Geocaching cause bad Impression

[+AtoZ]

http://forums.backpacker.com/eve/forums/a/...19/m/5381088503

 

This is a thread on Backpacker Mag regarding a cache placed in a Wilderness Area, against the guidelines I think.

[+Team_CSG]

Yes, against the rules. I'm surprised the review approved this.

 

Official sponsor of Podcacher.com 2007 Geocaching tour

[+JamGuys]

http://forums.backpacker.com/eve/forums/a/...19/m/5381088503

 

This is a thread on Backpacker Mag regarding a cache placed in a Wilderness Area, against the guidelines I think.

Very interesting read! Think I'll sit back and see how our more illustrious forum contributors (and I say that with all due respect!) analyze the situation. I particularly like lizsbaby's contribution!

[+StarBrand]

Slightly off topic....

 

That thread is a good example of why Virtuals had to go away. Did you notice how the non-cachers (and some cachers) immediately grabbed onto that as a perfect alternative to "real" caches?

 

That mentality was quickly leading to a large number of restrictive polices concerning physical geocaches. Now that they are gone, it is easier for us cachers to work out acceptable policies with land managers that allow physical caches.

 

My opinion.

[+Mule Ears]

Actually, the discussion was fairly balanced, given the composition of the discussion group. One contributor toward the end of the thread pointed out, correctly, that there are lots of vastly more pressing concerns in wilderness areas than the occasional cache.

 

Another commenter hit an important nail on the head: That harm to surroundings is caused not by the cache itself, but by subsequent searches for it, if well-hidden. It's really vital that cachers hide caches so that they are

• invisible to muggles
  
• obvious to cachers
  

[CoyoteRed]

That thread is a good example of why Virtuals had to go away. Did you notice how the non-cachers (and some cachers) immediately grabbed onto that as a perfect alternative to "real" caches?

Exactly.

 

I liked whistlepunk's post. This poster seemed to understand the nuances of caching on Federal and protected properties than most folks in these very forums.

[+Team GeoBlast]

Slightly off topic....

 

That thread is a good example of why Virtuals had to go away. Did you notice how the non-cachers (and some cachers) immediately grabbed onto that as a perfect alternative to "real" caches?

 

That mentality was quickly leading to a large number of restrictive polices concerning physical geocaches. Now that they are gone, it is easier for us cachers to work out acceptable policies with land managers that allow physical caches.

 

My opinion.

 

You are right, this is a pretty good and balanced discussion about Geocache placement although I kinda resent the word "problem" associated so closely to it. I was interested to read this from Lizababy who is a Geocacher:

 

Geocaching is one of those things that came along, gained fury and now it's out of control. It could really use some kind of overall agency dealing with it, as in courses on use of GPS, placement of caches, LNT, following regulations of various governmental entities, and some typie of discipline measures if guidelines are not followed. (I know some Boy Scouts in this area had a course of maybe six weeks. I saw the syllabus for it and it looked really good in all it covered.)

 

Sadly, I think this is the road we are headed down. Groundspeak seems to be content in placing the onus on the cachers doorstep and resolving themselves from any responsibility once the little box is checked. Anyone who contends that this responsibility is being respected at a level where this current growth pace can be maintained, isn't paying very close attention.

Edited June 27, 2007 by Team GeoBlast

[+Team Cotati]

Actually, the discussion was fairly balanced, given the composition of the discussion group. One contributor toward the end of the thread pointed out, correctly, that there are lots of vastly more pressing concerns in wilderness areas than the occasional cache.

 

Another commenter hit an important nail on the head: That harm to surroundings is caused not by the cache itself, but by subsequent searches for it, if well-hidden. It's really vital that cachers hide caches so that they are

• invisible to muggles
  
• obvious to cachers
  

 

This is true. It would most helpful if those who run the site and review and approve cache hides were vastly more supportative of this so-called self-policing that is supposed to be going on. Encouraging cachers to report inapropraitely placed caches, and subsequently, after verification, removing them from the site would go a long way towards fixing this issue. Just because someone hid a cache doesn't mean that it they should have. Certain caches are simply a detriment to the sport because of their disrespect of the property upon which they are hidden. Caches hidden on in such a manner that their existance results in damage to the environment or the property of others ought not to exist.

 

Well hidden is a factor no doubt, but where hidden for sure is an important contributor. I've seen some make glib comments such as, "if where a cache is hidden bothers you.......don't hunt for it." It's as if just because some people think a cache is ok to hunt irrespective of its detrimental location, then that alone makes it an ok thing to do.

 

I'd say that most think that we ought not to violate No Tresspassing signs and various park closing hours and such. Whether or not you think that way, it is what you ought to do. It's as if a sign is more important than what most would consider common sense and respect. There simply are places that caches ought not to be placed because it is the wrong thing to do. You don't need a sign.

Edited June 26, 2007 by Team Cotati

[+Mule Ears]

A couple more thoughts on the Backpacker discussion thread:

 

- Backpackers, by definition, are folks who take extended hikes in the wilderness, camping overnight as necessary. They uniformly disapprove of dayhikers, mountain bikers, trail runners, inexperienced backpackers, overexperienced backpackers and anyone who is too clean, too recently shaven or too well-equipped. They want a wilderness experience, which means the maximum number of consecutive hours (preferably days) in the outdoors without seeing anyone that they didn't bring along. Of course they dislike Geocachers!

 

- Please note that the most-reasonable voice in the Backpacker thread was more concerned about people wearing brightly colored clothing in the wilderness than with caches. Nuff said.

 

- Summit registers are starting to be considered historic and deserving of protection and conservation. You can tell this by the rate at which they are being stolen. Summit registers are much like caches, except that they occupy a unique spot (the high point) and are usually marked by a conspicuous, manmade heap of rocks and junk. Because they are a few years or decades old, they are OK, whereas an inconspicuous cache hidden with minimal disruption is an Assault on the Environment that must be banned.

 

- The best hope for backcountry Geocaching is for us to stand up for ourselves. Dipping our heads in shame whenever some scold tells us that a cache is "abandoned property" does not cut it. Other than the idiot admin-law judge who thought his pants were worth $54 million, nobody would call a cache "abandoned." Application of that rule to Geocaching is nonsense and we need to resist it. Once a cache has been in existence for awhile (couple of years) it becomes very difficult to support the claims of environmental devastation that it supposedly would have caused.

 

- The out-of-control growth of Geocaching is occurring in urban areas, not in the outdoors. Caching is a reflection of demographics, and most of the demos are incapable of or or unwilling to venture very far into the wilderness.

[+Knight2000]

Geocaching is one of those things that came along, gained fury and now it's out of control. It could really use some kind of overall agency dealing with it, as in courses on use of GPS, placement of caches, LNT, following regulations of various governmental entities, and some typie of discipline measures if guidelines are not followed. (I know some Boy Scouts in this area had a course of maybe six weeks. I saw the syllabus for it and it looked really good in all it covered.)

 

Sadly, I think this is the road we are headed down. Groundspeak seems to be content in placing the onus on the cachers doorstep and resolving themselves from any responsibility once the little box is checked. Anyone who contends that this level of responsibility is being respected at a level where this current growth pace can be maintained, isn't paying very close attention.

I totally agree. Most people want to place a cache and ask questions later making the rest of us look bad.

[+sbell111]

There would have been almost no difference to that thread if the cache had been placed with permission in an allowed location. This is no different than the cavers' thread from a few years ago. Some people believe that the only way to enjoy something is their way. I guess that's not so different from the bulk of the threads in this very forum.

[+D@nim@l]

From the post...

 

"Take some time read to read Public Law 88-577 and tell me where placing of caches in wilderness fits;

 

The 1964 Wilderness Act

Section C; "© A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this chapter an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value."

 

I think geocaching fits number (2) very nicely as does it "substantially unnoticable".

Edited June 27, 2007 by D@nim@l

[+geomann1]

From the post...

 

"Take some time read to read Public Law 88-577 and tell me where placing of caches in wilderness fits;

 

The 1964 Wilderness Act

Section C; "© A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this chapter an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value."

 

I think geocaching fits number (2) very nicely as does it "substantially unnoticable".

 

Wilderness land and National Parks are still public lands owned by all of us, and should be available for all low impact uses. In the case of the latter, I have a real problem with concession stands and gift shops being allowed, but not a few regulated geocaches. I just see this an another example of the government's continuous taking away of our rights.

[+CrkrJim]

Think before you hide your cache

 

This subtitle says alot. We tend to like the cache hides that take us to a nice outdoor spot be it historical, scenic etc. As we look for a good spot for our first hide, we (wife, son and I) are also thinking about the hide itself. Our thinking is that if the hide location is fairly obvious, we'll do a trickier hide (in our area Geomann1, Team Crime Scene and Lehigh Mafia our some of our favorites). If not quite so obvious, we'll do an easier hide so the place doesn't get trampled by the hunt.

 

Let's face it. Whether we like it or not, we're all ambassadors for our sport. We need to think when we hide them and think when we look for them.

 

Good hunting,

 

Jim

[+Kit Fox]

I don't see anyway that the placing of geo-caches fits into the Wilderness Act. I also question the validity of placing them on non-wilderness lands.

 

With a little imagination, it seems to me, the entire idea of geo-caching could be done without leaving anything behind.

 

I don't see any reason for the "game" to be given special treatment. Thanks for notifying the land manager.

 

That is another example of a tree huggers who wants public land all to themselves, without anyone else enjoying what they pay for. I bet these are the same hypocrites that sign Sierra Club, Peak Registers.

 

I don't agree with placing caches in Wilderness areas, until permission is granted (never going to happen though).

[+JamGuys]

 

That is another example of a tree huggers who wants public land all to themselves, without anyone else enjoying what they pay for.

 

I certainly sensed a bit of that myself in some of the posts as well as an aura of superiority. But let's face it, if you're the outdoorsy backpacker type accustomed to having an entire wilderness area to yourself, you're not going to be too happy that your personal playground has now been discovered and is being "invaded" by a bunch of overweight city folks with their newfangled toys and you probably won't want to share!

 

There was a valid point being made (or implied) that a physical geocache shouldn't really be necessary to encourage people to get out and enjoy the outdoors but the fact is that, for many of us urban types, the cache serves as both an advertisement and an incentive for us to do so. However, it does beholden us to ensure that, even in non-wilderness areas, our activity does not affect the environment in a negative way, e.g. placing microcaches in wooded areas where they're likely to incite overzealous searches is a practice that, in my opinion, should be strongly discouraged within our local groups and perhaps even by our local reviewers!

Edited June 27, 2007 by JamGuys

[+briansnat]

I certainly sensed a bit of that myself in some of the posts as well as an aura of superiority. But let's face it, if you're the outdoorsy backpacker type accustomed to having an entire wilderness area to yourself, you're not going to be too happy that your personal playground has now been discovered and is being "invaded" by a bunch of overweight city folks with their newfangled toys and you probably won't want to share

 

Generally that doesn't happen. The outdoorsy backpacker type of geocachers will go after the backcountry caches, but rarely will you see the overweight city folks out there. They are too busy bouncing between Walmart lamp posts.

 

There was a valid point being made (or implied) that a physical geocache shouldn't really be necessary to encourage people to get out and enjoy the outdoors but the fact is that, for many of us urban types, the cache serves as both an advertisement and an incentive for us to do so.

 

The physical vs. virtual cache issue is bogus. If the concern is additional traffic and the potential for damage, it really doesn't matter whether it is a physical or virtual cache that brought people there.

 

I think the real issue with these people is the idea that there might be a geocache hidden somewhere in the woods. The very thought of it spoils their enjoyment of the wilderness experience, whether or not they can actually see the cache or evidence of it. I know some of these people personally. They spend a lot of time out there and have never actually encountered a geocache, or evidence of one (though they have passed by many without knowing it). It's the simple idea that caches are out there that bothers them.

Edited June 27, 2007 by briansnat

[+rdaines]

Wouldn't this fall under the saying, "Take nothing but pictures and Leave nothing but footprints." One animal muggled geocache and finding McToys all over a trail would sure turn me off in a Wilderness area. Do we really need caches Everywhere?? No ones rights are being taken away but not allow caches in certain nature sensitive areas, you can still go there if there is a cache or not.

[BRTango]

Wouldn't this fall under the saying, "Take nothing but pictures and Leave nothing but footprints." One animal muggled geocache and finding McToys all over a trail would sure turn me off in a Wilderness area. Do we really need caches Everywhere?? No ones rights are being taken away but not allow caches in certain nature sensitive areas, you can still go there if there is a cache or not.

 

I'm not much of a back country hiker... not because I don't want to be, but life really has gotten in the way.

 

However, the little amount of time I have spent out there in somethign akin to back country, I've yet to come across a trail strewn with McToys. However, I have come across a refrigerator, several old cars (circa 1950's), tires and other junk. And I'm not talking about anything near a road, I'm talking fairly deep into the woods. I have no idea how the cars got there, they certainly couldn't drive between the trees that surrounded them. The tires may have been washed there by streams and rivers and the other junk I attribute to hikers (maybe not true back country types) who don't really follow the LNT philosophy.

 

These things I've found... while disturbing the pristine environment and my personal sense of the awe of nature, never turned me off to hiking in these areas. So I don't think the off chance that a few McToys spread across a trail from a animal-muggled cache is really going to turn me off either. At least with the McToys, I can CITO them out... couldn't do that with the cars or refrigerator.

[+JamGuys]

 

The physical vs. virtual cache issue is bogus. If the concern is additional traffic and the potential for damage, it really doesn't matter whether it is a physical or virtual cache that brought people there.

 

Well, I could be wrong but I thought that a major part of the concern was disturbance to the environment (including the establishment of geotrails) that might occur during the act of finding the cache.

 

I think the real issue with these people is the idea that there might be a geocache hidden somewhere in the woods. The very thought of it spoils their enjoyment of the wilderness experience, whether or not they can actually see the cache or evidence of it. It's the simple idea that caches are out there that bothers them.

Aaah, I get it now ... it's a hidden blemish!

[+briansnat]

 

The physical vs. virtual cache issue is bogus. If the concern is additional traffic and the potential for damage, it really doesn't matter whether it is a physical or virtual cache that brought people there.

 

Well, I could be wrong but I thought that a major part of the concern was disturbance to the environment (including the establishment of geotrails) that might occur during the act of finding the cache.

 

 

You still have to find a virtual. Not every virtual is like the Washington Monument, sitting in a park and visible from a mile away and not every geocache requires 30 minutes of searching. I've found and own virtuals that require you get off the trail, go into the woods and search for something.

 

If the issue is increased visitors and "social trails" making a virtual instead of a real cache won't necessarily address that. In fact I have on virtual that has a distinct trail to it that has developed since I listed it.

Edited June 27, 2007 by briansnat

[+sbell111]

Wouldn't this fall under the saying, "Take nothing but pictures and Leave nothing but footprints." One animal muggled geocache and finding McToys all over a trail would sure turn me off in a Wilderness area. Do we really need caches Everywhere?? No ones rights are being taken away but not allow caches in certain nature sensitive areas, you can still go there if there is a cache or not.

 

I'm not much of a back country hiker... not because I don't want to be, but life really has gotten in the way.

 

However, the little amount of time I have spent out there in somethign akin to back country, I've yet to come across a trail strewn with McToys. However, I have come across a refrigerator, several old cars (circa 1950's), tires and other junk. And I'm not talking about anything near a road, I'm talking fairly deep into the woods. I have no idea how the cars got there, they certainly couldn't drive between the trees that surrounded them. The tires may have been washed there by streams and rivers and the other junk I attribute to hikers (maybe not true back country types) who don't really follow the LNT philosophy.

 

These things I've found... while disturbing the pristine environment and my personal sense of the awe of nature, never turned me off to hiking in these areas. So I don't think the off chance that a few McToys spread across a trail from a animal-muggled cache is really going to turn me off either. At least with the McToys, I can CITO them out... couldn't do that with the cars or refrigerator.

How far is it to the car???

[BRTango]

Wouldn't this fall under the saying, "Take nothing but pictures and Leave nothing but footprints." One animal muggled geocache and finding McToys all over a trail would sure turn me off in a Wilderness area. Do we really need caches Everywhere?? No ones rights are being taken away but not allow caches in certain nature sensitive areas, you can still go there if there is a cache or not.

 

I'm not much of a back country hiker... not because I don't want to be, but life really has gotten in the way.

 

However, the little amount of time I have spent out there in somethign akin to back country, I've yet to come across a trail strewn with McToys. However, I have come across a refrigerator, several old cars (circa 1950's), tires and other junk. And I'm not talking about anything near a road, I'm talking fairly deep into the woods. I have no idea how the cars got there, they certainly couldn't drive between the trees that surrounded them. The tires may have been washed there by streams and rivers and the other junk I attribute to hikers (maybe not true back country types) who don't really follow the LNT philosophy.

 

These things I've found... while disturbing the pristine environment and my personal sense of the awe of nature, never turned me off to hiking in these areas. So I don't think the off chance that a few McToys spread across a trail from a animal-muggled cache is really going to turn me off either. At least with the McToys, I can CITO them out... couldn't do that with the cars or refrigerator.

How far is it to the car???

 

 

Yes... I guess some people do have the ability. I'm not quite as strong as Mariusz Pudzianowski though!!

Edited June 27, 2007 by BRTango

[+sbell111]

Wouldn't this fall under the saying, "Take nothing but pictures and Leave nothing but footprints." One animal muggled geocache and finding McToys all over a trail would sure turn me off in a Wilderness area. Do we really need caches Everywhere?? No ones rights are being taken away but not allow caches in certain nature sensitive areas, you can still go there if there is a cache or not.

I'm not much of a back country hiker... not because I don't want to be, but life really has gotten in the way.

 

However, the little amount of time I have spent out there in somethign akin to back country, I've yet to come across a trail strewn with McToys. However, I have come across a refrigerator, several old cars (circa 1950's), tires and other junk. And I'm not talking about anything near a road, I'm talking fairly deep into the woods. I have no idea how the cars got there, they certainly couldn't drive between the trees that surrounded them. The tires may have been washed there by streams and rivers and the other junk I attribute to hikers (maybe not true back country types) who don't really follow the LNT philosophy.

 

These things I've found... while disturbing the pristine environment and my personal sense of the awe of nature, never turned me off to hiking in these areas. So I don't think the off chance that a few McToys spread across a trail from a animal-muggled cache is really going to turn me off either. At least with the McToys, I can CITO them out... couldn't do that with the cars or refrigerator.

How far is it to the car???

 

Yes... I guess some people do have the ability. I'm not quite as strong as Mariusz Pudzianowski though!!

Just carry them one at a time.

[+TrailGators]

The physical vs. virtual cache issue is bogus. If the concern is additional traffic and the potential for damage, it really doesn't matter whether it is a physical or virtual cache that brought people there.

 

Well, I could be wrong but I thought that a major part of the concern was disturbance to the environment (including the establishment of geotrails) that might occur during the act of finding the cache.

 

You still have to find a virtual. Not every virtual is like the Washington Monument, sitting in a park and visible from a mile away and not every geocache requires 30 minutes of searching. I've found and own virtuals that require you get off the trail, go into the woods and search for something.

 

If the issue is increased visitors and "social trails" making a virtual instead of a real cache won't necessarily address that. In fact I have on virtual that has a distinct trail to it that has developed since I listed it.

I just did a bunch of virtuals when I was in the D.C. area a few weeks ago. The area long the Potomac river is all NPS land so only virtuals are allowed by them. Luckily for me there were five virtuals placed before the ban on GC. They were all fun to find and I only had to exit the main trail on two of the five virts. But even those two virts were adjacent to side trails formed by others to get next to the river. Anyhow, my point is that I think that virts have a much greater potential to be designed to minimize impact on the environment over a traditional cache.

[+briansnat]

The physical vs. virtual cache issue is bogus. If the concern is additional traffic and the potential for damage, it really doesn't matter whether it is a physical or virtual cache that brought people there.

 

Well, I could be wrong but I thought that a major part of the concern was disturbance to the environment (including the establishment of geotrails) that might occur during the act of finding the cache.

 

You still have to find a virtual. Not every virtual is like the Washington Monument, sitting in a park and visible from a mile away and not every geocache requires 30 minutes of searching. I've found and own virtuals that require you get off the trail, go into the woods and search for something.

 

If the issue is increased visitors and "social trails" making a virtual instead of a real cache won't necessarily address that. In fact I have on virtual that has a distinct trail to it that has developed since I listed it.

I just did a bunch of virtuals when I was in the D.C. area a few weeks ago. The area long the Potomac river is all NPS land so only virtuals are allowed by them. Luckily for me there were five virtuals placed before the ban on GC. They were all fun to find and I only had to exit the main trail on two of the five virts. But even those two virts were adjacent to side trails formed by others to get next to the river. Anyhow, my point is that I think that virts have a much greater potential to be designed to minimize impact on the environment over a traditional cache.

 

They can be because they are often in already heavily used areas or on durable surfaces such as roads and parking lots. They aren't always however. Since the genesis of this thread was a complaint about caches in wilderness areas and someone felt that virts would be an acceptable alternative, I was pointing out that they

won't make much of a difference impact wise.

[+JD4x4]

This isn't quite on topic of the wilderness issue, but it's related I think. I'm new to the sport and I'm finding it a great way to get my 55 y.o. butt outdoors for exercise as well as being educational and informative. I like the virtual caches (but not exclusively) for those reasons, however I understand why they are currently not being used.

 

Anyway.. I was just looking around the site for something that I could print out to hand to muggles, which might explain a bit about the sport and it's desire to be low-impact. I thought about this after I parked in a residential neighborhood (in a legal, unobtrusive spot) to use a trailhead that's not commonly known or used outside of the community, and a (rightly so) concerned homeowner took down my tag number. I know the homeowner's point of view because I also live on a dead-end street and have done the same regardless that there is a public trailhead there.

 

I didn't see anything on the site that I could hand out... is that something that we as a group might want to consider writing, reviewing, and using? I would envision something short & sweet which briefly explains the sport, mentions CITO, mentions the desire to be low-impact & lawful, and might refer them to an appropritate page for muggles on geocaching.com? Just my first thoughts as a noob.

[+sbell111]

CYBret has this brochure on his website.

[+JohnnyVegas]

I would like to see an added function on the geocaching website in which a cacher would have to take an online test of the guidlines before they have access to the hide a cache page. This could be a one time requirement.

In the past year I have seen a large increase in caches that violate the guidlines for placing a cache

I have seen caches that have been place on Mail boxes (Federal crime) on No Tresspasing signs, containers srewed into telephone poles, buried caches (Sprinkler heads, and large PVC pipes with just the tip of the pipe showing, I even saw box placed into the hallow of a tree with casting resin.

 

This is not a problem just with new cachers, most of these have been hidden by cachers that have been around for a while.

Sure there is the SBA feature, but then you become an outcast with the locals. Now it there was a feature like the SBA that only a reviewer would see it might help.

 

I guess a cacher could set up a shell account for posting SBAs

[+StarBrand]

This isn't quite on topic of the wilderness issue, but it's related I think. I'm new to the sport and I'm finding it a great way to get my 55 y.o. butt outdoors for exercise as well as being educational and informative. I like the virtual caches (but not exclusively) for those reasons, however I understand why they are currently not being used.

 

Anyway.. I was just looking around the site for something that I could print out to hand to muggles, which might explain a bit about the sport and it's desire to be low-impact. I thought about this after I parked in a residential neighborhood (in a legal, unobtrusive spot) to use a trailhead that's not commonly known or used outside of the community, and a (rightly so) concerned homeowner took down my tag number. I know the homeowner's point of view because I also live on a dead-end street and have done the same regardless that there is a public trailhead there.

 

I didn't see anything on the site that I could hand out... is that something that we as a group might want to consider writing, reviewing, and using? I would envision something short & sweet which briefly explains the sport, mentions CITO, mentions the desire to be low-impact & lawful, and might refer them to an appropritate page for muggles on geocaching.com? Just my first thoughts as a noob.

http://www.gpsmaze.com/uploads/files/GEOCACH_F2.pdf is another one - and created by the site....

[+Team GPSaxophone]

(1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable;

There you have it. Geocaches are supposed to be unnoticed (except by those that are looking for them) so geocaching actually fits with the wilderness regulations!

[+sbell111]

Was the cache that gave birth to this thread ever even determined to be listed on this site? It seems to me that our reviewers are pretty darned good at catching these.

[+ODragon]

Was the cache that gave birth to this thread ever even determined to be listed on this site? It seems to me that our reviewers are pretty darned good at catching these.

 

Not as far as I could tell. The issue is always getting people to pick up their unpublished caches when they're denied. My guess is that is probably what happened.

[+sbell111]

Was the cache that gave birth to this thread ever even determined to be listed on this site? It seems to me that our reviewers are pretty darned good at catching these.

 

Not as far as I could tell. The issue is always getting people to pick up their unpublished caches when they're denied. My guess is that is probably what happened.

... or it's listed on some other website and not really a GC.com issue.

[+Sileny Jizda]

A couple more thoughts on the Backpacker discussion thread:

 

- Backpackers, by definition, are folks who take extended hikes in the wilderness, camping overnight as necessary. They uniformly disapprove of dayhikers, mountain bikers, trail runners, inexperienced backpackers, overexperienced backpackers and anyone who is too clean, too recently shaven or too well-equipped. They want a wilderness experience, which means the maximum number of consecutive hours (preferably days) in the outdoors without seeing anyone that they didn't bring along. Of course they dislike Geocachers!

 

- Please note that the most-reasonable voice in the Backpacker thread was more concerned about people wearing brightly colored clothing in the wilderness than with caches. Nuff said.

 

- Summit registers are starting to be considered historic and deserving of protection and conservation. You can tell this by the rate at which they are being stolen. Summit registers are much like caches, except that they occupy a unique spot (the high point) and are usually marked by a conspicuous, manmade heap of rocks and junk. Because they are a few years or decades old, they are OK, whereas an inconspicuous cache hidden with minimal disruption is an Assault on the Environment that must be banned.

 

- The best hope for backcountry Geocaching is for us to stand up for ourselves. Dipping our heads in shame whenever some scold tells us that a cache is "abandoned property" does not cut it. Other than the idiot admin-law judge who thought his pants were worth $54 million, nobody would call a cache "abandoned." Application of that rule to Geocaching is nonsense and we need to resist it. Once a cache has been in existence for awhile (couple of years) it becomes very difficult to support the claims of environmental devastation that it supposedly would have caused.

 

- The out-of-control growth of Geocaching is occurring in urban areas, not in the outdoors. Caching is a reflection of demographics, and most of the demos are incapable of or or unwilling to venture very far into the wilderness.

 

That about sums up what I was thinking about their thread. I think the term to use is 'elitists.'

[+TrailGators]

The physical vs. virtual cache issue is bogus. If the concern is additional traffic and the potential for damage, it really doesn't matter whether it is a physical or virtual cache that brought people there.

 

Well, I could be wrong but I thought that a major part of the concern was disturbance to the environment (including the establishment of geotrails) that might occur during the act of finding the cache.

 

You still have to find a virtual. Not every virtual is like the Washington Monument, sitting in a park and visible from a mile away and not every geocache requires 30 minutes of searching. I've found and own virtuals that require you get off the trail, go into the woods and search for something.

 

If the issue is increased visitors and "social trails" making a virtual instead of a real cache won't necessarily address that. In fact I have on virtual that has a distinct trail to it that has developed since I listed it.

I just did a bunch of virtuals when I was in the D.C. area a few weeks ago. The area long the Potomac river is all NPS land so only virtuals are allowed by them. Luckily for me there were five virtuals placed before the ban on GC. They were all fun to find and I only had to exit the main trail on two of the five virts. But even those two virts were adjacent to side trails formed by others to get next to the river. Anyhow, my point is that I think that virts have a much greater potential to be designed to minimize impact on the environment over a traditional cache.

They can be because they are often in already heavily used areas or on durable surfaces such as roads and parking lots. They aren't always however. Since the genesis of this thread was a complaint about caches in wilderness areas and someone felt that virts would be an acceptable alternative, I was pointing out that they won't make much of a difference impact wise.

I've never felt that a few small trails in the woods was really impacting the environment anyhow. However, the way caches are spreading these days, I can understand their concern about opening the flood gates. Moderation is hard to control with the masses, so saying "no" is the easiest way for the rangers to manage it.

[+chaosmanor]

In reading over this thread, I find that I have very little substantive to add. I tend to agree that we are losing our rights slowly, but this has been going on long before geocaching got started. It just seems to have gotten a lot worse in the past six years (I wonder why...?). I also bemoan the loss of virtuals, as with few exceptions they rarely cause geotrails. A handout such as Where's George has would be nice, certainly. And the comments about elitists are apt, but we must remember that we geocachers are elitists, as well. Which brings me to a possible partial solution: Shutterspot. Put it in Google. The object is to get within 100 meters of where a set of one to three photographs was taken. Titles and a few clues help you get to the general area; after that, it's up to you. We have a few, under the same handle that we use here. And there is lots of room to add more of them.

 

Isn't it funny, though, how things have changed since Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote the following?

 

"Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail."

[+Firefishe]

In reading over this thread, I find that I have very little substantive to add. I tend to agree that we are losing our rights slowly, but this has been going on long before geocaching got started. It just seems to have gotten a lot worse in the past six years (I wonder why...?). I also bemoan the loss of virtuals, as with few exceptions they rarely cause geotrails. A handout such as Where's George has would be nice, certainly. And the comments about elitists are apt, but we must remember that we geocachers are elitists, as well. Which brings me to a possible partial solution: Shutterspot. Put it in Google. The object is to get within 100 meters of where a set of one to three photographs was taken. Titles and a few clues help you get to the general area; after that, it's up to you. We have a few, under the same handle that we use here. And there is lots of room to add more of them.

 

Isn't it funny, though, how things have changed since Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote the following?

 

"Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail."

 

The only thing about that is when Emerson was quoting that, there was probably a whole lot more wilderness to explore, and more areas for trails to be made in that would benefit others traveling through the area at a later date.

 

With three hundred million people looming on the horizon of the u.s. population, alone, I think Emerson would do a double-take if he could see what that quote wrought. ;-)

[+Firefishe]

In reading over this thread, I find that I have very little substantive to add. I tend to agree that we are losing our rights slowly, but this has been going on long before geocaching got started. It just seems to have gotten a lot worse in the past six years (I wonder why...?). I also bemoan the loss of virtuals, as with few exceptions they rarely cause geotrails. A handout such as Where's George has would be nice, certainly. And the comments about elitists are apt, but we must remember that we geocachers are elitists, as well. Which brings me to a possible partial solution: Shutterspot. Put it in Google. The object is to get within 100 meters of where a set of one to three photographs was taken. Titles and a few clues help you get to the general area; after that, it's up to you. We have a few, under the same handle that we use here. And there is lots of room to add more of them.

 

Isn't it funny, though, how things have changed since Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote the following?

 

"Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail."

 

The only thing about that is when Emerson was quoting that, there was probably a whole lot more wilderness to explore, and more areas for trails to be made in that would benefit others traveling through the area at a later date.

 

With three hundred million people looming on the horizon of the u.s. population, alone, I think Emerson would do a double-take if he could see what that quote wrought. ;-)

 

I would also add that this might also be an indication that we need to find new areas to explore. Perhaps the Inner Worlds of the Mind? The darkest corners of the underground? The deepest depths of the oceans? The farthest reaches of outer space? Those Clear and Defining moments that overwhelm us when we are the ones actually doing the discovering, whether or not someone else is around to see us or not!

 

Just a thought. Expand. Experience. Explore. Share.

[+CM-14]

A couple more thoughts on the Backpacker discussion thread:

 

- Backpackers, by definition, are folks who take extended hikes in the wilderness, camping overnight as necessary. They uniformly disapprove of dayhikers, mountain bikers, trail runners, inexperienced backpackers, overexperienced backpackers and anyone who is too clean, too recently shaven or too well-equipped. They want a wilderness experience, which means the maximum number of consecutive hours (preferably days) in the outdoors without seeing anyone that they didn't bring along. Of course they dislike Geocachers!

 

- Please note that the most-reasonable voice in the Backpacker thread was more concerned about people wearing brightly colored clothing in the wilderness than with caches. Nuff said.

 

- Summit registers are starting to be considered historic and deserving of protection and conservation. You can tell this by the rate at which they are being stolen. Summit registers are much like caches, except that they occupy a unique spot (the high point) and are usually marked by a conspicuous, manmade heap of rocks and junk. Because they are a few years or decades old, they are OK, whereas an inconspicuous cache hidden with minimal disruption is an Assault on the Environment that must be banned.

 

- The best hope for backcountry Geocaching is for us to stand up for ourselves. Dipping our heads in shame whenever some scold tells us that a cache is "abandoned property" does not cut it. Other than the idiot admin-law judge who thought his pants were worth $54 million, nobody would call a cache "abandoned." Application of that rule to Geocaching is nonsense and we need to resist it. Once a cache has been in existence for awhile (couple of years) it becomes very difficult to support the claims of environmental devastation that it supposedly would have caused.

 

- The out-of-control growth of Geocaching is occurring in urban areas, not in the outdoors. Caching is a reflection of demographics, and most of the demos are incapable of or or unwilling to venture very far into the wilderness.

 

I'm a backpacker. I neither dissaprove of day hikers or geocaching and in fact participate in both often.

[+CM-14]

A couple more thoughts on the Backpacker discussion thread:

 

- Backpackers, by definition, are folks who take extended hikes in the wilderness, camping overnight as necessary. They uniformly disapprove of dayhikers, mountain bikers, trail runners, inexperienced backpackers, overexperienced backpackers and anyone who is too clean, too recently shaven or too well-equipped. They want a wilderness experience, which means the maximum number of consecutive hours (preferably days) in the outdoors without seeing anyone that they didn't bring along. Of course they dislike Geocachers!

 

- Please note that the most-reasonable voice in the Backpacker thread was more concerned about people wearing brightly colored clothing in the wilderness than with caches. Nuff said.

 

- Summit registers are starting to be considered historic and deserving of protection and conservation. You can tell this by the rate at which they are being stolen. Summit registers are much like caches, except that they occupy a unique spot (the high point) and are usually marked by a conspicuous, manmade heap of rocks and junk. Because they are a few years or decades old, they are OK, whereas an inconspicuous cache hidden with minimal disruption is an Assault on the Environment that must be banned.

 

- The best hope for backcountry Geocaching is for us to stand up for ourselves. Dipping our heads in shame whenever some scold tells us that a cache is "abandoned property" does not cut it. Other than the idiot admin-law judge who thought his pants were worth $54 million, nobody would call a cache "abandoned." Application of that rule to Geocaching is nonsense and we need to resist it. Once a cache has been in existence for awhile (couple of years) it becomes very difficult to support the claims of environmental devastation that it supposedly would have caused.

 

- The out-of-control growth of Geocaching is occurring in urban areas, not in the outdoors. Caching is a reflection of demographics, and most of the demos are incapable of or or unwilling to venture very far into the wilderness.

 

That about sums up what I was thinking about their thread. I think the term to use is 'elitists.'

 

Don't kid yourself, there are plenty of "elitist" geocachers lurking around as well.

[+sbell111]

Don't kid yourself, there are plenty of "elitist" geocachers lurking around as well.

How dare those backpackers use our woods!

[+Renegade Knight]

I certainly sensed a bit of that myself in some of the posts as well as an aura of superiority. But let's face it, if you're the outdoorsy backpacker type accustomed to having an entire wilderness area to yourself, you're not going to be too happy that your personal playground has now been discovered and is being "invaded" by a bunch of overweight city folks with their newfangled toys and you probably won't want to share

 

Generally that doesn't happen. The outdoorsy backpacker type of geocachers will go after the backcountry caches, but rarely will you see the overweight city folks out there. They are too busy bouncing between Walmart lamp posts.

 

There was a valid point being made (or implied) that a physical geocache shouldn't really be necessary to encourage people to get out and enjoy the outdoors but the fact is that, for many of us urban types, the cache serves as both an advertisement and an incentive for us to do so.

 

The physical vs. virtual cache issue is bogus. If the concern is additional traffic and the potential for damage, it really doesn't matter whether it is a physical or virtual cache that brought people there.

 

I think the real issue with these people is the idea that there might be a geocache hidden somewhere in the woods. The very thought of it spoils their enjoyment of the wilderness experience, whether or not they can actually see the cache or evidence of it. I know some of these people personally. They spend a lot of time out there and have never actually encountered a geocache, or evidence of one (though they have passed by many without knowing it). It's the simple idea that caches are out there that bothers them.

 

Well said. You bring up a great defence of urban caches. If urban folks stay busy with urban caches they are not out seeking rural ones and are perfectly happy.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I tend to agree that we are losing our rights slowly, but this has been going on long before geocaching got started....

 

A publication called the tragedy of the commons explains why. We have to fight rabidly to prevent the inevitible from happening before it's really needed.