Sophisticated Littering ?

April 13, 2006

I happen to think she is absolutely right about how wrong it is to leave objects in pristine enviroments. And it has gotten me to thinking how unconscionable and irrepsonsible it was for the Apollo 11 astronauts to go and leave that flag up there on the moon in '69. As a matter of fact I am leaving promptly tomorrow morning to go CITO it off of there. I mean really, how thoughtless.

April 13, 2006

I'm more of a Hufu man.

I knew tofu was evil!

3.9k · April 13, 2006

I happen to think she is absolutely right about how wrong it is to leave objects in pristine enviroments. And it has gotten me to thinking how unconscionable and irrepsonsible it was for the Apollo 11 astronauts to go and leave that flag up there on the moon in '69. As a matter of fact I am leaving promptly tomorrow morning to go CITO it off of there. I mean really, how thoughtless.

This has been bothering me for a while as well, particularly the debris from old missions left scatterd across the surface of the moon and Mars. Sue and I are heading out in our little intra-solar system shuttlecraft tomorrow to do some CITO on both celestial objects, and if you guys wanna come along, let us know by 5 AM EDT, and we will pick you up at the normal secluded spot at the White Sands testing base; alternate pickup site is the old nuke testing grounds at Mercury, Nevada.

2.5k · April 13, 2006

Sue and I are heading out in our little intra-solar system shuttlecraft tomorrow to do some CITO on both celestial objects, and if you guys wanna come along, let us know by 5 AM EDT, and we will pick you up at the normal secluded spot at the White Sands testing base; alternate pickup site is the old nuke testing grounds at Mercury, Nevada.

No thanks, I got my own:

Oh yeah, I got self-guiding missles for those hard to get hunks of space trash!

Edited April 13, 2006 by Airmapper

8k · April 13, 2006

Perhaps its my fault for littering in her backyard Just in case, I bought a Geocaching.com window cling so that geocachers will know which Subaru Outback in Sherman Oaks, CA they shouldn't throw their litter at

April 13, 2006

Quote: "What we don’t need to do is to encourage the public to participate in activities that are of no benefit to the earth’s current situation."

In my humble opinion football is an activity that is of no benefit to the earth's current situation. All that gas wasted on traveling to the game, the trash generated at the stadium, the waste from the nuclear reactor to generate electricity so it can be watched on television, the poor fish who suffer and die at the dam where more electricity is generated. I could go on and on but I know I need to get out of the way now, I think I see a football coming at me!

PS. I'm an amateur writer so please be easy on me!

6.1k · April 13, 2006

She is a MUGGLE. She has viewed sensitive information and must be reprogrammed....

6.5k · April 13, 2006

I have to agree that she sounded foolish, driving a Subaru Outback is certainly not contributing to the environment... however she should be entitled to her opinion. Many of you are just as if not MORE so ignorant than she was in her little letter.

In the letter she said she was an amateur herpetologist, being an amateur means she thinks she knows more than she does and that she is not very good at it. Otherwise she would be a professional herpetologist.
If you want her to change her outlook on GeoCaching, then do something to prove that we aren't just leaving junk lying around.

The reality is she won't change her outlook on geocaching, so it is more fun to marginalize her statements.This opinion was brought to you by an amateur psychologist and sociologist.

With some of the people you have to deal with, I'd say you could be ranked as a professional.

It's a little known fact (until now) that he does have an advance degree in child psychology. But since he gets paid for doing other things, he's stuck with that amateur label.

April 13, 2006

Someone should eat the muggle that sent that letter

April 13, 2006

Someone should eat the muggle that sent that letter

I thought muggleflesh was toxic . . .

April 13, 2006

Obviously you have to cook it first, and then serve with fava beans and a nice chianti. f..f..f..f..f.

2.4k · April 13, 2006

Quote: "What we don’t need to do is to encourage the public to participate in activities that are of no benefit to the earth’s current situation."

In my humble opinion football is an activity that is of no benefit to the earth's current situation. All that gas wasted on traveling to the game, the trash generated at the stadium, the waste from the nuclear reactor to generate electricity so it can be watched on television, the poor fish who suffer and die at the dam where more electricity is generated. I could go on and on but I know I need to get out of the way now, I think I see a football coming at me!

PS. I'm an amateur writer so please be easy on me!

Even moreso than football, something that could be considered to be "of no benefit to the earth's current situation" would be car racing. All that fuel being burned up by going nowhere, around in circles! And yet she blasts Subaru not for making the WRX race car, but for... an article about geocaching.

(I have nothing against the WRX -- it's a cool-looking car. And nothing against Subaru -- we have two of them!)

April 13, 2006

QUOTE

"How about those mountain climbers leaving their mark at the top of that exceptional mountain by leaving behind a logbook? "

I will bet that there is more junk on the way up to Mt. Everest than there is at any Geocache.

Last time I checked there were hundreds of oxygen bottles strewn about the trail.

Edited April 13, 2006 by olbluesguy

April 20, 2006

Please don't blame all amateur herpetologists for Hanna's opinions.

I too am a "herper" as well as a geocacher. They're both actually very similar kinds of people, but like every organization, our herp. society has a variety of opinions among it's members - some of whom are admittedly at the edge of the bell-curve. Sometimes bell-curve outliers make a greater effort to make their thoughts known, but they don't necessarily represent the average individual.

Hanna has a strong personality and strong opinions, but I know some herpers who feel the same way about her as you do. As mentioned earlier, she may not change her outlook on geocaching, but if she brings up the topic in front of me, I'll do my best to illuminate the subject for her.

BTW - I'm going to go camping this weekend to look for animals. On the way, I'll probably do some "cacheing" as well. Maybe I'll even mention it at the next herpetology meeting just to see if it gets a rise out of a particular individual there. :laughing:

Edited April 20, 2006 by Desert Iguanas

April 20, 2006

In the letter she said she was an amateur herpetologist, being an amateur means she thinks she knows more than she does and that she is not very good at it. Otherwise she would be a professional herpetologist.

Does that make me an amateur gynecologist? :laughing: :anibad:

April 20, 2006

As an amateur herpetologist, I have seen dumped and left-behind objects in the deserts and mountain foothills..

I can't help but wonder if she looks at it and "tsk tsk"s, or if she would do what any geocacher would do and pick it up and carry it out?

My guess is not. Prolly too busy carrying her nose in the air and writing letters poo-pooing something she's never tried, and has no understanding of. All while driving her gas burning, oil consuming, pollutant spewing Subaru.

Edited April 20, 2006 by Team GeoMacs

April 20, 2006

As an amateur herpetologist, I have seen dumped and left-behind objects in the deserts and mountain foothills..

I can't help but wonder if she looks at it and "tsk tsk"s, of if she would do what any geocacher would do and pick it up and carry it out?

My guess is not. Prolly too busy carrying her nose in the air and writing letters poo-pooing something she's never tried, and has no understanding of. All while driving her gas burning, oil consuming, pollutant spewing Subaru.

Actually, most herpers cherish debris piles because snakes and lizards hide under them. It actually improves the habitat from the standpoint of a reptile. ... Not that anyone I know might actually be placing this stuff out there. :laughing:

Nope. Don't know a soul who'd do that!

Edited April 20, 2006 by Desert Iguanas

April 20, 2006

Some people just don't like people :laughing: .

1.8k · April 20, 2006

I too am a "herper" as well as a geocacher.

Go see your doctor ... they have medicine that will help you. :laughing:

April 21, 2006

Keep in mind the letter was in response to 1 article.

Did the article mention our guidelines about not disrupting/defacing the area and even cleaning it up?

(GCTNQR was put on hold because it was in the general area of a birds nest for example, and GCVEZ0 was set up specifically in a trashy area to help clean it up!)

If it did not mention these virtues and simply described that we leave s*** out in the woods, than no wonder she thinks that! We should blame the writer of the original article for misrepresenting us and misleading her.

If it did mention these virtues, she just doesn't "get it" which doesn't make her a monster. Calling her names doesn't do our sport proud.

In either case I think the best response would be an intelligently written, insult free, educational response to her letter, to hopefully be published in the same magazine.

April 21, 2006

I suppose I should be the one to do that, although I will probably see her long before the next issue comes out. Anyway, maybe it will benefit others.

Unfortunately, I never read the issue she refers to. This is the first one I've received. I'll just try to clarify things in case the article missed something.

April 21, 2006

Oh, right. There's that link to the original article (http://www.mypersonaldrive.com/Win06_Feature.htm). Let me read it to educate myself, then I'll write something to the editor tonight.

... Okay, just looked at it. There's no mention of anti-littering guidlines, CITO, or any of that. I'll take care of it. Good ammo Team Cyberlove! I'll mention those two caches too.

Edited April 21, 2006 by Desert Iguanas

April 25, 2006

She is just plain wrong. I'm a little embarrassed for her.

I also thought "how embarrassing for her". But then I realized that for many people, opinions like this are their first information about geocaching.

Another angle to this is that she appears to belong to the group, (fortunately not the majority), of people who love the outdoors, but believe............. It is best for the environment if only me and my friends enjoy it. This person is the sort who gets mad if a newspaper publishes an article on a nice place to hike, a favorite beach walk, beautiful mountain lake. They have this "exclude, exclude" mentality rather than realize that the more people that learn to enjoy and appreciate the great outdoors, the better it is for all of us.

Edited April 25, 2006 by Cheminer Will

April 25, 2006

There are a number of people in the adks that consider caches.......trash, no matter how I explain it and of course they drive to their favorite hiking trails in their SUV's. Oh well, different addictions for different folks.

April 26, 2006

She is just plain wrong. I'm a little embarrassed for her.

I also thought "how embarrassing for her". But then I realized that for many people, opinions like this are their first information about geocaching.

Another angle to this is that she appears to belong to the group, (fortunately not the majority), of people who love the outdoors, but believe............. It is best for the environment if only me and my friends enjoy it. This person is the sort who gets mad if a newspaper publishes an article on a nice place to hike, a favorite beach walk, beautiful mountain lake. They have this "exclude, exclude" mentality rather than realize that the more people that learn to enjoy and appreciate the great outdoors, the better it is for all of us.

BRAVO, Cheminer Will!

You've hit the proverbial nail squarely on the head!

When the funds are handed-out for such things as Parks and Rec., they go to the where the majority of people are going to see them. I'd rather have too many people in the woods than 64 more basketball courts, frankly.

I do believe there are areas that should be made offlimits, such as some migratory bird nesting areas as an example. But those areas are pretty few and far between. Better more people than less open area!

April 26, 2006

One of the things I was surprised at in reading this forum, and perhaps it has already been beaten to death, is LNT (Leave No Trace) ethics and how it applies. LNT.org For example, LNT principles dictate staying on the trail, but I have watched as people are glued to the GPSr, no map of the area, and creating new trails. Things like that are no good for the woods.

April 26, 2006

One of the things I was surprised at in reading this forum, and perhaps it has already been beaten to death, is LNT (Leave No Trace) ethics and how it applies. LNT.org For example, LNT principles dictate staying on the trail, but I have watched as people are glued to the GPSr, no map of the area, and creating new trails. Things like that are no good for the woods.

Yeah! Deities know that the 10,000 deer, and those three herds of elephants make WAY less of an impact than some 140lb geocacher. . . Of course, the primary reason for this is the International Deer Trail Management Council. The bucks meet twice a year to build new trails in an environmentally conscious sorta way. Definitely something to see!

I suppose if you live on the moon, those footie-prints made by a human hang around for quite awhile. Here, they're gone in three days as the 6ft tall grasses reconverge on the area that got trampled.

April 26, 2006

One of the things I was surprised at in reading this forum, and perhaps it has already been beaten to death, is LNT (Leave No Trace) ethics and how it applies. LNT.org For example, LNT principles dictate staying on the trail, but I have watched as people are glued to the GPSr, no map of the area, and creating new trails. Things like that are no good for the woods.

Yeah! Deities know that the 10,000 deer, and those three herds of elephants make WAY less of an impact than some 140lb geocacher. . . Of course, the primary reason for this is the International Deer Trail Management Council. The bucks meet twice a year to build new trails in an environmentally conscious sorta way. Definitely something to see!

I suppose if you live on the moon, those footie-prints made by a human hang around for quite awhile. Here, they're gone in three days as the 6ft tall grasses reconverge on the area that got trampled.

While I apreciate the sarcasm, you may have noticed our wilderness areas are getting far more traffic than one 140lb person. Trying to leave the woods the way we found it, allows everyone to enjoy the view. While the rest of the world is learning new techniques and adapting, you can continue to look like a fool in the woods. Cutting switchbacks, trampling sensitive areas, walking around puddles to make a wider and wider trail. Congratulations!

The deer analogy is interesting, they do follow LNT rules. They will spread out in a meadow to feed and cross and follow game trails through the woods. Do you think all those trails were made by humans? Most of the time in trail building, we look for game trails, they are usually the best route.

Edited April 26, 2006 by Texsox

April 26, 2006

I hope you stay in urban areas.

Naw, I average about 120mi/mo in the wilderness, on foot, trying to dodge the freaking ATVs that clearly are much more environmentally friendly than a 140lb human...

1.2k · April 26, 2006

I hope you stay in urban areas.

Naw, I average about 120mi/mo in the wilderness, on foot, trying to dodge the freaking ATVs that clearly are much more environmentally friendly than a 140lb human...

Don't forget the horses. :laughing:

April 26, 2006

I hope you stay in urban areas.

Naw, I average about 120mi/mo in the wilderness, on foot, trying to dodge the freaking ATVs that clearly are much more environmentally friendly than a 140lb human...

Ah, more sarcasm. That always makes for a meaningful exchange of ideas and information.

Since you seem to think that one human doesn't do much, do you also mock one person packing out trash? After all, that is just one person at a time?

I now understand why some land managers are getting so tired with this sport. While other users of the woods are trying to minimize their impact, some people are still living in their own little world. They don't believe they could possibly have an impact, positive or negative.

I guess you feel ok as long as you have less of an impact than an ATV. I would hope that most people set their sites higher, and try to have much less of an impact on the environment. It adds to the challenge.

1.2k · April 26, 2006

I hope you stay in urban areas.

Naw, I average about 120mi/mo in the wilderness, on foot, trying to dodge the freaking ATVs that clearly are much more environmentally friendly than a 140lb human...

I now understand why some land managers are getting so tired with this sport. While other users of the woods are trying to minimize their impact, some people are still living in their own little world. They don't believe they could possibly have an impact, positive or negative.

So the land managers encouraging people to cache in our parks in our area is just a myth than? I think not they have been asking local cachers in our area to place caches as well as have a well known cacher in our area come up with CITO caches as well.

24.7k · April 26, 2006

One of the things I was surprised at in reading this forum, and perhaps it has already been beaten to death, is LNT (Leave No Trace) ethics and how it applies. LNT.org For example, LNT principles dictate staying on the trail, but I have watched as people are glued to the GPSr, no map of the area, and creating new trails. Things like that are no good for the woods.

LNT doesn't propose we do what's best for the enviroment in all cases. I found that interesting.

As for staying on the trail, that's fine where there is a trail to stay on. However life and the world are bigger than the network of manmade roads and trails. There are a lot of locations that don't have (and which don't need) trails and which are well worth a visit.

38.2k · April 26, 2006

I now understand why some land managers are getting so tired with this sport. While other users of the woods are trying to minimize their impact, some people are still living in their own little world. They don't believe they could possibly have an impact, positive or negative.

Are you trying to say that while other users are minimizing their impact geocachers are not? If so, it shows a certain lack of knowledge about geocaching and the participants.

I do wonder who these other users are? Do you mean the ATVers who are ripping rutted, 20 yard wide scars of earth through the forests? Or are you referring to the MTBers who are cutting across switchbacks, skidding their tires on dowhills, creating new trails and widening former single track footpaths into virtual roadways? Perhaps you're referring to the fishermen who leave their styrofoam bait containers on the shore and clumps of monofilament hanging from trees? Or is it the orienteers, who go off trail to get to the next station? Perhaps its the birders and nature photographers who also leave the trail to catch sight of an animal, or the hunters who venture off trail in search of their quarry? Or maybe you're talking about hikers who have no problem tossing orange and bananna peels along the trail because they're "organic"? Or is it the mushroomers who wander deep in the forest and rip desirable fungus out of the earth? Or maybe its the snowmobilers who shatter the winter quiet and pump noxious fumes into the air? Or maybe its the backpackers who trample the vegetation while setting up their tent and moving about the campsite? Or is it the rock climbers who hammer their tools into the rock face and leave them behind. Or perhaps the peak baggers who leave a waterproof canister at the summit with a logbook and pencil (Hmmm, that one sounds familiar)?

The fact is that geocachers have no more impact than any of these users and far, far less than most of them. In over 500 cache hunts I've seen little evidence of geocaching related damage outside a some bent blades of grass and broken branches. Every geocacher I know treads lightly and does their best to limit impact.

BTW, NY state's Department of Environmental Conservation, which manages all state forests and their two "forever wild" forest preserves (Adirondack and Catskill) had a long standing ban on geocaching. Then someone decided to do an actual study and they fanned out and visited caches sites throughout the state.

The verdict? The ban on geocaching was unwarranted, as there was no real impact. The ban on geocaching was lifted and they saw no need to even regulate it. Not only that, it was lifted in the constitutionally protected forest preserves. That was a shocker to the geocaching community, as we never dreamed they would open up the forest preserves to geocaching.

Edited April 26, 2006 by briansnat

1.8k · April 26, 2006

A couple of additional points here: (tho' briansnat, ya done good!)

1) We humans are a legitimate occupier of this planet. We need to be thoughtful of our usage of and on the land, not just for our fellow travelers, but in enlightened self interest. Misusing resources and rendering areas inhospitable to other creatures generally makes the same area inhospitable to us as well and potentially dangerous to our children, grandchildren, etc.

2) We have created sufficient technology to divorce many of us from the realities of the planet. “Nature” seem unreal to many, and has reduced our awareness of the fragility of some environments and habitats. Disney-type entertainment productions have warped our vision of other species and robbed them in our perception their dignity, their power and their worth.

3) Humans generally do not value what they do not experience. When activity in financial interaction and wealth gathering is more important than appreciation or preservation, then resources will be diminished or consumed irresponsibly.

4) We need people out there experiencing the outdoors. Otherwise they won’t “get it”. Use and preservation must be balanced.

Edited April 26, 2006 by ATMouse

April 26, 2006

I now understand why some land managers are getting so tired with this sport. While other users of the woods are trying to minimize their impact, some people are still living in their own little world. They don't believe they could possibly have an impact, positive or negative.

Are you trying to say that while other users are minimizing their impact geocachers are not? If so, it shows a certain lack of knowledge about geocaching and the participants.

I do wonder who these other users are? Do you mean the ATVers who are ripping rutted, 20 yard wide scars of earth through the forests?

[excellent list of examples deleted for space]

The fact is that geocachers have no more impact than any of these users and far, far less than most of them. In over 500 cache hunts I've seen little evidence of geocaching related damage outside a some bent blades of grass and broken branches. Every geocacher I know treads lightly and does their best to limit impact.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

But all that doesn't matter.

You forget that us EVIL geocaches leave trash behind. All those example you give they pickup their trash.

[that's sarcasm, for those of you who didn't get it]

April 26, 2006

I hope you stay in urban areas.

Naw, I average about 120mi/mo in the wilderness, on foot, trying to dodge the freaking ATVs that clearly are much more environmentally friendly than a 140lb human...

Ah, more sarcasm. That always makes for a meaningful exchange of ideas and information.

Actually, it should have been taken at face-value - there was no sarcasm there at all. Just two simple statements of pure fact that say sooo very much.

9.4k · April 26, 2006

We have worked with Leave No Trace and Tread Lightly in the past. We even have an online brochure and PDF printout that we worked on with Tread Lightly. Currently we're playing phone tag with the folks at Leave No Trace.

Although it seems counterintuitive, both organizations like geocaching and are working with us to create good do's and don'ts regarding the activity. Granted, new activities always scare people but with some cooperation with these types of organizations we can turn that opinion on its head.

Edited April 26, 2006 by Jeremy

April 26, 2006

Or perhaps the peak baggers who leave a waterproof canister at the summit with a logbook and pencil (Hmmm, that one sounds familiar)?

Yes.

Back in the early 80s when I went to college, I went caving with my college's outing climb. It was to a cave that the many people explored, and apparently several groups at the college went to (I would later go to it with a geology class).

Anyway. We were to be careful. We used the old carbine lanterns (water drips on some minerals which gives off gas to keep flame going). We were to be careful not to dump this in the cave, etc.

Well, we get as far as we could go. At which point our advisor pulls out this plastic jug that's wedged in this area, which has paper in it to sign. It was left there by others, and every time one visits, you sign it.

So obviously this practice exists both in summit climbers and cavers. And decades before geocaching.

April 26, 2006

Are you trying to say that while other users are minimizing their impact geocachers are not? If so, it shows a certain lack of knowledge about geocaching and the participants.

Where did I say cachers were a bigger problem? Where did I say any group was better? Earlier I mentioned LNT, a widely respected organization, and was mocked by one poster, now others. I believe their point was why bother about one 140 lb human with all those deer, elephants, and ATVs around. I believe that thinking is wrong. We have to worry about our own individual actions.

There are inconsiderate people using the lands for all sorts of activities. What is best for the sport? Pointing to ATVs and saying we are better, or actually minimizing our impact and following better practices? The last two posts support my position, careful outdoor stewardship, so why isn't that poster mocking you all?

Rock climbers now climb clean, with removable holds. Backpackers are taught to camp in durable surfaces. Hikers and fisherman are taught to pack out what you pack in. All this is part of LNT. Which was mocked a few posts back. Every group should take better care of our shared resources. How hard is that for some people to understand? I guess it is easier to mock and use sarcasm.

Once again, you can mention ATVs, horses, snowmobiles, SUVs, etc. but if that's the goal to be compared to that and do better, than I find it very sad.

When I see someone blindly following their GPSr arrow, instead of comparing their GPSr with a map, and determing the easiest and less destructive path, I think they could use a lesson in outdoor skills. For those that believe they can and should walk anywhere in the woods, regardless of the impact, so be it.

April 26, 2006

One of the things I was surprised at in reading this forum, and perhaps it has already been beaten to death, is LNT (Leave No Trace) ethics and how it applies. LNT.org For example, LNT principles dictate staying on the trail, but I have watched as people are glued to the GPSr, no map of the area, and creating new trails. Things like that are no good for the woods.

Yeah! Deities know that the 10,000 deer, and those three herds of elephants make WAY less of an impact than some 140lb geocacher. . . Of course, the primary reason for this is the International Deer Trail Management Council. The bucks meet twice a year to build new trails in an environmentally conscious sorta way. Definitely something to see!

I suppose if you live on the moon, those footie-prints made by a human hang around for quite awhile. Here, they're gone in three days as the 6ft tall grasses reconverge on the area that got trampled.

So which is it? Leave no Trace personal responsibiliy or do whatever you like because of the deer and elephants? I am confused. It sounds like LNT? But with all the flames I'm getting, I must be wrong.

Edited April 26, 2006 by Texsox

3.5k · April 26, 2006

When I see someone blindly following their GPSr arrow, instead of comparing their GPSr with a map, and determing the easiest and less destructive path, I think they could use a lesson in outdoor skills. For those that believe they can and should walk anywhere in the woods, regardless of the impact, so be it.

While you certainly are entitled to an opinion on geocaching at any experience level, I think its not wise to generalize about a sport that you have only a small taste of. Blindly following an arrow is *not* what I've seen from geocachers. Maybe the people you know are doing it incorrectly.

9.4k · April 26, 2006

LNT principles dictate staying on the trail

They don't in all cases. The big point is durable surfaces. Some excerpts:

Durable surfaces include established trails and campsites, rock, gravel, dry grasses or snow.

They go on to say:

# In popular areas:

* Concentrate use on existing trails and campsites.

* Walk single file in the middle of the trail, even when wet or muddy.

* Keep campsites small. Focus activity in areas where vegetation is absent.

# In pristine areas:

* Disperse use to prevent the creation of campsites and trails.

* Avoid places where impacts are just beginning.

So depending on the activity you either disperse or follow existing trails. The Sierra Club recommends hiding caches off the beaten path to reduce impact as well. Of course YMMV depending on terrain and other things.

Rock climbers now climb clean, with removable holds. Backpackers are taught to camp in durable surfaces. Hikers and fisherman are taught to pack out what you pack in.

Some do but rock climbers are still known to cut trees away from cliffs so they get sunlight, creating cracks as the sun warms the rock for new climbing locations. Backpackers still leave their leavings in the woods as well as hikers and fishermen. Principles will affect those who wish to be affected. We do our best to make a good example for others to follow.

Doing the right thing starts with you. And generalization is always the lazy argument.

April 26, 2006

I am in favor or taking care of the environement in the best way possible. To minimize our impact, REGARDLESS of our activities in the woods.

Why is everyone here against that?

Because ATVs and other people are pigs, cachers should be too? Nice.

April 26, 2006

Some do but rock climbers are still known to cut trees away from cliffs so they get sunlight, creating cracks as the sun warms the rock for new climbing locations. Backpackers still leave their leavings in the woods as well as hikers and fishermen. Principles will affect those who wish to be affected. We do our best to make a good example for others to follow.

Doing the right thing starts with you. And generalization is always the lazy argument.

So you disagree with staying on the trail until you find the best route to the cache? That was my point.

38.2k · April 26, 2006

There are inconsiderate people using the lands for all sorts of activities. What is best for the sport? Pointing to ATVs and saying we are better, or actually minimizing our impact and following better practices?

And who is to say we don't try to minimize our impact? You're making assumptions here. Many geocachers are ardent environmentalists. Nearly all love the outdoors and nature. Heck, there are even some LNT instructors and forest rangers among our ranks.

Once again, you can mention ATVs, horses, snowmobiles, SUVs, etc. but if that's the goal to be compared to that and do better, than I find it very sad.

That was in response to your contention that other outdoor users were "trying to minimize their impact" and your insinuation that we aren't (funny how you left out the fact that I also compared us to hikers, birders and wildlife photographers).

I am in favor or taking care of the environement in the best way possible. To minimize our impact, REGARDLESS of our activities in the woods.

Why is everyone here against that?

Because ATVs and other people are pigs, cachers should be too? Nice.

What forum thread ARE you reading dude? I don't see a single person saying that here. The only reason we're even mentioning other users is because YOU stated that they were better than us. To quote you: "now understand why some land managers are getting so tired with this sport. While other users of the woods are trying to minimize their impact, some people are still living in their own little world."

Edited April 26, 2006 by briansnat

April 26, 2006

Quote: "What we don’t need to do is to encourage the public to participate in activities that are of no benefit to the earth’s current situation."

In my humble opinion football is an activity that is of no benefit to the earth's current situation. All that gas wasted on traveling to the game, the trash generated at the stadium, the waste from the nuclear reactor to generate electricity so it can be watched on television, the poor fish who suffer and die at the dam where more electricity is generated. I could go on and on but I know I need to get out of the way now, I think I see a football coming at me!

PS. I'm an amateur writer so please be easy on me!

Never mind football, what about the car races? All the fuel and exhaust from just the drivers, never mind the fans.

Bottom line to all of this is that each person, ignorant or not, is entitled to have an opinion on a topic. Personally I prefer to have a working knowledge of a subject before I send a letter into a magazine.

She needs to be educated on the subject, especially about CITO. I'll bet when she goes out to find her scaley (SP?) friends that she doesn't bring a bag to pick up the trash as she hikes through the wild. She'd rather just complain about it in a public forum.

5.7k · April 26, 2006

I don't know if we care about the impressions that we leave with others, but I do wonder what the reaction might be if Subaru printed verbatim a transcript of this thread.

April 26, 2006

I had to respond to this one. I have already sent a letter off to their editor in rebuttal....see text below.

________________________________________

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing this letter in response to a letter titled "Just Another Recreational Way to Justify Sophisticated Littering" in your Spring 2006 magazine. It is obvious in reading this letter that Ms. Hanna Strauss doesn't know anything about geocaching. She states in one paragraph that it "gives people carte blanche to leave objects in pristine habitats that don’t belong there". This couldn't be further from the truth. Geocaching locations are regulated by the website, and in many times the cache hiders have gone to a lot of effort to obtain permission to place their caches, sometimes even paying a permit fee. The items allowed in a cache are also regulated, and in no way do any responsible cachers condone anti-environmental activities. In fact I would venture to guess that 90% of the geocachers out there are more environmentally minded than the average person.

We geocache (I have been doing it for over 3 years now) because we enjoy the outdoors, like to see new and beautiful sites, and want to promote responsible recreational use of our public lands. We sponsor Cache In, Trash Out events all the time ( we just had a national one over the Earth Day weekend). Geocachers pick up more trash in their travels than all our collective caches would ever add up to, and we do it because we care about the health of our environment. For a reader of yours to flame geocaching when she knows nothing about it and apparently didn't take time to visit even one of the sites to learn anything is just wrong.

Finally, her statement, "What we don’t need to do is to encourage the public to participate in activities that are of no benefit to the earth’s current situation" is so ridiculous it is laughable, since this is a car magazine and one of the worst things we are doing to the planet at this time is using fossil fuels. Geocaching does not require the burning of any type of fossil fuels so I guess it would rate as better for the environment than driving her Suburu (no offense).

Thanks for your time and attention.

April 26, 2006

Again, and for the last time. My original point was to stay on the trail and pick the best possible approach. I was mocked because deer don't stay on the trail.

So let me try and be clear:

I am for: LNT, and specific to this thread, looking at a topo map, finding the approximate location, looking at existing trails, looking at the terrain, and planning an approach. That may mean a longer walk following a trail instead of a tramble through the underbrush. Most cachers do that. Why anyone would defend the opposite, well I don't know.

I am against: Blindly following an arrow and trying for a bee-line to the cache, without regard for the environment. I thought most cachers would agree, why some don't, again I don't know. Why would you ignore the environment?

I subscribe to LNT ethics when I am in the out of doors and encourage everyone else to as well. Perhaps if some people would read them, they would understand the issues more clearly.

I am against comparing to the lowest common denominator. Those fisherman who leave line, those rock climbers who break trees, those backpackers that bury food waste instead of packing it out, ATVs tearing up pristine areas, etc. need to bring their skills to a higher level, we shouldn't encourage dropping to theirs.

I have tried to be polite to everyone here, and do not understand the level of mocking and sarcasm, when I am merely pointing out LNT principles. If you don't think they apply to caching, well I guess we will disagree. I believe they apply to anyone and everyone out in the woods.

Sophisticated Littering ?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment