Leave No Trace

January 2, 2007

This thread may get moved, but I'll get it started anywho. We recently got a bumper sticker; from where, I don't know, but it is from a group named "Leave No Trace", which promotes outdoor ethics, as they word it. The sticker reads "Leaving your mark is overrated". I thought the concept, and the site, might be something our community would find worth contemplating, and/or being reminded of.

38.2k · January 2, 2007

LNT is something that many (if not most) of us have been practicing all along. I know some events have hosted speakers from LNT and there are even some geocachers who are LNT instructors.

1.8k · January 2, 2007

The sticker reads "Leaving your mark is overrated".

Did you clear this comment with the tomcats? (hehehe)

A rule we used in Boy Scouts was "always leave it better than you found it"

1k · January 2, 2007

LNT is something that many (if not most) of us have been practicing all along.

Dosen't it conflict with geocaching? After all we do leave a trace, a cache :anitongue:

Andrew

38.2k · January 2, 2007

LNT is something that many (if not most) of us have been practicing all along.

Dosen't it conflict with geocaching? After all we do leave a trace, a cache

Andrew

As humans we all leave a trace no matter what we do. The idea is to leave as little trace as possible. A well hidden cache in a wisely chosen spot will leave very little trace.

1k · January 2, 2007

As humans we all leave a trace no matter what we do. The idea is to leave as little trace as possible. A well hidden cache in a wisely chosen spot will leave very little trace.

My comment was a merely a reflection on the irony of LNT against geocaching. It was not meant to be a serious point worthy of response.

Have a good day.

Andrew

January 2, 2007

I was out over the weekend to make sure a cache of mine was ready for winter weather ahead. I hadn't visited this cache since its placement just a few months ago. The cache was fine but I was struck by the fact that the area looked completely different than when I placed the cache. I'm not talking about trash thrown around or anything like that but the effect of simple foot traffic. Weeds and small trees pressed down, rocks overturned, even the presence of worn search trails were around. Now I'm sure that no ONE cacher is responsible but a trace HAS been left. Not sure where I'm going with these comments...it just struck me that's all. Thought it worthy of this thread.

Edited January 2, 2007 by johninvandergrift

20.7k · January 2, 2007

I was out over the weekend to make sure a cache of mine was ready for winter weather ahead. I hadn't visited this cache since its placement just a few months ago. The cache was fine but I was struck by the fact that the area looked completely different than when I placed the cache. I'm not talking about trash thrown around or anything like that but the effect of simple foot traffic. Weeds and small trees pressed down, rocks overturned, even the presence of worn search trails were around. Now I'm sure that no ONE cacher is responsible but a trace HAS been left. Not sure where I'm going with these comments...it just struck me that's all. Thought it worthy of this thread.

I suspect that it is not that big of a deal. Newer caches get greater traffic. Now that the cache has been in place for a few months, that traffic will decrease significantly. As traffic slows, mother nature will reclaim any minor trails that were made (in nearly all locations, certainly in yours). I bet that come springtime, you will be amazed at how overgrown the area is again.

Edited to add that one way to minimize casual trails is to hide your cache further from the trail.

Edited January 2, 2007 by sbell111

38.2k · January 2, 2007

I was out over the weekend to make sure a cache of mine was ready for winter weather ahead. I hadn't visited this cache since its placement just a few months ago. The cache was fine but I was struck by the fact that the area looked completely different than when I placed the cache. I'm not talking about trash thrown around or anything like that but the effect of simple foot traffic. Weeds and small trees pressed down, rocks overturned, even the presence of worn search trails were around. Now I'm sure that no ONE cacher is responsible but a trace HAS been left. Not sure where I'm going with these comments...it just struck me that's all. Thought it worthy of this thread.

Could it be in part because its winter now and you placed the cache in the summer or fall?

And if it was because of your cache did you do the responsible thing and move it?

January 2, 2007

And if it was because of your cache did you do the responsible thing and move it?

Obviously, the area was affected by the placement of this cache (as every cache placed in a wooded area would). So yes, I am responsible. Are you saying that I should move it because it has been visited often?

20.7k · January 2, 2007

Obviously, the area was affected by the placement of this cache (as every cache placed in a wooded area would). So yes, I am responsible. Are you saying that I should move it because it has been visited often?

He's saying that if your cache is doing harm to the area that nature cannot easily resolve, it should be moved. Edited January 2, 2007 by sbell111

38.2k · January 2, 2007

And if it was because of your cache did you do the responsible thing and move it?

Obviously, the area was affected by the placement of this cache (as every cache placed in a wooded area would). So yes, I am responsible. Are you saying that I should move it because it has been visited often?

If the cache is causing visible damage then yes, I think that would be the right thing to do.

Edited January 2, 2007 by briansnat

January 2, 2007

And if it was because of your cache did you do the responsible thing and move it?

Obviously, the area was affected by the placement of this cache (as every cache placed in a wooded area would). So yes, I am responsible. Are you saying that I should move it because it has been visited often?

If the cache is causing visible damage then yes, I think that would be the right thing to do.

You will have the same effect on the area you move it to. The traffic to the cache should slow down the older it gets.

January 2, 2007

And if it was because of your cache did you do the responsible thing and move it?

Obviously, the area was affected by the placement of this cache (as every cache placed in a wooded area would). So yes, I am responsible. Are you saying that I should move it because it has been visited often?

If the cache is causing visible damage then yes, I think that would be the right thing to do.

I'll accept the fact that I'm relatively new to geocaching, but, I have to say that your response surprises me. Every cache I've found in a wooded area has the signs of the "search" nearby. Could you please elaborate on your response above.

38.2k · January 2, 2007

And if it was because of your cache did you do the responsible thing and move it?

Obviously, the area was affected by the placement of this cache (as every cache placed in a wooded area would). So yes, I am responsible. Are you saying that I should move it because it has been visited often?

If the cache is causing visible damage then yes, I think that would be the right thing to do.

You will have the same effect on the area you move it to. The traffic to the cache should slow down the older it gets.

Not necessarily. If you choose your hiding spot wisely you can limit or eliminate visibile damage.

20.7k · January 2, 2007

You will have the same effect on the area you move it to. The traffic to the cache should slow down the older it gets.

That's not necessarily true.

Some locations are less affected by traffic.

Ummm, what BS said.

Edited January 2, 2007 by sbell111

January 2, 2007

And if it was because of your cache did you do the responsible thing and move it?

Obviously, the area was affected by the placement of this cache (as every cache placed in a wooded area would). So yes, I am responsible. Are you saying that I should move it because it has been visited often?

If the cache is causing visible damage then yes, I think that would be the right thing to do.

You will have the same effect on the area you move it to. The traffic to the cache should slow down the older it gets.

Not necessarily. If you choose your hiding spot wisely you can limit or eliminate visibile damage.

I usually do not have any problems in parking lots. :anitongue:

January 2, 2007

And if it was because of your cache did you do the responsible thing and move it?

Obviously, the area was affected by the placement of this cache (as every cache placed in a wooded area would). So yes, I am responsible. Are you saying that I should move it because it has been visited often?

If the cache is causing visible damage then yes, I think that would be the right thing to do.

You will have the same effect on the area you move it to. The traffic to the cache should slow down the older it gets.

Not necessarily. If you choose your hiding spot wisely you can limit or eliminate visibile damage.

The student says to the teacher "please tell me more".

20.7k · January 2, 2007

The student says to the teacher "please tell me more".

Just reread this thread and you'll get it.

If caches are placed further from the trail, there will be smaller likelihood of casual trails forming.
Some areas are more prone to erosion than others.
Some areas have hardier plants than others.

BTW, I refuse to get excited about turned over rocks in western PA.

Edited January 2, 2007 by sbell111

January 2, 2007

My wife and I were having this same conversation yesterday. I was at a nearby state park performing maintenance on one of my caches (placed March 2001- I adopted it). The cache was not where I last found it, and after looking for an hour, I gave up. Two other cachers found the stinking thing just a few days ago. At any rate, I hid a new container in a new location, updated the coords, and posted a note asking for anyone who finds the old cache to pick it up.

Our conversation had to do with various geocachers' hiding styles. Some are content with just putting a box behind a tree and covering it with leaves and sticks. I used to hate the "UPS" (usual pile of sticks), but now, I see it as a signal to a fairly trained eye that something is awry, and it keeps me from destroying the countryside looking for the cache.

Note: I'm all about a challenging find, but to me, the challenge is finding what good, unique spot the cacher chose. I do not appreciate caches that are simply hidden in a pile of leaves, or up against one of any number of dead logs within 50' of the coords.

When this happens, we start to see leaves get kicked, rocks get rolled, and logs lifted and moved. In the long run, this type of search will probably not have an adverse effect on the ecology of the area, but in the short term, organisms that need to be wet and dark become dry and sunburned. Land managers see a mess, albeit a mess that will settle down after awhile, but still a mess.

When I hide a cache, I prefer to hide it "in" something...in a hole in a tree, inside a hollow log, inside a hole in some rocks. First, this helps prevent "cache creep" where each finder hides it in a slightly different spot from where they found it...I have seen a cache move 30' in a year and a half. Second, it helps narrow down the options of where the object is hidden...a cacher can spend their energy selectively, surgically even, searching for the object without overly disturbing the ground cover.

This same idea applies to micro caches. Many micros are reported to be "cool" because they're in a really cool, unexpected container. Often, this container mimicks something in the environment (be it natural or artificial) that we might normally overlook. To me, these objects need to stand on their own two feet. Sometimes, these "cool" containers get buried in leaves, or otherwise hidden, so that all I'm doing is rooting through the groundcover like a boar looking for truffles.

To get to the above point, I think that heavily visited geocaches should be treated like campsites in many boy scout camps and other such places. Rotate their location every once in awhile so that temporary impacts do not become permanent. The last thing wwe want is three months worth of compacted leaves that form a "geo-trail" to become a hardpack dirt trail in three years, thus increasing erosion, and our hobby's impact on the land. The cache may only need to be moved 50'...just enough so that cachers follow slightly different coords, and thus a slightly different path, to the cache.

Scott aka Rivercacher

Lynchburg, VA

January 2, 2007

To get to the above point, I think that heavily visited geocaches should be treated like campsites in many boy scout camps and other such places. Rotate their location every once in awhile so that temporary impacts do not become permanent. The last thing we want is three months worth of compacted leaves that form a "geo-trail" to become a hardpack dirt trail in three years, thus increasing erosion, and our hobby's impact on the land. The cache may only need to be moved 50'...just enough so that cachers follow slightly different coords, and thus a slightly different path, to the cache.

Scott aka Rivercacher

Lynchburg, VA

Now that's what this student is looking for! That is a great idea. And so very simple. I shall make it so!

20.7k · January 2, 2007

... The last thing wwe want is three months worth of compacted leaves that form a "geo-trail" to become a hardpack dirt trail in three years, thus increasing erosion, and our hobby's impact on the land. ...

The thing you are overlooking is the fact that the cache doesn't see the same amount of traffic for the entire three years. In fact, it is not extraordinary to see a mature cache in the woods to go weeks, months or even years between visits.

January 2, 2007

The thing you are overlooking is the fact that the cache doesn't see the same amount of traffic for the entire three years. In fact, it is not extraordinary to see a mature cache in the woods to go weeks, months or even years between visits.

I recognize what you say, and I agree with your statement 90% of the time. There are a few caches out there that see heavy traffic relatively constantly, because more than just local cachers are looking for them. This would apply in situations like Interstate rest stops (lovely cache locations, I must say ), or tourist attractions.

Otherwise, I completely agree with the above quote.

Edited January 2, 2007 by RiverCacher

24.7k · January 2, 2007

The thing you are overlooking is the fact that the cache doesn't see the same amount of traffic for the entire three years. In fact, it is not extraordinary to see a mature cache in the woods to go weeks, months or even years between visits.

I recognize what you say, and I agree with your statement 90% of the time. There are a few caches out there that see heavy traffic relatively constantly, because more than just local cachers are looking for them. This would apply in situations like Interstate rest stops (lovely cache locations, I must say ), or tourist attractions.

Otherwise, I completely agree with the above quote.

You do need to factor your environment and the cache seekers into your hide. Like was pointed out. A remote cache see's so few visits, problems are not likely. An urban micro hidden in a flowerbed...will soon annoy a groundskeeper and hurt this RASH. I've had a cache spot virtually denuded due to a very hard hide. I ended up archiving the cache and learning a big lesson.

1k · January 2, 2007

There are a few caches out there that see heavy traffic relatively constantly, because more than just local cachers are looking for them. This would apply in situations like Interstate rest stops (lovely cache locations, I must say ), or tourist attractions.

Yep. We have a couple of those here. One has a distinct path going right past it now. The path probably started out as an animal path and now has become a human track.

Andrew

38.2k · January 2, 2007

To get to the above point, I think that heavily visited geocaches should be treated like campsites in many boy scout camps and other such places. Rotate their location every once in awhile so that temporary impacts do not become permanent. The last thing we want is three months worth of compacted leaves that form a "geo-trail" to become a hardpack dirt trail in three years, thus increasing erosion, and our hobby's impact on the land. The cache may only need to be moved 50'...just enough so that cachers follow slightly different coords, and thus a slightly different path, to the cache.

Scott aka Rivercacher

Lynchburg, VA

Now that's what this student is looking for! That is a great idea. And so very simple. I shall make it so!

Sbell111 also gave some good advice. I find that placing caches further off the trail actually decreases the impact. I see the most impact when caches are a short distance from a trail or parking lot. That's because most finders turn off in about the same place and follow the same path. When caches are a few hundred yards from a trail, road or parking, searchers rarely follow the same path, so the impact is spread out and the area has time to recover.

Another thing to do is try to hid your caches on durable surfaces. Large rock outcrops are my favorite. Pine groves tend to show little impact as do forest floors with a deep duff and leaf cover.

Avoid steep slopes, moss covered areas and other areas that will easily show impact. For example, I was looking for a good hiding place for a cache a few weeks ago and found what I thought to be a great spot. As I was going back to get the cache I noticed as I slid down a steep area I was dislodging moss and grass. I quickly decided against the spot because I figured if my one trip down the slope would do that, then 20 visitors would quickly make a mess of the area.

I also feel that its important to make the caches easy finds when in the woods. I try to hide them well enough that a passerby won't notice them, but that the hiding place would be fairly obvious to a geocacher. I also try to make the hint a dead giveaway. The less time spent searching, the less chance for impact. If I want to create a cache that is challenging to find I do it either on rocks or pavement.

Edited January 2, 2007 by briansnat

January 2, 2007

I was out over the weekend to make sure a cache of mine was ready for winter weather ahead. I hadn't visited this cache since its placement just a few months ago. The cache was fine but I was struck by the fact that the area looked completely different than when I placed the cache. I'm not talking about trash thrown around or anything like that but the effect of simple foot traffic. Weeds and small trees pressed down, rocks overturned, even the presence of worn search trails were around. Now I'm sure that no ONE cacher is responsible but a trace HAS been left. Not sure where I'm going with these comments...it just struck me that's all. Thought it worthy of this thread.
I suspect that it is not that big of a deal. Newer caches get greater traffic. Now that the cache has been in place for a few months, that traffic will decrease significantly. As traffic slows, mother nature will reclaim any minor trails that were made (in nearly all locations, certainly in yours). I bet that come springtime, you will be amazed at how overgrown the area is again.

Edited to add that one way to minimize casual trails is to hide your cache further from the trail.

You're so right. These two pictures are basically taken in the same place. The only difference is 35 or so years. In the end, we will have hardly leave a scratch in the earth.

7.2k · January 3, 2007

I think it important to understand that it is perfectly acceptable for the owner of the cache to move it when situations warrant. This site has built in the means to do it. You can change the coordinates up to 528', a substantial distance, in order to find a new spot.

Regardless of any fussing for whether it warrants a new cache page or allow previous finders to log it again, it's more important to have little impact on the environment. We are only allowed to pursue our hobby by the graces of the stewards of the land. We should do as little damage, permanent or temporary, as possible.

4.1k · January 22, 2007

Leave No Trace Principles straight from the horse's mouth. I thought I'd link to them in case other geocachers may be interested.

The Leave No Trace Principles of outdoor ethics form the framework of Leave No Trace's message:

1. Plan Ahead and Prepare

2. Travel and Camp on Durable Surfaces

3. Dispose of Waste Properly

4. Leave What You Find

5. Minimize Campfire Impacts

6. Respect Wildlife

7. Be Considerate of Other Visitors

January 22, 2007

I once went to a cache in a wooded area overlooking a park where a trail was made by wear and tear of the flora.

January 22, 2007

As humans we all leave a trace no matter what we do. The idea is to leave as little trace as possible. A well hidden cache in a wisely chosen spot will leave very little trace.

My comment was a merely a reflection on the irony of LNT against geocaching. It was not meant to be a serious point worthy of response.

Have a good day.

Andrew

I think this is the main reason the NPS doesn't allow geocaching. I know a lot of people don't like it, but I support their decision in this regard.

24.7k · January 22, 2007

....I think this is the main reason the NPS doesn't allow geocaching. I know a lot of people don't like it, but I support their decision in this regard.

The NPS has a lot of paved up and and slabbed over areas that are developed and suitable for a cache. The NPS also has a lot of backcountry that see very little use by anybody but Bison, Elk and Wolves, which would also be suitable for a cache.

A blanket ban is a cop out.

Edited January 22, 2007 by Renegade Knight

January 22, 2007

"The NPS has a lot of paved up and and slabbed over areas that are developed and suitable for a cache"

I guess that's where we differ...

January 22, 2007

"The NPS has a lot of paved up and and slabbed over areas that are developed and suitable for a cache"

I guess that's where we differ...I don't want to look for caches in paved up and slabbed over areas.

Whether or not its a cop-out, it's their cop-out to make, IMHO.

Scott

January 22, 2007

I haven't been doing this long, but I have noticed recently, with the new snow, that many paths that go to caches that have been in place for a while have wildlife tracks all over them.

In some of the areas that I hunt, I see old well used tracks that are used daily by wildlife. In fact, my friends and I have even seen deer use our paths on the same day as us.

While we do some damage to the environment, make no mistake that mother earth can take care of herself. The beaten paths we see in the fall and winter will most likely return in a season or two.

My only concern as a cache owner would be that a new path in an otherwise heavily wooded area would make finding the cache too easy.

January 22, 2007

... The last thing wwe want is three months worth of compacted leaves that form a "geo-trail" to become a hardpack dirt trail in three years, thus increasing erosion, and our hobby's impact on the land. ...
The thing you are overlooking is the fact that the cache doesn't see the same amount of traffic for the entire three years. In fact, it is not extraordinary to see a mature cache in the woods to go weeks, months or even years between visits.

That is not so true up this way. We still have limited micro-spew, so not everybody has developed a drive-by habit. Our newer cachers learn that woods are part of the game, and come to enjoy visiting them. If your Christmas crop of cachers is pavement bound, well, you reap what you sow.

-WR

January 23, 2007

Although this info would not be of much use to Americans, any Aussie 4wders would know of who I speak.

At last years QA4WDC annual Corroboree at Canungra, on the Gold Coast, Australian Tread Lightly director, Jan Scudamore announced that the Australian branch of Tread Lightly was closing, due to lack of volunteers willing to assist with its management, or along those lines. All Tread Lightly Australias assets were being transferred to "Leave No Trace" which here in Australia, is based in Western Australia.

And a worthy motto on this subject is,

"Take nothing but photos, leave nothing but footprints"

January 24, 2007

Yeah! Tell that to all the geo Wart Hogs that tear up the cache location looking for it. Put a micro in the woods and I guarantee that it will get torn up. :huh: ImpalaBob

Leave No Trace

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

Join the conversation