Environmental impact of geocaching

[erduggan]

Hello all,

 

I have a question for the group. Is there an existing policy against the placement of caches in environmentally sensitive areas? If not, should there be? I ask this as a hiker and trail maintainer. Some background follows.

 

There has been substantial debate in the hiking community in the Northeastern US over the use of summit canisters. For example, the 46ers (those who hike, or seek to hike, all 46 highest Adirondack peaks) elected to remove the canisters (a highly divisive issue, incidentally). They remain in place (with Department of Environmental Conservation approval) in the Catskills Mountains. There are good arguments both pro and con for the presence of summit canisters, and I'm not taking a position here. I will say that it's indisputable that on summits without trails the effect of canisters is to create herd paths, as those who look for them repeatedly follow similar routes. Summit soil is thin and the boreal plants do not regenerate well, even on wooded summits (open alpine summits are still more easily impacted, of course). However, if those summits were to be repeatedly hiked without canisters, I'm unclear that the results would differ by any degree.

 

The large majority of geocaches are not especially remote, and involve impacts on lands that are already disturbed by human activity, but some in my Catskill region are in summit areas. I suspect this is the case elsewhere also. My open question here (I'm not really preaching, just inviting opinion) is whether there should be a policy advocating avoidance of areas that are likely to respond poorly to repeated trampling. Or is the volume of traffic to remote caches sufficiently low that this is not an issue? I'm also trying to weigh the positive aspects of having more people hiking the hills, since those who hike tend to become advocates for wilderness and stewards themselves (as witness the existence of this forum). This may be something the geocaching community may want to consider when constructing guidelines for the placement of caches. Or not!

 

I commend your existing efforts and I will be very interested in the response from the group.

 

Best,

 

Ted.

Edited April 9, 2007 by erduggan

[+Renegade Knight]

The summit registores are a historical cultural practice and as such are protected by law.

 

Public land agencies such as the BLM pay attention to caches and their placments and ask that any that don't mesh with the resources they are protecting be removed. They generally do not put up big signs saying "protected resource here".

 

One way to protect resources is to limit impact to the larger area. Thus a peak register would focus the impact in a smaller zone than removing it. You admitted this much with your "herd path" comment. Another example is the paved trail system often used by the NPS. They pave the living snot out of a smaller area then limit impact to that developed trail system.

 

As a general rule Joe Hiker is not qualified to do anything more than debate the issue. They don't have the experience and skills to actually do any good in the world without guidance from real and actual experts. Yes they can pick up litter and practice leave no trace. But they can't identify soil types. which plants are sensative, etc at a level above "hack".

Edited April 8, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[+Renegade Knight]

.... My open question here (I'm not really preaching, just inviting opinion) is whether there should be a policy advocating avoidance of areas that are likely to respond poorly to repeated trampling. Or is the volume of traffic to remote caches sufficiently low that this is not an issue? ...

 

To answer your question. If the land is protected it's already protected. If in the future it needs protected it will be protected. If the land is open now for hikers it's open now for geocachers to hike in. Land managers will periodically review lands use policies in light of access, recreation, protection and the other factors that weigh into the bigger picture. As you have said. The more remote a cache the less visits it gets.

 

Nothing special need be done that isn't already being done.

Edited April 8, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[erduggan]

> The summit registores are a historical cultural practice and as such are protected by law.

 

#Actually, this depends on the jurisdiction over the area. The NYDEC explicitly permits the Catskill summit canisters, for example, as a result of a negotiated agreement between the maintainers (the Catskill 3500 Club) and the agency. Their removal from the Adirondacks was as a result of a complex (and controversial) dialogue between the NYDEC and the 46ers.

 

>Public land agencies such as the BLM pay attention to caches and their placments and ask that any that don't mesh with the resources they are protecting be removed. They generally do not put up big signs saying "protected resource here".

 

#This is interesting, as I have no idea how caches (of any kind) are handled elsewhere.

 

One way to protect resources is to limit impact to the larger area. Thus a peak register would focus the impact in a smaller zone than removing it. You admitted this much with your "herd path" comment. Another example is the paved trail system often used by the NPS. They pave the living snot out of a smaller area then limit impact to that developed trail system.

 

#I agree with you, although "admit" is perhaps a loaded word here. As I said in my original posting, I'm neither taking nor implying a personal position. I'm conflicted about the issue of summit canisters, and have been for years.

 

A peak register on a densely wooded peak tends to develop an incredibly complex set of herd paths, not just one single one, and these change from year to year, as a result of blowdown. I have heard varying figures (for the Catskills) as to what potential regeneration times might be for the treadways that develop.

 

All agencies involved in the management of wilderness areas use trails to protect resources, in a variety of ways. Trails focus use to a narrow corridor, there are often "sacrifice areas," (areas where have use is encourages, to protect resources elsewhere), and trail routings usually take account of the placement of regionally or nationally protected species or environments.

 

>As a general rule Joe Hiker is not qualified to do anything more than debate the issue. They don't have the experience and skills to actually do any good in the world without guidance from real and actual experts. Yes they can pick up litter and practice leave no trace. But they can't identify soil types. which plants are sensative, etc at a level above "hack".

 

# As a general rule, but there are many exceptions. But you are largely correct in this regard.

[+Renegade Knight]

> The summit registores are a historical cultural practice and as such are protected by law.

 

#Actually, this depends on the jurisdiction over the area....

 

True in that if the mountain is private the Register is historic but has no special protection. If it's public at the state and federal level for all intents and purposes it is. The variation would be if the SHPO (or equivilent) regards them as "not a cultural or historical tradtion or resource". That's possible but not likely because these things have been around and Activly used for hundreds of years.

 

If a county or city owns the peak, it's depends on the federal money. Plus of course state and local laws.

 

Many cultural and archaeological resources are protected by secrecy. If you don't need to know you are not told. Historical not so much. Sensative lands...not so much either but nobody is giong to generally just publish maps of all the locations of all the sensative land types.

 

If you do want to protect sensative lands you end up having to identify them. Who's going to do that? Should those maps be public? If not public then how the heck would you ban hiking or mountain climbing in those locations?

 

In the end while you're question is about peak registers and caches, the real question is why hike there at all? It's the hiking that is causing the issue. While some might say those two items focus hiker activity at certain locations instead of spreading it out. BUT: so does the existance of a mountain top, natural wonders and other things. Hikers hike for a reason. Often there is a destination and it's normally a popular one.

Edited April 8, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[erduggan]

> The summit registores are a historical cultural practice and as such are protected by law.

 

#Actually, this depends on the jurisdiction over the area....

 

True in that if the mountain is private the Register is historic but has no special protection. If it's public at the state and federal level for all intents and purposes it is. The variation would be if the SHPO (or equivilent) regards them as "not a cultural or historical tradtion or resource". That's possible but not likely because these things have been around and Activly used for hundreds of years.

 

If a county or city owns the peak, it's depends on the federal money. Plus of course state and local laws.

 

Many cultural and archaeological resources are protected by secrecy. If you don't need to know you are not told. Historical not so much. Sensative lands...not so much either but nobody is giong to generally just publish maps of all the locations of all the sensative land types.

 

If you do want to protect sensative lands you end up having to identify them. Who's going to do that? Should those maps be public? If not public then how the heck would you ban hiking or mountain climbing in those locations?

 

In the end while you're question is about peak registers and caches, the real question is why hike there at all? It's the hiking that is causing the issue. While some might say those two items focus hiker activity at certain locations instead of spreading it out. BUT: so does the existance of a mountain top, natural wonders and other things. Hikers hike for a reason. Often there is a destination and it's normally a popular one.

 

Here in NY State there are several land use designations. The two of importance for this thread are Wilderness and Wild Forest. There are geocaches on both type of lands. See

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_Preser...ork)#Wilderness

 

for details on these designations.

 

Lands designated Wilderness are inherently sensitive and are therefore not the best place for geocaches, surely? The same is true for high-elevation Wild Forest, where there are also caches. Despite this, looking overall at the placement of some specific caches (Kaaterskill High Peak, Slide Mountain), probably no harm is being done, though I question if these are the best of sites for a geocache. The existence of a few of this type makes the establishment of more a possibility. Which brings me back to my original question:

 

Is there an existing policy against the placement of caches in environmentally sensitive [or, if your prefer, wilderness] areas? If not, should there be?

 

There are also, perhaps, some safety concerns. The south approach to KHP has one section, near the top, where a slip could have nasty consequences. This is not an "official" trail. Anyone who hikes in the region, who knows the rock type (notoriously slippery when wet) and doesn't mind mild "exposure" in the climbing sense is not going to have a problem here. The potential exists for an accident if someone who is not familiar with the terrain approaches the cache from this direction. But that's a side issue.

 

I originally threw this message on here because I was curious as to what the prevailing philosophy among geocachers would be to such regions. No more than that. None of these caches (in my reasonably informed estimation) creates any more impact than purely hiking in would, and indeed any visitor to the cache is (by definition) hiking. Since I have had only one respondent (thank you, Sire Knight <g>) I'll leave it at that.

 

Best,

 

Ted.

Edited April 9, 2007 by erduggan

[+Renegade Knight]

...Lands designated Wilderness are inherently sensitive and are therefore not the best place for geocaches, surely? The same is true for high-elevation Wild Forest, where there are also caches. Despite this, looking overall at the placement of some specific caches (Kaaterskill High Peak, Slide Mountain), probably no harm is being done, though I question if these are the best of sites for a geocache. The existence of a few of this type makes the establishment of more a possibility. Which brings me back to my original question:

 

Is there an existing policy against the placement of caches in environmentally sensitive [or, if your prefer, wilderness] areas? If not, should there be?

 

There are also, perhaps, some safety issues concerns....

 

Wilderness as you have said is a land use designation. It does not automatically mean the lands are more or less sensitive than any other lands. Some wilderness areas allow caches, some don't. Wilderness tends to be more protected than other land use designations due to the greater restrictions on access. Nothing specific need be done that isn't already being done.

 

As for safety it's very often used as a smokescreen but seldom the real issue. People can get hurt doing anything and they can do it with any amount of training. It's up to the individual to know their own limits. If an area is truly a safety concern then the ban on access should be across the board. Normally people who point out safety have in their own minds themselves as an exception due to their own expertise. They forget that safety can be used to ban them as well. They are not smarter, brighter, stronger, better looking, and more deserving, than the folks they want to ban.

 

When it comes to hikers and geocachers you can't tell them apart until they stop to look for a cache.

 

It sounds like the debates you are relaying come from a group of individuals and not from the land managers. When you get right down to it, any group of individuals tend to work to preserve for themselves access and deny others access to their own special areas. That's why I'm glad that our own government looks into all these concerns and balances use and access with preservation. That way special interest groups don't get to just ban other groups. Maybe nobody is perfectly happy but everybody has some access and the lands do get protection and restoration.

[+MissJenn]

Is there an existing policy against the placement of caches in environmentally sensitive areas?

Specifically in Pennsylvania: yes, there is. The DCNR policy states:

 

The cache may not be placed within Natural Areas, Penn Nursery perimeter fence, seed orchards, or Wild Plant Sanctuaries, or on stream banks, riparian zones, wetlands, prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, exemplary natural communities, ecologically sensitive areas, unique geological features, dam structures, or unsafe areas. You must contact the Park Manager / District Forester for possible additional restrictions or questions concerning the proposed location.

 

I would imagine that other locations have some version of something similar.

 

I agree that this type of restriction should exist.

[erduggan]

...Lands designated Wilderness are inherently sensitive and are therefore not the best place for geocaches, surely? The same is true for high-elevation Wild Forest, where there are also caches. Despite this, looking overall at the placement of some specific caches (Kaaterskill High Peak, Slide Mountain), probably no harm is being done, though I question if these are the best of sites for a geocache. The existence of a few of this type makes the establishment of more a possibility. Which brings me back to my original question:

 

Is there an existing policy against the placement of caches in environmentally sensitive [or, if your prefer, wilderness] areas? If not, should there be?

 

There are also, perhaps, some safety concerns....

 

Wilderness as you have said is a land use designation. It does not automatically mean the lands are more or less sensitive than any other lands. Some wilderness areas allow caches, some don't. Wilderness tends to be more protected than other land use designations due to the greater restrictions on access. Nothing specific need be done that isn't already being done.

 

##I have to disagree with you there, at least so far as NYS land use goes.##

 

As for safety it's very often used as a smokescreen but seldom the real issue. People can get hurt doing anything and they can do it with any amount of training. It's up to the individual to know their own limits. If an area is truly a safety concern then the ban on access should be across the board. Normally people who point out safety have in their own minds themselves as an exception due to their own expertise. They forget that safety can be used to ban them as well. They are not smarter, brighter, stronger, better looking, and more deserving, than the folks they want to ban.

 

## No, safety is not a smokescreen. The southern approach up the side of Kaaterskill HP is shown on some maps and is marked with a cairn and I can well imagine someone coming in that way who doesn't know the terrain. It's hardly a peak you can ban, even if the provisions existed for doing so. They don't really, under NYSDEC policy. It's not a technical climb, but it is a grade 3 or 4 based on the exposure. There is also a sheer cliff of about 75-100 feet some way below one of the KHP caches, a fact not that widely known even to many hikers quite familiar with the summit. It would take some effort to fall off, though <g>.##

 

When it comes to hikers and geocachers you can't tell them apart until they stop to look for a cache.

 

##I know many hikers who geocache. I do occasionally myself, although I am primarily a hiker and backpacker. I do understand this, believe me. However, not all geocachers are hikers, by any means.##

 

It sounds like the debates you are relaying come from a group of individuals and not from the land managers. When you get right down to it, any group of individuals tend to work to preserve for themselves access and deny others access to their own special areas. That's why I'm glad that our own government looks into all these concerns and balances use and access with preservation. That way special interest groups don't get to just ban other groups. Maybe nobody is perfectly happy but everybody has some access and the lands do get protection and restoration.

 

## I'm not relaying anything. That is an unwarranted assumption. I posed the question because I was wanted an answer, or at least some opinions. I have no particular agenda for doing so, beyond wondering if informal guidelines exist in the geocaching community for cache placement, especially in such settings as those I have mentioned.##

 

Edited April 9, 2007 by erduggan

[erduggan]

Is there an existing policy against the placement of caches in environmentally sensitive areas?

Specifically in Pennsylvania: yes, there is. The DCNR policy states:

 

The cache may not be placed within Natural Areas, Penn Nursery perimeter fence, seed orchards, or Wild Plant Sanctuaries, or on stream banks, riparian zones, wetlands, prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, exemplary natural communities, ecologically sensitive areas, unique geological features, dam structures, or unsafe areas. You must contact the Park Manager / District Forester for possible additional restrictions or questions concerning the proposed location.

 

I would imagine that other locations have some version of something similar.

 

I agree that this type of restriction should exist.

 

Thank you, Miss Jenn.

 

I understand that cache placement is an informal matter, with (thank heavens!) no governing body. Still, I believe some guidelines exist within the community? Again, I was wondering if any mention was made of care in placement in wilderness areas. I don't ask this with any special agenda, nor at the behest of others. It would simply be good to think that folks consider the setting in which they place a cache, and make sure that

 

1. They are not creating potential damage to the setting.

 

and (since the matter was raised)

 

2. They aren't placing the cache somewhere where fellow geocachers will be put at risk.

 

Observing regional land use restrictions is part and parcel of being a responsible geocacher, pretty much de facto.

 

All best,

 

Ted.

Edited April 9, 2007 by erduggan

[+MissJenn]

I understand that cache placement is an informal matter, with (thank heavens!) no governing body. Still, I believe some guidelines exist within the community?

Have you seen this?

http://www.geocreed.info/

[erduggan]

I understand that cache placement is an informal matter, with (thank heavens!) no governing body. Still, I believe some guidelines exist within the community?

Have you seen this?

http://www.geocreed.info/

 

Thanks! Yes, that is what I am looking for, and it's a solid credo.

 

I was looking further into the issue in NY State, and found that there had been a pretty strong controversy on Groundspeak several years ago about the matter.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=85502

 

I hadn't intended to invoke ugly memories.

 

Apparently, NYSDEC official policy bans caches, period. Not the most flexible or consistent of organizations, that. I'm not sure if this has been revisited, but probably not as--for the Catskills at least--the latest version of State Land Master Plan seems to have died a-borning. It was due in 2004, and to the best of my knowledge is still not out.

 

Thanks again!

 

best,

 

Ted.

[+MissJenn]

Not everyone knows about the Creed, and it's not at all official, but there you have it.