Hiding ethics......

[+WxGuesser]

Ok.. a few things have been bothering me lately.

 

I have been "fooled" by 2 caches lately. To find both of these cache you have to do things that you probably shouldn't do. Well actually there are 3 things...

 

1. Remove bark from a tree..

2. Screw/nail into the tree..

3. Climb on objects where you shouldn't be climbing.. ( there are no signs, but common sense says don't)

 

For #1 I realize you can gently bend bark and look between the tree and bark. Now I concider myself eco friendly... so to find it I bent the bark softly so it wouldn't break and fall off. I wonder what other people would do? Strip the tree completely if they thought that is where the cache was hiding.

 

For #2 I realize that there probably hundreds of thousands of treeforts that are being held togather by nails/screws... but when i saw that the cache was held to the tree by a screw i was alittle shocked... ( i'm not from california, but living here it kind of surprised me to see this)

 

3. I was stumped on a cache for the longest time ( 3 different days for 3-4 hrs each day until i found it) then I got so upset that I climbed a tower that I probably shouldn't have. And bingo there was the cache. Like I said there were no signs.. but common sense would tell me not to climb or place a cache on a building in a state park.

 

Comments...

Edited September 7, 2006 by WxGuesser

[+BillsBayou]

Of what you mentioned, I only have a problem with climbing a tower for which common sense tells you to stay off.

 

I guess it's a matter of location that determines sensibilities.

 

I've seen something similar to a 35mm film can that was actually set INTO the tree. The hider did it with a cordless drill and a spade bit.

 

I've seen caches nailed to trees.

 

I've seen a cache attached to a live leaf. (actually a very frustrating but fun nano)

 

I've seen a cache wedged into bark.

 

I WANT to create a cache where to claim the cache you have to drive a copper nail into a tree (I hate the tree)

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

1. Remove bark from a tree..

 

For #1 I realize you can gently bend bark and look between the tree and bark. Now I concider myself eco friendly... so to find it I bent the bark softly so it wouldn't break and fall off. I wonder what other people would do? Strip the tree completely if they thought that is where the cache was hiding.

 

I'd be uncomfortable with that unless it was a tree (like a palm tree) where the trunk was very open to nooks and crannies to hide. But, isn't it the responsibility of the cacher to leave a cache exactly as it was found so the next cacher can find it? Hopefully, that alone would discourage a cacher from destroying something to get at a little container. Hopefully.

 

2. Screw/nail into the tree..

 

For #2 I realize that there probably hundreds of thousands of treeforts that are being held togather by nails/screws... but when i saw that the cache was held to the tree by a screw i was alittle shocked... ( i'm not from california, but living here it kind of surprised me to see this)

 

I'm sure there's dozens of things that can be pointed out that involve compromising a tree with a nail, screw, hook or other foreign object. I don't think there's any way to moralize that, unless to have awareness of which types of trees are protected and not compromise those trees.

 

3. Climb on objects where you shouldn't be climbing.. ( there are no signs, but common sense says don't)

 

3. I was stumped on a cache for the longest time ( 3 different days for 3-4 hrs each day until i found it) then I got so upset that I climbed a tower that I probably shouldn't have. And bingo there was the cache. Like I said there were no signs.. but common sense would tell me not to climb or place a cache on a building in a state park.

 

I thought there was something in the geocaching guidelines that restricted placement in state parks and conservation areas? I have to double-check to be sure. Was it a historical structure that isn't used for climbing in the way that you had to climb it? If so, there might be a problem there. We don't want to impose further wear & tear on things we're trying to preserve.

 

Have you asked the cacher who hid it about this? If so, what was the response?

 

- HauntHunters

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

I WANT to create a cache where to claim the cache you have to drive a copper nail into a tree (I hate the tree)

 

But will you gather everyone together, pull out the nails and moralize that while the nails are gone, the holes still remain?

 

- HauntHunters

[+BillsBayou]

I WANT to create a cache where to claim the cache you have to drive a copper nail into a tree (I hate the tree)

 

But will you gather everyone together, pull out the nails and moralize that while the nails are gone, the holes still remain?

 

- HauntHunters

 

Copper nails kill trees. I really hate the tree. I'd call the cache "To Kill A Tallow".

[+Blue Power Ranger]

Ok.. a few things have been bothering me lately. *snip*

 

So can we assume you expressed your displeasure in your logs?

[+SierraFive]

Re the screws / nails and trees!

 

Lets face it, I cut my grass every week. I prune my roses. You can prune a tree and it will continue to grow. You can even tap a tree for its sap. I don't think a small hook or nail will cause too much damage for a reasonably sized tree. Pulling it out however and leaving a hole could open the tree to infection though. Providing the nail or hook etc is done with care, discreetly, with the land owners permission and not likely to cause anyone an injury then I don't see a major problem. I think the hook or nail should be central to the cache though. For example, there is a cache near where I live where you need to take two pieces of string with you of predetermined lengths. When you get to the location you put each piece of sting onto a very small hook at the base of two trees and where the other ends of the two bits of sting meet, a micro cache is hidden. That use is much better than say a six inch nail just being driven into a tree trunk to hold a cache on place simply because the cache owner couldn't be bothered to find either a more suitable location or means of attachment.

Edited September 7, 2006 by SierraFive

[+Morgan's Marauders]

Re the screws / nails and trees!

 

........... For example, there is a cache near where I live where you need to take two pieces of string with you of predetermined lengths. When you get to the location you put each piece of sting onto a very small hook at the base of two trees and where the other ends of the two bits of sting meet, a micro cache is hidden. ..................

 

Ohhhhhhhhhhh, I like that!

[+The Leprechauns]

The cache listing guidelines prohibit any alteration of a natural object in order to provide a clue or a hiding method. This covers spray painted coordinates on rocks and it covers driving things into trees, even screw eyes. Much of the time these details are not present on the cache page so the reviewer has no way of knowing about them unless the hider is forthright. In such cases the community can report caches that violate the guidelines.

 

The cache listing guidelines do not address safety issues like having to climb a tower or a cliff. It's up to the cache owner to warn seekers about known risks. While there's exceptions, caches don't ordinarily get archived because they're too dangerous. And I think that is a good thing.

[+BillsBayou]

I have a 49cc 20" McCullough that's just ITCHING to do some caching. (I tell ya, it whispers to me in the night....) Gonna do some clear cutting of an overgrown lot. I'll pile the timber over a ditch and call the cache "I'll Be Dammed."

[+briansnat]

I've seen something similar to a 35mm film can that was actually set INTO the tree. The hider did it with a cordless drill and a spade bit.

 

I've seen caches nailed to trees.

 

None of which would have gotten past the review process had the reviewer been aware of them. I certainly hope you made the local reviewer aware of these. The practice is unacceptable and not good for our sport.

 

A few nails are not going to hurt most healthy trees, but its a matter of perception. Land managers won't like it and doing stuff like this could only give us greif.

Edited September 7, 2006 by briansnat

[+Criminal]

Pounding nails, railroad spikes, and old bicycle frames into trees is beneficial to the tree’s health as it provides the necessary iron and tin that is often lacking in the surrounding soil.

[+briansnat]

Pounding nails, railroad spikes, and old bicycle frames into trees is beneficial to the tree’s health as it provides the necessary iron and tin that is often lacking in the surrounding soil.

 

Well when my wife was diagnosed with an iron deficiency how come she wouldn't let me do that?

[+Criminal]

Pounding nails, railroad spikes, and old bicycle frames into trees is beneficial to the tree’s health as it provides the necessary iron and tin that is often lacking in the surrounding soil.

 

Well when my wife was diagnosed with an iron deficiency how come she wouldn't let me do that?

There was already plenty in the soil?

[+Pablo Mac]

My wife won't talk dirty to me.

 

All joking aside, I have caches that fall under the OP's #3, and my reply is that nobody is putting a gun to anyone's head to put themselves in danger. If you see a cache that appears to be more dangerous than you care for, walk away.

Edited September 7, 2006 by Pablo Mac

[+Harry Dolphin]

While it has helped me to overcome some of my fears, there are also caches that I walk away from. Nope, my mommy didn't raise too many dummies. (I used to day that my mommy didn't raise no mounain goats, until I managed to hike to the top of Mount Washington with my sister...)

Yup. I've walked away from a few caches. Nuh huh. I ain't doing that!

As to trees, I thought that nailing things into live trees was against the guidelines. Dead trees, on the other hand, seem to be fair game.

[+Jhwk]

1. - bad

2. - bad

3. Sounds like an old firetower maybe?

 

need more info before I can make snap judgement of cache hiders.

[+Team Torque]

A screw or nail in a tree does not bother me. You eat maple syrup right? Trees around here get two to four 3/4 inch holes bore into them to tap for sap. Some of these trees have been tapped every year for the last 100 years or so. They all look fine to me.

[+briansnat]

A screw or nail in a tree does not bother me. You eat maple syrup right? Trees around here get two to four 3/4 inch holes bore into them to tap for sap. Some of these trees have been tapped every year for the last 100 years or so. They all look fine to me.

 

It may not bother you, but whether or not it bothers you is irrelevant. It is a guideline violation and thus is not acceptable.

 

Would a nail harm a tree? Probably not. Would getting a reputation as "the people who drive nailsand drill holes into trees" harm our relationship with land managers? Probably.

 

Its not necessary, its a guideline violation and no good can come out of the practice so why do it?

[+Jamie Z]

A screw or nail in a tree does not bother me. You eat maple syrup right? Trees around here get two to four 3/4 inch holes bore into them to tap for sap. Some of these trees have been tapped every year for the last 100 years or so. They all look fine to me.

None of which would have gotten past the review process had the reviewer been aware of them. I certainly hope you made the local reviewer aware of these. The practice is unacceptable and not good for our sport.

 

A few nails are not going to hurt most healthy trees, but its a matter of perception. Land managers won't like it and doing stuff like this could only give us greif.

 

As Brian stated, it's not so much the actual damage done, it's the perception. If you were to walk into a land manager's office with a cordless drill and a few screws and ask if it's ok to place a cache in the park, what do you figure he'd say?

 

Or even if what you had in your hand was a hammer and a few nails.

 

Geocaching has enough opponents as it is. It's not a good idea to perpetuate negative impressions, regardless of how harmless.

 

Jamie

[+nutlady]

Pounding nails, railroad spikes, and old bicycle frames into trees is beneficial to the tree’s health as it provides the necessary iron and tin that is often lacking in the surrounding soil.

Actually. I have to agree here! In my own orchards, the oldest trees are loaded with nails because of the benefits to the tree! And they are still producing 60 years later!

Now days, we supply the nutrients through the soil. But older farmers did what they had to do.

[+NotThePainter]

Pounding nails, railroad spikes, and old bicycle frames into trees is beneficial to the tree’s health as it provides the necessary iron and tin that is often lacking in the surrounding soil.

Is this really true? I know from my days of growing aquatic plants that iron is important, but putting a nail in the gravel/soil would not supply it in the correct form. The iron needed to be chelated iron, not elemental iron.

 

(a chelate is a compound containing a typically organic molecule bonded to a central metal atom at two or more points)

 

That's the limits of my chemistry and I had look that up!

 

Paul

[+Moore9KSUcats]

Pounding nails, railroad spikes, and old bicycle frames into trees is beneficial to the tree’s health as it provides the necessary iron and tin that is often lacking in the surrounding soil.

Actually. I have to agree here! In my own orchards, the oldest trees are loaded with nails because of the benefits to the tree! And they are still producing 60 years later!

Now days, we supply the nutrients through the soil. But older farmers did what they had to do.

 

My Arboriculture teacher drove a few iron nails into pin oak trees with chlorosis problems (iron deficiency, showing up as a paling of the leaf). He did it with permission, though. (This was in about 1979, I think) He also used a ship-lap borer to drill a 3/4" hole to place in a commercial plug with an iron supplement into those trees, showing us the more modern method of treating chlorosis. You could find the remains of the plastic plug on the ground, where the tree squeezed it out as it utilized the supplement. We couldn't find any evidence of the hole from the previous treatments.

[+GreyingJay]

I've seen something similar to a 35mm film can that was actually set INTO the tree. The hider did it with a cordless drill and a spade bit.

 

I've seen this. It was made clear on the cache description that the tree had died in the big ice storm (1998), so I see it as fair game.

 

I am planning a cache which will involve a metal box screwed to a pole-like object. I'm hoping to find a large dead tree somewhere in the middle of the woods somewhere.

[+jnjshapiro]

 

A few nails are not going to hurt most healthy trees, but its a matter of perception. Land managers won't like it and doing stuff like this could only give us greif.

 

This is absolutely spot on. Here is part of a response from a IL DNR manager to a geocache permission request that i had made....

 

"The Commission's experience (and mine personally) is that the caches have been placed in ecologically sensitive locations and that those individuals involved in geocaching usually are not sensitive to or sometimes even aware of the natural resources around them. "

 

If that is what the land managers are thinking, it's their perception, whether it's accurate or not. Stuff like drilling into trees, ripping bark off, trampling large areas only adds to this perception. If we can't all be responsible, it'll hurt the sport in the long run.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Doing anything to negatively affect our natural environment is a political hot-potato, which is why it's banned in geocaching. It doesn't have to be destructive, just percieved as such.

 

On the other hand nails in trees is a harmless and in fact favored method among tree-huggers to save them!

 

Here in the South folks drive railroad spikes in trees to keep paper mills from harvesting them. Within months the tree envelops the spike and no indication is seen of its presence - forcing paper and lumber mills to x-ray lumber before processing it, a terribly expensive process, or risk damaging people or expensive machinery.

 

If a paper or lumber mill learns that a section of forest has been spiked they won't buy timber from that land.

 

Hunters have been known to protect their leased land in this way; show the timber surveyor a few trees with spikes in them and he won't buy trees for miles around.

 

See Tree Spiking in Wikipedia.

[cliff_hanger]

The cache listing guidelines prohibit any alteration of a natural object in order to provide a clue or a hiding method. This covers spray painted coordinates on rocks and it covers driving things into trees, even screw eyes. Much of the time these details are not present on the cache page so the reviewer has no way of knowing about them unless the hider is forthright. In such cases the community can report caches that violate the guidelines.

 

 

What about those relective tacks that are used in night caches? They're about the same size as a screw eye.

[+WxGuesser]

Ok.. a few things have been bothering me lately. *snip*

 

So can we assume you expressed your displeasure in your logs?

 

The people who own these caches come on these boards... So they'll see my concerns.

[+Big Max]

The rules say don't do it so I won't, however, it is just a stinking tree! I've seen them wrapped in barbed wire and they just grow around it with no harm to the tree. Heck, tree huggers are always driving spikes into them so can't be too bad.

[+halffast]

Doing anything to negatively affect our natural environment is a political hot-potato, which is why it's banned in geocaching. It doesn't have to be destructive, just percieved as such.

 

On the other hand nails in trees is a harmless and in fact favored method among tree-huggers to save them!

 

Here in the South folks drive railroad spikes in trees to keep paper mills from harvesting them. Within months the tree envelops the spike and no indication is seen of its presence - forcing paper and lumber mills to x-ray lumber before processing it, a terribly expensive process, or risk damaging people or expensive machinery.

 

If a paper or lumber mill learns that a section of forest has been spiked they won't buy timber from that land.

 

Hunters have been known to protect their leased land in this way; show the timber surveyor a few trees with spikes in them and he won't buy trees for miles around.

 

See Tree Spiking in Wikipedia.

And if the mill has no idea the trees were spiked and log them and take them into the mills that puts the mill workers in danger.The saws hit the spikes and explode sending shrapnal every where.I KNOW I Sharpen saws for a lumber mill.Walk into any lumber mill and look at their ceiling.You will see what im talking about.

[Clan Riffster]

That's why your basic every day tree hugger always tells the lumber company which area has spiked trees. That way the lumber company won't even bother felling them. The tree hugger wins cuz the woods are preserved, the lumber company wins cuz they're not processing spiked trees. The exception is the left wing environmental terrorist who spikes trees without telling anybody. Those are the trees that get folks hurt.

[+GoBolts!]

Ok.. a few things have been bothering me lately.

 

I have been "fooled" by 2 caches lately. To find both of these cache you have to do things that you probably shouldn't do. Well actually there are 3 things...

 

1. Remove bark from a tree..

2. Screw/nail into the tree..

3. Climb on objects where you shouldn't be climbing.. ( there are no signs, but common sense says don't)

 

For #1 I realize you can gently bend bark and look between the tree and bark. Now I concider myself eco friendly... so to find it I bent the bark softly so it wouldn't break and fall off. I wonder what other people would do? Strip the tree completely if they thought that is where the cache was hiding.

 

For #2 I realize that there probably hundreds of thousands of treeforts that are being held togather by nails/screws... but when i saw that the cache was held to the tree by a screw i was alittle shocked... ( i'm not from california, but living here it kind of surprised me to see this)

 

3. I was stumped on a cache for the longest time ( 3 different days for 3-4 hrs each day until i found it) then I got so upset that I climbed a tower that I probably shouldn't have. And bingo there was the cache. Like I said there were no signs.. but common sense would tell me not to climb or place a cache on a building in a state park.

 

Comments...

 

Wow...they all sound like great ideas to me....I have a cache or two that you have to climb for. If you don't like to climb...it is easy...Don't!

[+Jeeters]

All joking aside, I have caches that fall under the OP's #3, and my reply is that nobody is putting a gun to anyone's head to put themselves in danger. If you see a cache that appears to be more dangerous than you care for, walk away.

I'd be pretty pissed if I drove 75 miles for a cache only to find out I have to "walk away" because it turns out the cache is at the top of a cell tower that wasn't mentioned in the description.

[+Confucius' Cat]

That's why your basic every day tree hugger always tells the lumber company which area has spiked trees. That way the lumber company won't even bother felling them. The tree hugger wins cuz the woods are preserved, the lumber company wins cuz they're not processing spiked trees. The exception is the left wing environmental terrorist who spikes trees without telling anybody. Those are the trees that get folks hurt.

HUH?!!

 

I am to understand that bowing down to terrorists and vandals (the EVERY DAY tree-huggers) is a "WIN" for the lumber companies? Because their lives are not endangered by ILLEGAL activity- only their livelihoods?

 

I wonder if the lumber companies think they "win" when the "basic every day tree huggers" "spike and tell"?

 

I guess that shows what I know. I thought terrorism was terrorism and vandalism was vandalism and stealing was stealing. I didn't know it made a difference if you were "basic every day" or "left-wing".

 

I suppose when I give an armed robber my wallet, that is a "win" for me because he was nice enough not to shoot me? For some reason I don't really feel like a winner in this case.

 

What have we become?

[nonaeroterraqueous]

...and we all get to build our homes out of recycled cans because no one knows which trees to cut.

 

Seems like the only real solution is a controlled burn with a replant, no?

[Clan Riffster]

What have we become?

I can't tell what you've become. Your avatar appears to show you hanging upside down. Maybe I just need glasses?

 

I think my point may have slipped by you. I'm not defending either of these groups, just acknowledging that there is a difference between the two.

 

The "accepted" tree hugger groups, (those not vilified by our Liberal media), recognize that they will not obtain the financing they need if they kill lumber workers. That's why, after they sneak out and spike a bunch of trees, they'll let the lumber companies know about it, usually gaining publicity in the process. They "win" because they get publicity. The lumber company "wins", (if you could stretch the word that far), because they don't have any employees killed. It's still criminal vandalism, and it still costs the lumber companies millions of dollars in revenue a year, but you'd be hard pressed to convince Hollywood celebrities of that.

 

Those groups without media sympathy are the ones who spike trees without telling anyone, causing injury and death to hapless tree farmers.

[+madmike8]

The cache listing guidelines prohibit any alteration of a natural object in order to provide a clue or a hiding method. This covers spray painted coordinates on rocks and it covers driving things into trees, even screw eyes. Much of the time these details are not present on the cache page so the reviewer has no way of knowing about them unless the hider is forthright. In such cases the community can report caches that violate the guidelines.

 

 

What about those relective tacks that are used in night caches? They're about the same size as a screw eye.

 

So, are the reflective tacks illegal?

[+briansnat]

 

What about those relective tacks that are used in night caches? They're about the same size as a screw eye.

 

So, are the reflective tacks illegal?

 

I can't say for certain whether they are "illegal", but there is a difference between fire tacks and nails and screws. The tacks are more like a thumbtack and are easily installed and removed without tools. Most importantly, they are just inserted in the bark and don't enter the heartwood.

[+madmike8]

I can't say for certain whether they are "illegal", but there is a difference between fire tacks and nails and screws. The tacks are more like a thumbtack and are easily installed and removed without tools. Most importantly, they are just inserted in the bark and don't enter the heartwood.

 

The cache listing guidelines prohibit any alteration of a natural object in order to provide a clue or a hiding method.

 

From what I read... It's not saying how much it's altered... a tack in the bark still alters it... Since I'm new to this hobby... i'm not really sure how critical they are on these guidelines... Be nice to have some examples of whats legal or not... Is this rule only for trees on public lands, or does it apply to trees on your own property? If the tree has an existing nail in it can it be used? I'm just at the point where I'd like to try placing some caches, and I don't want to break any rules... I guess I should contact the reviewer in my area with these questions though...

 

Thanks...

[+briansnat]

If the tree is on your own property, that changes things. Same goes for using existing nails. Still whether the nail is existing or the tree is on your own property, though not a guideline violation, the practices are often discouraged by the reviewers because it sets a bad example. The next person coming along may not realize that the nail was already there, or the tree is on the cache owner's property and think its a great idea for their own cache.

Edited September 12, 2006 by briansnat

[+Confucius' Cat]

What have we become?

I can't tell what you've become. Your avatar appears to show you hanging upside down. Maybe I just need glasses?

 

I think my point may have slipped by you. I'm not defending either of these groups, just acknowledging that there is 1. a difference between the two.

 

The "accepted" tree hugger groups, (those not vilified by our Liberal media), recognize that they will not obtain the financing they need if they kill lumber workers. That's why, after they sneak out and spike a bunch of trees, they'll let the lumber companies know about it, usually gaining publicity in the process. They "win" because they get publicity. The lumber company "wins", 2. (if you could stretch the word that far), because they don't have any employees killed. It's still criminal vandalism, and it still costs the lumber companies millions of dollars in revenue a year, but 3. you'd be hard pressed to convince Hollywood celebrities of that.

 

Those groups without media sympathy are the ones who spike trees without telling anyone, causing injury and death to hapless tree farmers.

 

1. I disagree that there is any real "difference". Lawless is lawless.

2. precisely my point- I don't think the word stretches that far.

3. Who gives a HOOT what the Hollywood celebrities think, I stopped letting them decide right and wrong about 51 years ago! Who did die and make them god, anyhow? To steal a title from Laura Ingrahm: They need to "shut up and sing". Why in the world beilng able to act and sing qualifies someone to tout a political cause is beyond me.

 

So the whole thing comes down to how things are perceived in the "liberal media". Even from my wierd, upside down vantage point I see things more "straight up" than they do.

 

Oh, back to the topic- I think it is splitting hairs to ban a cache for nailing or screwing something to a tree. But if it is not the owner's tree, it IS improper at best and could cause problems later when the tree is removed. I think this is a case where the dreaded "P" word is definitely important.

 

But "altering" is a very broad concept. Are we not "altering" a hollow tree when we partially fill the hollow space with oh, say, an ammo box? Are we not thus potentially depriving a small woodland creature of home and shelter?

 

By this measure, caching is just WRONG.

 

So there. We're done. Game over. Let's all go home now.

 

Gotta find a hobby that doesn't cause environmental harm... Hmm... Bicycling? No, excess CO2 from the rider's heavy breathing causes global warming. Tennis? No, court covers good farmland with asphalt. Posting on internet forums? No, raised angst levels result in increased sales of blood pressure medicines that support the big business' raping of the earth and useless testing on small animals

[Clan Riffster]

Who did die and make them god, anyhow?

George Burns

[+sbell111]

... So the whole thing comes down to how things are perceived in the "liberal media". ...

There is no such thing.

[+Confucius' Cat]

... So the whole thing comes down to how things are perceived in the "liberal media". ...

There is no such thing.

Good point. We all know all the media are "fair and balanced".

 

(now, how do i get this back on topic?...)