Jump to content

To those of you worrying about environmental damage...


runner_one

Recommended Posts

Time to get on my soap box!

Please understand that this is not directed to anyone in particular.

 

The earth is a lot more resilient than we give it credit for. I have seen people in these boards complaining about the environmental damage done to an area by geocachers, most of the comments relate to trampled grass or packed soil or broken tree limbs and or broken young trees.

While it is a good idea that geocachers should try not to cause any intentional destruction of an area, I think there is way too much time wasted in agonizing over minor disturbances that will not be visible within a few months after the cache is removed. A perfect example is this location; Bethesda Tn. There used to be a complete town at this location before the depression. Here is a photo taken around 1912 of the students in front of the school building; Bethesda School. My Grandmother is the girl with the tie just to the right of the doors. I was at this location last Sunday and there is NOTHING to indicate a town ever existed at this location. There were a few piles of stones that used to be the foundation for the building in this photo as well as others. But unless you knew there used to be a thriving community there, you would never know it ever existed. Here is a photo of Bethesda today; Bethesda Today.. Nature has Completely reclaimed the area. In most cases (Some extremely sensitive areas excluded, and in those areas a cache should not be placed anyway.) Nature will reclaim its own.

 

So please just have fun and stop worrying so much. Take reasonable care and go about your business, this world was here long before you, and it will still be long after you are gone.

Steps down from the soap box.

Edited by runner_one
Link to comment
The earth is a lot more resilient than we give it credit for. I have seen people in these boards complaining about the environmental damage done to an area by geocachers, most of the comments relate to trampled grass or packed soil or broken tree limbs and or broken young trees.

 

While it is a good idea that geocachers should try not to cause any intentional destruction of an area, I think there is way too much time wasted in agonizing over minor disturbances that will not be visible within a few months after the cache is removed.

 

I agree to an extent. The only "damage" I've seen were bent blades of grass and broken tree branches. That really isn't damage because as you point out, the area will recover, probably within weeks after the cache is gone.

 

Compacted soil is much more serious, but the only caches that I've seen with this kind of damage were within a few feet of roads and parking lots. The adjacent paved areas are far more threatening to the environment than any cache.

 

My chief concern is with caches on steep, soft slopes. They can cause erosion and once that starts it's very difficult to stop. It's not something I've actually observed, but I'm sure it happens.

 

In a few instances Ive seen disturbed leaves and turned over rocks, but though temporarily unsightly, it isn't anything different than a foraging deer or bear would cause. Go back in a couple of months and nobody would notice. It just looks like crap for a few weeks and it's something we'd rather not have land managers see.

 

Overall the geocaching's impact is quite benign. I've been on over 600 cache hunts and can count the instances where there was noticeable impact both hands. I think the fact that it gets more people out into and interested in the outdoors (which means more advocates for these places) far outweighs the minimal impact.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

Interesting post... and kinda misleading.

 

First, I agree with you that things like "trampled grass or packed soil or broken tree limbs and or broken young trees" should not really be classified as environmental damage. But damage like that does cause short-term problems in many ways. It's ugly for one thing, and is something landowners or land managers will point to right before banning geocaching on their property. If the "trampled grass or packed soil" is on a steep slope, it can lead to erosion, which leads to more plant damage, and can lead to silting of streams and death to clear-water fish. Really an extreme example, but possible.

 

There's no way to eliminate the environmental IMPACT (not damage) caused by caching; if you place a cache in a rural area there will be a path straight to it within a short amount of time, unless it's on solid rock. But there are ways to minimize the impact and preserve the beauty of the spot for future visitors.

 

Another issue I have with your rant is the time frame; 95 years might be geologically insignificant, but it is a long time with respect to humans. You can completely trash an area, dig holes, dump old appliances, and then burn everything to the ground, and in 95 years you probably couldn't tell the difference except for maybe a few small pieces of rusted metal. Are you saying that it's ok to damage the local environment such that it takes almost a century for Mother Nature to heal herself?

Link to comment

There is no single answer here, you have to consider the area where the cache is placed. A cache in a park/playground is going to see a lot of activity no matter what. A cache off of a woodland trail/nature area is very different. Placing a cache up in a tree has me worry about wear and tear on the tree. Low impact.

Link to comment

I agree that all will revert back to a climax community of we leave it alone long enough... but as in your example of 1912 to 2007, it often takes longer than the average human lifespan. Things that are healed in a season are not a catastrophe, but if it takes years of succession to hide the scars then there is a problem.

Link to comment

I live in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, so there are probably 1,000 trees for every person living around here. I'm not one to be super-environmentally friendly ALL the time, but if I see some trash along the trail or things floating in the river I'll pull out a CITO bag.

 

One of my caches got flamed for being in a high erosion area. The whole island it is on is a high erosion area and if you stick to the paths it's not a problem. The problem comes into play when you take the direct route straight up the slope instead of the trail around it. The deer in the area that run up and down the hill and the waves of Lake Superior (which are incredibly powerful year-round) are doing far more damage than the couple dozen geocachers that have found the caches in the area.

 

As far as trampled grass, broken tree limbs and that kind of thing - what difference does it really make. I can see if the cache is on private property that you wouldn't want your entire yard torn up, your prized apple tree limbs busted and your sifted top soil packed down like concrete. The trees however can recover quite well. If you snap off a couple dead branches walking by (healthy ones bend, the dead ones break off) the tree directs the nutrients elsewhere. The moose in my area will ram an entire tree over to get it out of the way. I have yet to see a geocacher headbutting a tree until it falls over.

 

As long as you try to tead lightly, I don't think the environmental impact will be a problem.

Link to comment

There's a saying we've all heard that makes sense and I'll repeat it:

Take only memories and leave only foot prints.

 

Unless you're trampling over sensitive microbiotic soil crust it's OK to be a human being that enjoys the outdoors.

Also, it seems that if we practice principles of CITO and LNT then we're leaving it better than we found it.

<end rant>

Link to comment

Another issue I have with your rant is the time frame; 95 years might be geologically insignificant, but it is a long time with respect to humans. You can completely trash an area, dig holes, dump old appliances, and then burn everything to the ground, and in 95 years you probably couldn't tell the difference except for maybe a few small pieces of rusted metal. Are you saying that it's ok to damage the local environment such that it takes almost a century for Mother Nature to heal herself?

 

I lived near Mission Trails Regional Park in San Diego during the 2003 wild fires. Some say that the wild fires were as bad as they were that year because humans had been putting out the naturally occurring fires for decades. Therefore there were no natural breaks from past fires to slow or stop the fire. Anyhoo, one year later and MTRP was greener than ever!!! The fires gave the soil exactly what was needed to rejuvenate the land.

Link to comment

I have seen some Geocachers tear apart a downed tree to look for a cache. Does that really cause damage? The tree is already down and is decaying. All that is really happening is the speeding up of the decaying process. Then again I've seen animals tear right into the same downed trees or cut down trees for their own homes or food. So, who's doing more harm? I for one will pick up trash that I can when I'm out caching it's the least I can do. However, I'm not going to cart off a truck tire from a river bank back to my truck a mile away either. We can only do so much.

Link to comment

Another issue I have with your rant is the time frame; 95 years might be geologically insignificant, but it is a long time with respect to humans. You can completely trash an area, dig holes, dump old appliances, and then burn everything to the ground, and in 95 years you probably couldn't tell the difference except for maybe a few small pieces of rusted metal. Are you saying that it's ok to damage the local environment such that it takes almost a century for Mother Nature to heal herself?

 

I lived near Mission Trails Regional Park in San Diego during the 2003 wild fires. Some say that the wild fires were as bad as they were that year because humans had been putting out the naturally occurring fires for decades. Therefore there were no natural breaks from past fires to slow or stop the fire. Anyhoo, one year later and MTRP was greener than ever!!! The fires gave the soil exactly what was needed to rejuvenate the land.

I was here when those fires ravaged the area. The Paradise fire came right up to the edge of my development. The smoke was so thick I couldn't see my back fence. It was snowing ashes.I've never seen anything like that. :o
Link to comment

I don't think that geocaching is any more `damaging' to the environment than any other activity. I also believe we owe the Earth absolutely nothing, but in fact only owe ourselves a habitable Earth in the future, and that should be our motivation to not damage it. Breaking a tree limb, trampling some grass, or stepping on a few spiders is not what I'd call environmental damage and is nothing more than what wild animals do every single day. Now if a cache has an additional logging requirement that you have to burn a tire at the cache site, that's different :o

Link to comment

My chief concern is with caches on steep, soft slopes. They can cause erosion and once that starts it's very difficult to stop. It's not something I've actually observed, but I'm sure it happens.

 

Just a comment here. Common sense would say that a 100% loose sand with a steep slope would be competely flat within a year due to rain and winds and animals walking on it. Not so. In Michigan there are many areas with sandy dunes. Some are in Sleeping Bear Dunes park, some are in Hoffmaster Park on the west shore of Michigan, some are near Saugatuck. Those dunes have been there for thousands of years, and I"ll be they will be for another thousand more. (Assuming water levels don't continuously rise.)

 

So, even soft, steep sandy slopes last a long time, even with wind, rain, waves, erosion, and animals (including people) walking on them.

 

This is why we have science, the scientific method, and scientific studies. Because "common sense" isn't always correct.

 

I get cheesed about park rangers going off the deep end. What Mr Ranger? You have a park 100 miles from the nearest town that only gets 3 visitors per day and I can't walk 2 feet off the trail to take a picture of a beautiful flower I've never seen before?

 

That rule does not follow common sense. I live in a good sized city, actually a metropolis. Not as big as Detroit, but it's about 6 towns all connected. In the middle of one heavily populated area is a park. This park is full of wild woods with a path through it. It grows hundreds of trilliums, a protected flower. People don't follow the rules and walk around on these trilliums, yet the flowers still come back every year. This park gets at least 50 visitors every day. Yet the trees and flowers have not been trampled beyond recognition.

 

If there is a rare flower, like a Lady's Slipper (which I would love to see in the wild), so important that no one should walk near it, put a fence around it. If it's personally important to you, Mr. Ranger, spend $10 for some rope and some stakes and stake out the area.

 

Let's be a little more moderate here, people. The woods, in most cases, actually NEED people walking in them to trample the sticks and leaves into smaller pieces, so they can more easily broken down so mold and bacteria can break them down into valuable humus.

 

I've been to a couple caves and they actually told us not to touch the walls or any other items because we'd "destroy the cave!"

 

I think it's more important for us to control our pollution releases in the the air and streams than it is to stay on the trail (with a few exceptions for rare plants).

Edited by chuckr30
Link to comment
If it's personally important to you, Mr. Ranger, spend $10 for some rope and some stakes and stake out the area.

True.

 

Or he can spend zero dollars and say "No caching."

 

Hmmm... Seems like a no brainer to me.

 

That is so true. Also, people justifying environmental destruction because certain animals do it (moose, beaver,...) is just plain short sighted. Some of you youngins may not remember the state of our environment in the 50s, 60s, and into the 70s. We had rivers that caught on fire because they were so polluted, white-tailed deer were rare in some places and water foul pack up and left. Things are much better today don't let the pendulum swing back by being ignorant of how much work it takes to preserve our natural areas.

Edited by rdaines
Link to comment
If it's personally important to you, Mr. Ranger, spend $10 for some rope and some stakes and stake out the area.

True.

 

Or he can spend zero dollars and say "No caching."

 

Hmmm... Seems like a no brainer to me.

 

That is so true. Also, people justifying environmental destruction because certain animals do it (moose, beaver,...) is just plain short sighted. Some of you youngins may not remember the state of our environment in the 50s, 60s, and into the 70s. We had rivers that caught on fire because they were so polluted, white-tailed deer were rare in some places and water foul pack up and left. Things are much better today don't let the pendulum swing back by being ignorant of how much work it takes to preserve our natural areas.

 

Yep.. That's why we need to try to educate every generation.

Edited by edscott
Link to comment
Things are much better today don't let the pendulum swing back by being ignorant of how much work it takes to preserve our natural areas.

Yes, things are better today, but let's not let the pendulum swing at all. Let's practice responsible conservation, not shutting things away in a box so no one can enjoy them.

 

There are practical issues with conservation where some areas are sensitive. Chuckr30 mentioned sand dunes. In many areas along the coast it is illegal to walk on sand dunes. Part of the reason it is kills the sea oats. The sea oaks helps hold the dunes and keep them from walking into the sea. This is a very serious issue in many places.

 

Also, there are places where erosion will destroy historical and archaeological locations. Try explaining to a state legislative board why geocaching should be allowed in those places or defend the placement of caches there.

 

On the other hand, there are plenty of places where you are not restricted what you do--within common sense. You want to climb a tree? Go right ahead. You want folks to climb that bluff? Go for it.

 

I think the issue really boils down to permission. When you involve the folks who manage the land on which you want to place a cache they will know what is sensitive and what is not. Also, without exception they will know more about the area than you do. In fact, they may even know of pretty cool places to visit that is too far out of the way for most visitors.

 

There is a balance one can easily maintain in geocaching where we protect the land and resources while enjoying them at the same time.

Edited by CoyoteRed
Link to comment

Another thing that I rarely see mentioned is that the more sensitive or wild an area is, the fewer visits those caches tend to receive.

 

Put a cache 50 feet from a road or in a dog poop park and you will probably see a trail to the cache, as they get lots of visits. Stick one in the mountains of Colorado or Vermont, or even in the more rugged areas of NJ and you'll see a handful of finds every year.

Link to comment

Another thing that I rarely see mentioned is that the more sensitive or wild an area is, the fewer visits those caches tend to receive.

 

Put a cache 50 feet from a road or in a dog poop park and you will probably see a trail to the cache, as they get lots of visits. Stick one in the mountains of Colorado or Vermont, or even in the more rugged areas of NJ and you'll see a handful of finds every year.

 

Isn't that a good thing for those caches in sensitive areas?? But aren't there also sensitive areas that are also close to roads and trails that might see frequent traffic? Could be "Cache Maintenance" button also be used to report excessive environmental damage in the cache area?

Link to comment

Our State Park system has hammered out a hard won agreement about geocaching, and one of the stipulations is that the cache be examined yearly. If there's a major geo-trail to the cache, or anything else going on, the cache doesn't have to die, but it has to move a bit. I think that's reasonable. There's one moving this fall, because it's been there since 2003 and is causing damage to the ((tree)) where it's hidden.

Edited by bumblingbs
Link to comment

Again... I think all these concerns can be addressed by the OP's original statement of "take reasonable care".

 

And if the little corner of nature is so sensitive as to need that extra care, then I've got one word for you... Earthcache! :o

 

As for the thought that naturally occurring floods or fires can damage nature... if it's a naturally occurring event, it is nature. I remember a few years back the flooding of Yosemite Valley, the media whined about how much of the park was destroyed when in reality, none of the park was destroyed just lots of the junk we built there! When the water went down nature took back what was rightfully hers, clean, shiny and ready for centuries of more visitors. And while the recent fire in the Lake Tahoe Basin was cause by neglectful humans, the reason the fire was so bad was Forestry Service rules that prohibit the clearing of downed wood and tree fall. Nature's way of dealing with that debris has historically been through fire, usually caused by lightning. The world is a beautiful place and it has a beautiful and elegant way of maintaining itself. I think the idea that humans are the total cause and effect of all things (like man-made global warming) and that we need to be the cure for any perceived problems is the height of arrogance.

 

DCC

Link to comment

 

That is so true. Also, people justifying environmental destruction because certain animals do it (moose, beaver,...) is just plain short sighted. Some of you youngins may not remember the state of our environment in the 50s, 60s, and into the 70s. We had rivers that caught on fire because they were so polluted, white-tailed deer were rare in some places and water foul pack up and left. Things are much better today don't let the pendulum swing back by being ignorant of how much work it takes to preserve our natural areas.

 

Are you a conservationist or preservationist?

 

Do people know the difference?

 

A conservationist believes in the wise use of the natural resources of the planet.

 

A preservationist believes in the total protection of all things "natural", as in don't touch, don't go there (unless you're a ranger on the job who knows better than anyone else.). Total preservation from us, not for us. Save it for our grandkids, who won't be able to enjoy it either, because they will be required to "save it for their grandkids"!

 

Very few things need TOTAL protection From humans!

 

Be a conservationist and enjoy the wonders of this old world.

 

John

Link to comment
So please just have fun and stop worrying so much. Take reasonable care and go about your business, this world was here long before you, and it will still be long after you are gone.

That settles it. I had a cache I had decided not to place because it required me to build a town in the woods behind a park. Since it's going to be gone 90 years after I archive the cache, I'm going to go for it.

 

:D:o:D:)

Link to comment

 

That is so true. Also, people justifying environmental destruction because certain animals do it (moose, beaver,...) is just plain short sighted. Some of you youngins may not remember the state of our environment in the 50s, 60s, and into the 70s. We had rivers that caught on fire because they were so polluted, white-tailed deer were rare in some places and water foul pack up and left. Things are much better today don't let the pendulum swing back by being ignorant of how much work it takes to preserve our natural areas.

 

Are you a conservationist or preservationist?

 

Do people know the difference?

 

A conservationist believes in the wise use of the natural resources of the planet.

 

A preservationist believes in the total protection of all things "natural", as in don't touch, don't go there (unless you're a ranger on the job who knows better than anyone else.). Total preservation from us, not for us. Save it for our grandkids, who won't be able to enjoy it either, because they will be required to "save it for their grandkids"!

 

Very few things need TOTAL protection From humans!

 

Be a conservationist and enjoy the wonders of this old world.

 

John

 

I suppose I'm both, there are areas that need to be preserved and those that need to be conserved and some that need to be restored. There is usually never just one answer to a problem (except Math) and that's the tough part as different camps fight for their share. On some days I'm part of the problem on others I'm part of the cure.

Edited by rdaines
Link to comment

 

That is so true. Also, people justifying environmental destruction because certain animals do it (moose, beaver,...) is just plain short sighted. Some of you youngins may not remember the state of our environment in the 50s, 60s, and into the 70s. We had rivers that caught on fire because they were so polluted, white-tailed deer were rare in some places and water foul pack up and left. Things are much better today don't let the pendulum swing back by being ignorant of how much work it takes to preserve our natural areas.

 

Are you a conservationist or preservationist?

 

Do people know the difference?

 

A conservationist believes in the wise use of the natural resources of the planet.

 

A preservationist believes in the total protection of all things "natural", as in don't touch, don't go there (unless you're a ranger on the job who knows better than anyone else.). Total preservation from us, not for us. Save it for our grandkids, who won't be able to enjoy it either, because they will be required to "save it for their grandkids"!

 

Very few things need TOTAL protection From humans!

 

Be a conservationist and enjoy the wonders of this old world.

 

John

 

I think another word for preservationist is environmentalist. I'm not the one saying that they're synonymous it's just what I've heard.

Link to comment

Reasonable care is the rule. It is our responsibility to care for our resources, but that doesn't mean we can't enjoy them. If walking on the grass is going to destroy it, what about the horses and cows. The only difference is that the critters are more open about returning the nutrients to the soil.

 

I don't worry about breaking tree limbs, the healthy ones don't break, dead or sick ones do. To go out and swing on a limb to purposely break it off is wrong. I do worry about erosion in some areas, mankind can definitely change run-off patterns, which can contribute to flooding. If there is a defined trail, I will try to use it. If there is some rutting due to run-off, that is a good place to leave broken limbs, bark, leaves, etc to slow that and help hold the soil. Plastic and glass articles do not have a permanent place in the outdoors, they don't degrade.

 

One earlier poster mentioned the fires, and it has now been shown that the occasional fire in natural areas is necessary to thin debris and replenish ash to the soil. Not eliminating the debris only gives a future wildfire more fuel on the ground, making it worse.

 

Again, common sense and respect for nature is all that is truly required.

Link to comment
So please just have fun and stop worrying so much. Take reasonable care and go about your business, this world was here long before you, and it will still be long after you are gone.

That settles it. I had a cache I had decided not to place because it required me to build a town in the woods behind a park. Since it's going to be gone 90 years after I archive the cache, I'm going to go for it.

 

:(:unsure::DB)

 

That made me laugh. Thanks!

Link to comment

i'm not actually worried about environmental damage.

 

granted, there's the odd sensitive area that ought to be protected, but much of the question should be "protected for whom?" if we obliterate our plant and animal population and foul our resources, the earth will recover nicely after we're gone. maybe replace us with something smarter, or at least tidier.

 

the seaward side of nantucket is eroding. it has been ever since there's been a seaward side of nantucket. disturbing the sand hastens this process, of course. who is this really a problem for? people who own real estate on that side of the island. really environmentally savvy people should be investing in real estate on the landward side; you know, on kind of a long-term basis.

 

edit: insert your own stupid limerick here.

Edited by flask
Link to comment
So please just have fun and stop worrying so much. Take reasonable care and go about your business, this world was here long before you, and it will still be long after you are gone.

That settles it. I had a cache I had decided not to place because it required me to build a town in the woods behind a park. Since it's going to be gone 90 years after I archive the cache, I'm going to go for it.

 

:(:unsure::DB)

 

That made me laugh. Thanks!

 

I thought it was pretty good too.

Link to comment
And if the little corner of nature is so sensitive as to need that extra care, then I've got one word for you... Earthcache!

 

The sensitive area doesn't know whether you're there for a real cache or a virtual/earthcache. If it's too sensitive for a real cache then it's too sensitive for any kind of cache.

Link to comment

I must be the only one who thinks that park rules pertaining to off-path hiking prohibitions apply to all people, including those hiding or seeking geocaches.

 

Further, in a rational world, when it became obvious that the frequency and amount of traffic to a particular geocache was resulting in increasing environmental damage due to errosion, such damage would be noted by responsible and concerned members of the geocaching community and such caches would be archived.

 

Radical concept..........I know. :cool:

Link to comment

Further, in a rational world, when it became obvious that the frequency and amount of traffic to a particular geocache was resulting in increasing environmental damage due to errosion, such damage would be noted by responsible and concerned members of the geocaching community and such caches would be archived.

 

Erosion is Environmental Damage? Why do the Smokey mountains NOT look like the Grand Teton Mountains? Something called erosion at work, perhaps?

 

Without erosion there would be no river deltas, no Grand Canyon, etc.

 

John

Link to comment

Further, in a rational world, when it became obvious that the frequency and amount of traffic to a particular geocache was resulting in increasing environmental damage due to errosion, such damage would be noted by responsible and concerned members of the geocaching community and such caches would be archived.

 

Erosion is Environmental Damage? Why do the Smokey mountains NOT look like the Grand Teton Mountains? Something called erosion at work, perhaps?

 

Without erosion there would be no river deltas, no Grand Canyon, etc.

 

John

 

Here are some great pics of "natural erosion" at work. Note the dead trees and bushes.

 

Natural Erosion 1

 

Natural Erosion #2

 

Here is proof that a forest can adapt, even with a healthy dose of crash debris.

 

Note the healthy forest in spite of the 40 yr old plane wreck

Link to comment

Further, in a rational world, when it became obvious that the frequency and amount of traffic to a particular geocache was resulting in increasing environmental damage due to errosion, such damage would be noted by responsible and concerned members of the geocaching community and such caches would be archived.

 

Erosion is Environmental Damage? Why do the Smokey mountains NOT look like the Grand Teton Mountains? Something called erosion at work, perhaps?

 

Without erosion there would be no river deltas, no Grand Canyon, etc.

 

John

 

There is always natural erosion. Our actions can speed up the process considerably which can lead to problems. For instance a trout stream can handle the natural erosion rate quite well, bit of you artificially speed up the process there will be more silt in the stream than it can handle, making it uninhabitable for trout. Most environmentalists would consider that to environmental damage.

 

Also ask farmers what they think of the erosion of topsoil. Erosion can be a bad thing.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

Further, in a rational world, when it became obvious that the frequency and amount of traffic to a particular geocache was resulting in increasing environmental damage due to errosion, such damage would be noted by responsible and concerned members of the geocaching community and such caches would be archived.

 

Erosion is Environmental Damage? Why do the Smokey mountains NOT look like the Grand Teton Mountains? Something called erosion at work, perhaps?

 

Without erosion there would be no river deltas, no Grand Canyon, etc.

 

John

 

There is always natural erosion. Our actions can speed up the process considerably which can lead to problems. For instance a trout stream can handle the natural erosion rate quite well, bit of you artificially speed up the process there will be more silt in the stream than it can handle, making it uninhabitable for trout. Most environmentalists would consider that be unacceptable.

 

Also ask farmers what they think of the erosion of topsoil.

 

Don't recall of Geocaching causing erosion that effected a trout stream and made it uninhabitable. Likewise with the top soil of a farm.

 

What we do as geocachers has limited impact on the environment compared to other activities.

 

The basis of conservation is to use the environment but not destroy it. If a lake has a good population of trout or bass or some other type of fish, it doesn't make sense to go and over-fish it every day and totally deplete the population of the fish. Use some of the resource on a regular basis, but don't over use it.

 

You need to balance resources with use, find the middle ground and leave some for others to enjoy.

 

Comparing farming to Geocaching is not reasonable in that the activities are so different in the amount of impact each has on the environment. Comparing Geocaching to horseback riding would be closer in land usage and give a closer representation of the actual "Problems" that are perceived.

 

John

Link to comment
Don't recall of Geocaching causing erosion that effected a trout stream and made it uninhabitable. Likewise with the top soil of a farm.

 

What we do as geocachers has limited impact on the environment compared to other activities.

 

I don't think I said geocaches caused that kind of erosion. Just pointing out that erosion isn't always normal or natural.

 

I agree that our impact is minimal. I said the same thing in an earlier post in this thread.

Link to comment

 

There is always natural erosion. Our actions can speed up the process considerably which can lead to problems. For instance a trout stream can handle the natural erosion rate quite well, bit of you artificially speed up the process there will be more silt in the stream than it can handle, making it uninhabitable for trout. Most environmentalists would consider that to environmental damage.

 

Also ask farmers what they think of the erosion of topsoil. Erosion can be a bad thing.

 

I will begin to be concerned with Environmental Damage due to Geocaching when they STOP tearing up the desert to build new cookie-cutter housing developments and Shopping Malls.

 

What I think AZcachemeister is getting at here is that you have to take scale in to account. A farm that covers thousands of acres with an erosion problem is a much more a concern than a couple of geocaches that happen to have "geotrails" leading to them.

Link to comment

I will begin to be concerned with Environmental Damage due to Geocaching when they STOP tearing up the desert to build new cookie-cutter housing developments and Shopping Malls.

 

Guilty as charged :cool:

We just bought a retirement home south of Phoenix. I will try to do something to help what desert remains.

 

desertscene.jpg

Edited by rdaines
Link to comment

 

There is always natural erosion. Our actions can speed up the process considerably which can lead to problems. For instance a trout stream can handle the natural erosion rate quite well, bit of you artificially speed up the process there will be more silt in the stream than it can handle, making it uninhabitable for trout. Most environmentalists would consider that to environmental damage.

 

Also ask farmers what they think of the erosion of topsoil. Erosion can be a bad thing.

 

I will begin to be concerned with Environmental Damage due to Geocaching when they STOP tearing up the desert to build new cookie-cutter housing developments and Shopping Malls.

 

What I think AZcachemeister is getting at here is that you have to take scale in to account. A farm that covers thousands of acres with an erosion problem is a much more a concern than a couple of geocaches that happen to have "geotrails" leading to them.

 

Maybe but I think it's all important, the big and the small. Ignoring many small abuses adds up to a large one.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...