is a land use decision that results from developing lands for recreational use for the thronging masses. When they show up, they will create the need for improved trails to minimize the trample impact just from bringing that many people into one area.

 

They should not confuse geocaching for the local teenage party spot.

 

Case in point. Look at this cache: It’s about 500’ off a trail and the trail to the cache is about a mile long, maybe 2 and fairly steep in places but nothing fatal or scary. 15 Find Logs since 2001.

 

2001 – 2 Logs

2002 – 12 Logs

2003 – 1 Log

2004 – 0 Logs

2005 – 0 Logs

 

The point is the further off trail or even down the trail the less finds and less use the land will see from hiking. If those 12 pioneers did manage to make a social trail in 2002, it's gone by now.

[BRTango]

Earlier this year there was a great example of what can be found if someone decides to go off trail.

 

I can't remember the name of the area, but someone came across a spectacular 400 foot waterfall in the forests of California. It hadn't been seen since the early 1960s and even the park rangers thought it was just a myth. But sure enough... it was there.

 

If I can find a link to the story, I'll post it. Or if anyone remembers what I'm talking aobut, feel free to post.

 

Ok... here's the link: Whiskeytown Falls

Edited January 5, 2006 by BRTango

[Stearmandriver]

Analogies to "hunters, wildlife photographers, orienteers, bird watchers, mushroomers, backpackers, etc" are not valid because they are not all going to the same exact spot and that does make a difference...

 

Kai the analogies work because like those listed I highly doubt cachers are all going to all take the exact same trail unless the area is extremely dense and there is only one way in. I knwo for the few caches I have visited I have taken different routes into each, each time.

The analogies DON'T work, as Kai said, because while the caching crowds aren't all taking exactly the same path (it'd be better if they were), they ARE all going to the same place. So you end up with a well-worn area, getting progressively more trampled the closer you get to ground zero. I've only found 3 caches so far, but, while well-hidden, none of them were challenges. If I'd been the first one there, maybe, but I didn't have to look around for good hiding spots or anything, I just followed the broken branches and (obviously not game) trails. I don't worry about this area much, because let's face it, northern IL is a lost cause, but it would be a shame to see this in somewhat pristine areas.

 

Hunter tree stands, orienteering events etc. aren't the same either because they either involve only a couple of people using an area once a year, or a 1 time event that may do some damage, but is then over, allowing the area time to recover.

 

It comes down to the difference between bushwacking and trailblazing, as someone else said. The difference between just plowing through a tangle of branches and leaving an elephant trail, or taking the extra 20 seconds to pick your way through carefully, leaving no obvious sign.

 

The desert is actually one of the most fragile environments in the country, especially riparian areas in canyons.

[+TotemLake]

IMHO, you should pay attention to folks having a bit more experience in this discussion.

 

You're basing your observations on three caches you found.

 

-One cache at the edge of a forest preserve near a street where you can expect that kind of damage and not all from geocachers... found in the dark, probably around what... 1AM(?) based on the next cache you found. Also noted the old stomping grounds reference.

 

-The second cache found at 2:30AM (also old stomping grounds referenced) at an airport (how'd that get past the reviewer?) but still, an area that you can't possibly expect to be pristine.

 

-and the third in woods of a small community park you used to play around in as a kid (old stomping grounds eh?), next to a canal. I'm sure you looked past the geocache area and saw a significant difference.

 

Although I can appreciate what you're trying to say, at least 2 of these caches do not properly support your observations and I have to question the third cache condition observation. Being a kid one time myself, I know the kind of damage I did next to canals and streams.

 

Here in the PNW, it doesn't take long for the wilderness to recover where man has made his mark. It takes constant maintenance to keep our heavily used trails clear and usable. There is one trail I took that was nice and clear two years ago, and practically overgrown the following year, a mere 9 months later. So, based on my meager observations, the analogies do work.

[+Renegade Knight]

...The analogies DON'T work, as Kai said, because while the caching crowds aren't all taking exactly the same path (it'd be better if they were), they ARE all going to the same place. So you end up with a well-worn area, getting progressively more trampled the closer you get to ground zero. ...

This is true for an urban cache, however for the most part I don't mind trampeling the invasive weeds that seem to love our urban fringe.

 

See my post above for the history of a cache off trail, but not that far off the trail.

 

It's a simple fact that the further off trail, or even down the trail a cache is the less visits it gets. Caches are temporary and the sheer number of people it would take to make a trail that won't recover shortly after the cache is removed just isn't going to happen. Urban caches are the exception but the urban world is not what we are discussiong and besides the urban jungle is built for pedestrians.

[Stearmandriver]

How, exactly, does logging time using a box to find a box factor into a discussion on human impacts of natural areas? If that's your only comment about my post, then IMHO... you aren't a very experienced debater.

 

While I may not have as much caching experience as the next guy (which I readily admitted), I'll bet I've spent more time in the woods than most of the people here. I've worked and recreated at a wide variety of activities, in a wide variety of places (worked trail mx in the Olympics for a while, matter of fact), and since we aren't specifically having a geocaching discussion here, but a "people running around in the woods off-trail" discussion, my observations are more than valid. As far as the 2 caches I found in the dark... how do you think I found them in the dark? I was also surprised at how close both of them were to the airport, but there's not much of a security risk to that - there's really no commercial activity out of that place.

 

And no, there really hasn't been any change to that area around the third cache - except for the improvements to the tow path, which I personally wish they hadn't done. Not sure how that's relevant either way.

 

Thing is, Totem, I think you and I actually agree here. I was in a hurry on that last post so maybe I didn't make it clear, but I agree that leaving the trail is perfectly legitimate unless you're in an area that specifically prohibits it. I was just saying that there's a responsible way to do this, and an irresponsible one. The irresponsible way is to fall into the same mentality that so many other hobbyists do - fixating too much on the ultimate goal, at the expense of appreciating and preserving where you are.

[klenger]

A comment about "trails" in the Sonoran desert here in AZ. Virtually every plant and many of the animals in the desert either sticks, stings, or bites, so any sane person tries to stay on the trail whenever possible. Even the trails are overgrown with bushes with stickers. I've gotten to the point that I sometimes carry a pruning sheer just to keep the trail clear. Bushwhacking is a last resort. The desert here doesn't even have any sand, the soil is more like concrete pavement than sand, but somehow, the plants and animals still seem to eek out a life in it.

[+TotemLake]

How, exactly, does logging time using a box to find a box factor into a discussion on human impacts of natural areas? If that's your only comment about my post, then IMHO... you aren't a very experienced debater.

 

While I may not have as much caching experience as the next guy (which I readily admitted), I'll bet I've spent more time in the woods than most of the people here. I've worked and recreated at a wide variety of activities, in a wide variety of places (worked trail mx in the Olympics for a while, matter of fact), and since we aren't specifically having a geocaching discussion here, but a "people running around in the woods off-trail" discussion, my observations are more than valid. As far as the 2 caches I found in the dark... how do you think I found them in the dark? I was also surprised at how close both of them were to the airport, but there's not much of a security risk to that - there's really no commercial activity out of that place.

 

And no, there really hasn't been any change to that area around the third cache - except for the improvements to the tow path, which I personally wish they hadn't done. Not sure how that's relevant either way.

 

Thing is, Totem, I think you and I actually agree here. I was in a hurry on that last post so maybe I didn't make it clear, but I agree that leaving the trail is perfectly legitimate unless you're in an area that specifically prohibits it. I was just saying that there's a responsible way to do this, and an irresponsible one. The irresponsible way is to fall into the same mentality that so many other hobbyists do - fixating too much on the ultimate goal, at the expense of appreciating and preserving where you are.

Time of day has a lot to do with it. How much trampling did you do at that time of night that would have been unnecessary durning the day? How exact can your observations be in the limited lighting?

 

I appreciate the clarification to your position.

[+StarBrand]

I don't know what kind of desert the OP was in but the deserts I have cached in have no and/or very few bushes to be whacked. If I was bushwacking and destroying plant life - it would have been a very diliberate act not an accidental one.

 

Having siad that - I stick to the trails when required and explore and feel free otherwise. I can choose to destroy or walk a few feet further to go around (desert and prairie anyway). Most forest environments will recover from my path fairly easily and quickly - assuming I don't go out of my way to be destructive.

[+bobbarley]

A couple of statements have bothered me so far.

how do sand trails hurt the environment

and

When you look at the "big picture" it's kinda silly to trip the light fantastic around a bunch of dirt and plants.

The leading authority on low/no impact wilderness travel is the Leave No Trace Organization. Should be required knowledge and practice for anyone travelling in the places we want to protect. Leave No Trace

Deserts and the far north are among the most fragile ecosystems because they are slow growing and take extremely long to repair that "sand trail". The big picture is that geocaching willy nilly as you stare at your receiver damages the shrinking wild spaces left that we value.

But hey if you are really into urban micros then "pave paradise and put up a parking lot". With none of those pesky national parks then we don't have to worry about being banned from them. (end sarcasm)

Everyone should do all they can to protect places like Whiskeytown Falls. Not cordon them off but preserve in original condition while we enjoy them.

[+briansnat]

The analogies DON'T work, as Kai said, because while the caching crowds aren't all taking exactly the same path (it'd be better if they were), they ARE all going to the same place. So you end up with a well-worn area, getting progressively more trampled the closer you get to ground zero.

 

You're making the same mistake many non geocachers make when they discuss this issue. That is assuming that there are crowds of geocachers going to these places. In reality the farther off the trail a cache is, the fewer visits it will receive. Many receive only a handful of visits a year.

 

I've hidden over 140 caches and the majority have been off trail, some way off trail. I challenge anyone (other than perhaps Tom Brown Jr.) to tell me there is a cache there by looking at the area.

[+TotemLake]

How, exactly, does logging time using a box to find a box factor into a discussion on human impacts of natural areas? If that's your only comment about my post, then IMHO... you aren't a very experienced debater.

 

While I may not have as much caching experience... etc.

I was interrupted in my previous reply, so will add with this one...

 

And no, there really hasn't been any change to that area around the third cache - except for the improvements to the tow path, which I personally wish they hadn't done.  Not sure how that's relevant either way.

 

By your first post, you were using your cache finds as relevant to your experience with the damage geocachers do. If there wasn't much change beyond the area of the cache, then who is to say did the original damage? You can't properly pin it on geocachers without a routine inspection since the cache was placed.

 

So the point to my first inquiry was, how could you tell the damage was by geocachers and not by other folks who also obviously use these areas as old stomping grounds? They are close enough to the city, I'm fairly certain y'all aren't immune to the homeless and other ne'er to do's.

 

I can say with experience, my cache hide area has seen some significant damage to the immediate area, but the route to it off trail is still obscured after just a few months with several DNF's and Finds. That's because everybody's approach to the cache is different than the intended... which is fine. The cache is about 200 feet off the trail at the nearest point. The damaged area will rectify itself quickly as it is only ferns and moss... and in this area it won't take long.

[+BilboB]

I generally use the trails until it is not convenient, and then I bushwack. I really dont have a set policy. Terrain dictates alot of how I get there.

[+Miragee]

Here is a picture I took at "The way it was as a natural desert."

 

 

That is what the desert can look like sometimes. We stayed on an existing trail until it became obvious we needed to go off trail, but we didn't do any bushwhacking. The cactus and other spiney and spikey plants would have whacked us right back.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I agree that leaving the trail is perfectly legitimate unless you're in an area that specifically prohibits it. I was just saying that there's a responsible way to do this, and an irresponsible one. ...

Very true. There is a world of difference between going off trail and leaving a path of mass destruction.

[+Renegade Knight]

...The leading authority on low/no impact wilderness travel is the Leave No Trace Organization. Should be required knowledge and practice for anyone travelling in the places we want to protect. Leave No Trace

Deserts and the far north are among the most fragile ecosystems because they are slow growing and take extremely long to repair that "sand trail". The big picture is that geocaching willy nilly as you stare at your receiver ...

I've hiked on the Tundra on North Slope of Alaska in ANWAR and In the Deserts of Arizona. 10,000 years of Inuits hunting and hiking didn't do much for damage. A vehicle driven on a joy ride on the other hand does leave a trail. Since we are talking hiking I'm going to dismiss your claim. If you are talking vehicles that's different.

 

The desert...I don't have as much experience but again you have 10,000 years of Indians...and again we are talking hiking, not Pre-Runners.

 

Lastly Leave No Trace in part compromises their own position due to politics. It's up to you to figure out which part. I found it interesting though when I did some digging that rather than do the true right thing, they chose the socially acceptable plan b which is worse. I'll admit that Leave No Trace, overall does try to promote what we are saying the average geocacher who is willing to bushwack already does.

Edited January 6, 2006 by Renegade Knight

[Zoptrop]

The big picture is that geocaching willy nilly as you stare at your receiver damages the shrinking wild spaces left that we value.

 

True, but I'm not talking about "endangered desert crust" or "species habitat". I also don't mean to imply that it's okay to break branches, or use a machete to hack your way through the brush (I've seen both).

 

I'm refering to what amounts to a "deer trail" in cedar scrub country. It's no different than the trails created by deer, cows and other large animals (humans included) that follow a common path.

 

The big picture is that the social trails are not permanent and become over grown and disappear back into the surroundings with a season of growth.

 

I'm sure everyone can point out examples of environmental damage, but in reality we are talking about a couple of people walking down a dirt path and wading through the grass. This isn't Love Canal or 3-mile Island being discussed here.

[+Criminal]

I once carried a machete on a geocache hike, and needed it. I had to hack the hell out of so many branches that my hand was sore afterward. No, I’m not kidding! I was getting a blister by the time I finished, and even then I had only cleared a small path. In this case a large tree had fallen across the trail. The tree’s branches and the saplings it pulled down with it made the trail impassable.

 

Never say never.

[+briansnat]

I once carried a machete on a geocache hike, and needed it. I had to hack the hell out of so many branches that my hand was sore afterward. No, I’m not kidding! I was getting a blister by the time I finished, and even then I had only cleared a small path. In this case a large tree had fallen across the trail. The tree’s branches and the saplings it pulled down with it made the trail impassable.

 

Never say never.

That's what chainsaws are for!

[+Criminal]

I once carried a machete on a geocache hike, and needed it.  I had to hack the hell out of so many branches that my hand was sore afterward.  No, I’m not kidding!  I was getting a blister by the time I finished, and even then I had only cleared a small path.  In this case a large tree had fallen across the trail.  The tree’s branches and the saplings it pulled down with it made the trail impassable. 

 

Never say never.

That's what chainsaws are for!

I was traveling light...

 

[+CharlieP]

IMHO the "off-trail hiking environmental damage issue" is sort of like my mother's warnings about crossing my eyes when I was 5 years old. She would tell me that my eyes would lock that way, which was not true, but she was just trying to keep me from doing something that annoyed her. Purists are annoyed by the idea of folks walking off -trail, so they say it will result in awful consequences.

 

In the forests of Northern Georgia, if a cache has not been sought for a month or so, it is often difficult to tell anyone has ever been in the area of the cache. The forest covers your tracks quickly. The "damage" caused by 100 hikers in a area pales in comparison to the effect of one large tree falling, ripping up a few hundred pounds of soil and rock, breaking other trees, and gouging the terrain on impact. And there are thousands of trees falling in our forests every year. Folks wring their hands about damage from off-trail hiking on National Forest lands which will be subject to timbering operations in future years. Need I say more.

 

We geocachers should obey rules set my land managers, and be careful to minimize our impact. But the managers and conservationists need to be reasonable in setting the rules.

Edited January 6, 2006 by CharlieP

[+bobbarley]

The forest covers your tracks quickly. The "damage" caused by 100 hikers in a area pales in comparison to the effect of one large tree falling, ripping up a few hundred pounds of soil and rock, breaking other trees, and gouging the terrain on impact. And there are thousands of trees falling in our forests every year. Folks wring their hands about damage from off-trail hiking on National Forest lands which will be subject to timbering operations in future years. Need I say more.

 

The inlets of Alaska will eventually recover from the Exxon Valdez spill too. When I travel to "wild" places I would like to think that I am the first to be there and I travel ethically so that the next person will feel the same way. The impact of a single boot print on my hike is far greater than a large tree falling over.

Geocaching encourages people to travel a narrow path to a specific location. Techniques exist to minimize your impact both on nature and other visitor's experiences. Why wouldn't you at least try?

The big picture is that the social trails are not permanent and become over grown and disappear back into the surroundings with a season of growth.

The big picture is that not all environments recover as well as you ideal. As little as 2-10 people walking on the same spot in a high alpine environment in one season leaves a trail that would take hundreds of years to recover. That only if there is no erosion that follows. But hey, you've logged that cache and aren't coming back so why should you care?

I've hiked on the Tundra on North Slope of Alaska in ANWAR and In the Deserts of Arizona. 10,000 years of Inuits hunting and hiking didn't do much for damage. A vehicle driven on a joy ride on the other hand does leave a trail. Since we are talking hiking I'm going to dismiss your claim. If you are talking vehicles that's different.

 

The desert...I don't have as much experience but again you have 10,000 years of Indians...and again we are talking hiking, not Pre-Runners.

 

Lastly Leave No Trace in part compromises their own position due to politics. It's up to you to figure out which part. I found it interesting though when I did some digging that rather than do the true right thing, they chose the socially acceptable plan b which is worse. I'll admit that Leave No Trace, overall does try to promote what we are saying the average geocacher who is willing to bushwack already does.

Some parks and wild areas experience more visitation in one year than the total historic population of first peoples. Look around and you will see impact on the landscape left from hundreds of years of visitors. Tipi rings and bison kill sites, wagon ruts and ghost towns. You can dismiss my claim and ignore whats around you, its your choice. You can choose to walk lightly or not.

Renegade Knight, your last paragraph is confusing. Try not to speak in vague generalities without some coroborating facts. The average geocacher may not want to be lumped in with your statement.

Edited January 6, 2006 by bobbarley

[+Criminal]

The impact of a single boot print on my hike is far greater than a large tree falling over.

 

That's hilarious! Did you make that one up or did some one tell it to you?

 

Oh man, my side hurts.

[+Miragee]

Years ago I was backpacking in the Maze District of Canyonlands National Park where large areas of undisturbed soil are covered by cryptogamic crust.

 

There were no trails in that infrequently-visited area. We tried to walk in washes or on exposed sandstone, but occasionally, we had to walk on the soil. Because of the fragility of cryptobiotic soil, we walked in each other's footprints to minimize our impact.

 

I think a person walking there today would be more bothered seeing our bootprints, in the otherwise pristine area, than by seeing a tree that fell over. The tree falling over is part of the natural sequence of things; the bootprint is not.

 

Some habitats recover quickly from foot traffic, others do not. Where foot traffic can potentially affect the environment, Geocachers should stay on existing trails as much as possible.

[+Kai Team]

The analogies DON'T work, as Kai said, because while the caching crowds aren't all taking exactly the same path (it'd be better if they were), they ARE all going to the same place. So you end up with a well-worn area, getting progressively more trampled the closer you get to ground zero.

 

You're making the same mistake many non geocachers make when they discuss this issue. That is assuming that there are crowds of geocachers going to these places. In reality the farther off the trail a cache is, the fewer visits it will receive. Many receive only a handful of visits a year.

 

I've hidden over 140 caches and the majority have been off trail, some way off trail. I challenge anyone (other than perhaps Tom Brown Jr.) to tell me there is a cache there by looking at the area.

Brian,

 

I think you missed the part of the OP I was commenting on:

 

I have admitted to him that I'm bad about it, that I'm finding myself more likely to crash through the underbrush in a straight line than to stay on-trail. (And enjoying it more that way, actually.)

I'm not talking about a cache that's hidden 500 feet off trail in a remote area - I tend to agree with you there - relatively few finders and many approaches.

 

I'm talking about a cache hidden 10 feet off a trail, and the cacher 'crashes through the underbrush in a straight line for 500 feet rather than stay on trail'. IMO, that's a newbie mistake, and a needless destruction of natural habitat.

 

Also, in these cases, it is VERY likely that all the cachers doing this are taking the same route, because it's the straight line between the parking area and the cache!

 

Edit: Fix typos and add: It takes a lot more thought and skill to find the best approach to the cache than to bushwhack a straight line to it, and that thought and skill is part of the fun of geocaching for us!

Edited January 7, 2006 by Kai Team

[dsandbro]

I hike off-trail all the time. In fact prefer it to following the well-worn footpath. I seldom 'crash through the brush in a straight line' because that is a terribly inefficient way to hike and hard on the body and the brush. Picking your route by looking ahead is easier all the way around.

 

Since it is unlikely any two people would choose the same serpentine path off-trail hiking is less disruptive than everyone following the same shortest straight line from the trail.

[+Alan2]

I think there's a holy-than-thou attitiude by many environmental purists which often come down to their idea of what is right for them. While we all should be good stewards of the environmental, different people want to use the environment for different purposes and in different ways.

 

When one group says that we have to walk light so we can hear the birds only and not see another footprint, these are from people who can carry 65 lb over a 10 mile hike and think nothing of it. So sure, they don't want anyone updertting their serenity. But there are others who cannot hike like that but who want to be in the wilderness too. Maybe they find communing with nature in cross country skiing or alpine snowboarding, or off road vehicle and snowmobiles. Why should they be denied the use of public land as well?

 

Look, there's enough out there so we all can enjoy the outdoors. Setting aside an area for hiking only on dedicated paths, or maybe bushwacking, or using snow mobiles and off-raod vehicles that tear up the ground in other areas; all should be available.

 

It doesn't have to be all or nothing - either way.

[+briansnat]

I'm talking about a cache hidden 10 feet off a trail, and the cacher 'crashes through the underbrush in a straight line for 500 feet rather than stay on trail'. IMO, that's a newbie mistake, and a needless destruction of natural habitat.

 

I don't think anybody is defending crashing through the underbrush. In reality though how many people do you think really blindly crash through the underbrush? Its not only bad for the area, its pretty unsafe for the person who is doing it. I bet most people who say they "crashed through the underbrush" are using hyperbole.

Edited January 7, 2006 by briansnat

[+Kai Team]

I'm talking about a cache hidden 10 feet off a trail, and the cacher 'crashes through the underbrush in a straight line for 500 feet rather than stay on trail'. IMO, that's a newbie mistake, and a needless destruction of natural habitat.

 

I don't think anybody is defending crashing through the underbrush. In reality though how many people do you think really blindly crash through the underbrush? Its not only bad for the area, its pretty unsafe for the person who is doing it. I bet most people who say they "crashed through the underbrush" are using hyperbole.

One can only hope.

 

But to answer your question, I think a fair percentage of new cachers do beeline to the cache because they don't understand that they'll still get to the cache even if they don't follow the heading on their GPSr "compass" screen exactly. I therefore don't assume hyperbole, and responded to what the OP said, not what I think he meant to say.

 

Re: bushwhacking, it seems that we agree.

 

Edit: elaborate an answer that was way too short!

Edited January 8, 2006 by Kai Team