Leave No Trace Ethics

February 20, 2008

Today, I shined my light into a hole in a tree and stuck a stick in there to see if anything was lurking deeper. In my rush to discover the micro, I totally forgot my Leave No Trace Ethics. I actually disturbed a mouse and its home in the tree.

How many times have you broken branches, torn down spider webs or flattened brush in the process of looking for a cache? What is the responsibility of the geocaching community when it comes from holding cachers and cache-hiders to appropriate environmental ethics? Even if their cache doesn't disturb the environment, is there someway to ensure that the people looking for it won't be tempted to jump around on cryptobiotic soil or disturb animals' habitats in the process?

My particular pet peve is microcaches hidden in back country areas. If you have a huge area with lots of great hiding places, why make the cache the size of a film canister? The bigger the cache (within reason), the smaller the environmental impact. It may sound counter-intuitive, but if you have a tiny cache that's hard to find, more destruction will be done by cachers poking around and impacting the area.

What do you think?

8k · February 20, 2008

My particular pet peve is microcaches hidden in back country areas. If you have a huge area with lots of great hiding places, why make the cache the size of a film canister? The bigger the cache (within reason), the smaller the environmental impact. It may sound counter-intuitive, but if you have a tiny cache that's hard to find, more destruction will be done by cachers poking around and impacting the area.

What do you think?

A lot of people will agree with you. I don't - based on my personal experience. Around here, ammo cans are often hidden off-trail under bushes. When I look for an ammo can I often wind up bushwhacking a path to ground zero and trampling over bushes till I find the one with an ammo can. A micro on the other hand will be hidden under a rock, in hole in a tree, or hanging in a bush at trailside. When looking for micro, I stop and look around and become aware of the environment, then I carefully search the likely hiding spaces. Sure I may chase a centipede from under the rock or disturb the mouse in the tree, but I'll try not to and I put back anything I moved to find it. Certainly there are irresponsible hiders who hide needle-in-the-haystack micros that cause impatient geocachers to turn over every rock and leave a mess behind after their search. And irresponsible finders that resort quickly to scorched-earth searches. But I wouldn't blame the cache size for causing more environmental damage. What ever the size of the cache is the hiders responsibility to choose a spot that can withstand the impact of searches and for the finder to search in a careful manner that avoids leaving any lasting impacts.

5.7k · February 20, 2008

My particular pet peve is microcaches hidden in back country areas. If you have a huge area with lots of great hiding places, why make the cache the size of a film canister? The bigger the cache (within reason), the smaller the environmental impact. It may sound counter-intuitive, but if you have a tiny cache that's hard to find, more destruction will be done by cachers poking around and impacting the area.

What do you think?

A lot of people will agree with you. I don't - based on my personal experience. Around here, ammo cans are often hidden off-trail under bushes. When I look for an ammo can I often wind up bushwhacking a path to ground zero and trampling over bushes till I find the one with an ammo can. A micro on the other hand will be hidden under a rock, in hole in a tree, or hanging in a bush at trailside. When looking for micro, I stop and look around and become aware of the environment, then I carefully search the likely hiding spaces. Sure I may chase a centipede from under the rock or disturb the mouse in the tree, but I'll try not to and I put back anything I moved to find it. Certainly there are irresponsible hiders who hide needle-in-the-haystack micros that cause impatient geocachers to turn over every rock and leave a mess behind after their search. And irresponsible finders that resort quickly to scorched-earth searches. But I wouldn't blame the cache size for causing more environmental damage. What ever the size of the cache is the hiders responsibility to choose a spot that can withstand the impact of searches and for the finder to search in a careful manner that avoids leaving any lasting impacts.

..."is the hiders responsibility to choose a spot that can withstand the impact of searches..." And if they don't do that?

Edited February 20, 2008 by Team Cotati

3.9k · February 20, 2008

My particular pet peve is microcaches hidden in back country areas. If you have a huge area with lots of great hiding places, why make the cache the size of a film canister? The bigger the cache (within reason), the smaller the environmental impact. It may sound counter-intuitive, but if you have a tiny cache that's hard to find, more destruction will be done by cachers poking around and impacting the area.

What do you think?

A lot of people will agree with you. I don't - based on my personal experience. Around here, ammo cans are often hidden off-trail under bushes. When I look for an ammo can I often wind up bushwhacking a path to ground zero and trampling over bushes till I find the one with an ammo can. A micro on the other hand will be hidden under a rock, in hole in a tree, or hanging in a bush at trailside. When looking for micro, I stop and look around and become aware of the environment, then I carefully search the likely hiding spaces. Sure I may chase a centipede from under the rock or disturb the mouse in the tree, but I'll try not to and I put back anything I moved to find it. Certainly there are irresponsible hiders who hide needle-in-the-haystack micros that cause impatient geocachers to turn over every rock and leave a mess behind after their search. And irresponsible finders that resort quickly to scorched-earth searches. But I wouldn't blame the cache size for causing more environmental damage. What ever the size of the cache is the hiders responsibility to choose a spot that can withstand the impact of searches and for the finder to search in a careful manner that avoids leaving any lasting impacts.

..."is the hiders responsibility to choose a spot that can withstand the impact of searches..." And if they don't do that?

If only you had finished reading that sentence. :anicute:

3k · February 20, 2008

Even if their cache doesn't disturb the environment, is there someway to ensure that the people looking for it won't be tempted to jump around on cryptobiotic soil or disturb animals' habitats in the process?

Besides just not hiding the cache anywhere near cryptobiotic soil or animal habitats, probably not. In general, the more obvious the hide, the less time people will spend looking for it. But what's obvious from one approach may be completely invisible to cachers coming in from a different direction, and people re-hide caches in places and ways the cache owner never intended. Hints or additional information on the cache page might help keep down some of the hunting and rooting around, but not everyone reads the hints or looks at the cache page.

The bigger the cache (within reason), the smaller the environmental impact

I think it depends on the cache. I've found some micros-in-the-woods that were easily spotted and retrieved without leaving the trail, and I've spent plenty of time moving sticks, pushing through branches, and disturbing spider webs while looking for a well hidden full size ammo can.

9.3k · February 20, 2008

Ultimately, we are all responsible for our own actions, not the actions of others. While it may be historically accurate to claim that micros hidden in the woods often lead to increased environmental destruction, due to them typically being harder to locate than larger caches, the real blame should be placed on the finder who blitzkriegs an area just to get a smiley.

As hiders, we can reduce the impact others will bring to an area by carefully selecting where we hide our cache, and by providing decent hints on our cache pages. As seekers, we can reduce our own impact on an area by "TREAD"ing lightly, and by searching with our eyes before we enter an area.

Just my thoughts...

3.9k · February 20, 2008

I agree with the fat kid.

3k · February 20, 2008

I agree with the fat kid.

I've really been meaning to get back to the gym, but something always seems to come up.

February 20, 2008

I agree with the OP 100%. Micros in the woods have great potential to cause the area to be disturbed in a way that is harmful to the environment. We aren't talking about a micro hanging from the tree right next to the trail, we're talking about needle-in-a-haystack hides that encourage cachers to look under every rock, twig, grass, etc. These hides feel very irresponsible to me. There was a thread on this just a few weeks ago.

18.9k · February 20, 2008

Ultimately, we are all responsible for our own actions, not the actions of others. While it may be historically accurate to claim that micros hidden in the woods often lead to increased environmental destruction, due to them typically being harder to locate than larger caches, the real blame should be placed on the finder who blitzkriegs an area just to get a smiley.

As hiders, we can reduce the impact others will bring to an area by carefully selecting where we hide our cache, and by providing decent hints on our cache pages. As seekers, we can reduce our own impact on an area by "TREAD"ing lightly, and by searching with our eyes before we enter an area.

Just my thoughts...

Agreed - I am no fan of micros in the woods but ultimately we have to be responsible for what we do. Hiders can try to minimize any impacts and try larger containers but at the end of the day the seeker will do what they will do.

February 20, 2008

Nature is amazing in how fast it recovers. A few broken branches or trampled weeds are really nothing in the long run. Now repeated use of the same trail over a long period of time by many people can add up, but even still, it's nothing I'm even slightly concerned with. Not that I don't care about the environment, because really I do, but the damage the can potentially be caused by walking through the woods or rooting around a tree looking for a film canister or whathaveyou is negligible.

19k · February 20, 2008

Today, I shined my light into a hole in a tree and stuck a stick in there to see if anything was lurking deeper. In my rush to discover the micro, I totally forgot my Leave No Trace Ethics. I actually disturbed a mouse and its home in the tree.

How many times have you broken branches, torn down spider webs or flattened brush in the process of looking for a cache? What is the responsibility of the geocaching community when it comes from holding cachers and cache-hiders to appropriate environmental ethics? Even if their cache doesn't disturb the environment, is there someway to ensure that the people looking for it won't be tempted to jump around on cryptobiotic soil or disturb animals' habitats in the process?

My particular pet peve is microcaches hidden in back country areas. If you have a huge area with lots of great hiding places, why make the cache the size of a film canister? The bigger the cache (within reason), the smaller the environmental impact. It may sound counter-intuitive, but if you have a tiny cache that's hard to find, more destruction will be done by cachers poking around and impacting the area.

What do you think?

I think that mouse has probably been disturbed in the past, and will be disturbed again and again before its time on this earth has ended. I wouldn't lose a bit of sleep over it.

I think that deer and yes, perhaps even mice have broken spiderwebs, too. And I know for certain that deer have flattened brush. In fact, I suspect that many of our freeways began as mouse trails that were followed by rabbits that were followed by deer that were followed by bison that were followed by Indians that were followed by... you get my drift.

I can't take a breath without affecting this world. I can't mow my lawn without killing insects. Sure... we try to minimize it when were we can, but let's keep a balance here. Even if you decide to stay at home in a condo in the city instead of going outdoors and running into cobwebs and scaring mice, you are supporting condos in the city.

Off soapbox... thanks for listening, if you did.

14.3k · February 20, 2008

Today, I shined my light into a hole in a tree and stuck a stick in there to see if anything was lurking deeper. In my rush to discover the micro, I totally forgot my Leave No Trace Ethics. I actually disturbed a mouse and its home in the tree.

How many times have you broken branches, torn down spider webs or flattened brush in the process of looking for a cache? What is the responsibility of the geocaching community when it comes from holding cachers and cache-hiders to appropriate environmental ethics? Even if their cache doesn't disturb the environment, is there someway to ensure that the people looking for it won't be tempted to jump around on cryptobiotic soil or disturb animals' habitats in the process?

My particular pet peve is microcaches hidden in back country areas. If you have a huge area with lots of great hiding places, why make the cache the size of a film canister? The bigger the cache (within reason), the smaller the environmental impact. It may sound counter-intuitive, but if you have a tiny cache that's hard to find, more destruction will be done by cachers poking around and impacting the area.

What do you think?

A lot of people don't know what cryptobiotic soil even looks like and the ones that do are typically smart enough not to place a cache near it. I agree with others that micros can be placed right next to the trail and the cache page can tell people not to leave the trail. However, there are people that won't read the cache page and we all know that GPSs are only accurate within 10-30 feet so some people will wander off the trail to look for a tiny cache. So I think a larger cache is actually better. But the bottom line is that responsible people will place caches in responsible ways and look for them in responsible ways. However, irresponsible people can screw up a one car funeral. Hopefully they don't screw up a good thing for the rest of us because it only takes a few incidents to tick off the landowners.

5.7k · February 20, 2008

My particular pet peve is microcaches hidden in back country areas. If you have a huge area with lots of great hiding places, why make the cache the size of a film canister? The bigger the cache (within reason), the smaller the environmental impact. It may sound counter-intuitive, but if you have a tiny cache that's hard to find, more destruction will be done by cachers poking around and impacting the area.

What do you think?

A lot of people will agree with you. I don't - based on my personal experience. Around here, ammo cans are often hidden off-trail under bushes. When I look for an ammo can I often wind up bushwhacking a path to ground zero and trampling over bushes till I find the one with an ammo can. A micro on the other hand will be hidden under a rock, in hole in a tree, or hanging in a bush at trailside. When looking for micro, I stop and look around and become aware of the environment, then I carefully search the likely hiding spaces. Sure I may chase a centipede from under the rock or disturb the mouse in the tree, but I'll try not to and I put back anything I moved to find it. Certainly there are irresponsible hiders who hide needle-in-the-haystack micros that cause impatient geocachers to turn over every rock and leave a mess behind after their search. And irresponsible finders that resort quickly to scorched-earth searches. But I wouldn't blame the cache size for causing more environmental damage. What ever the size of the cache is the hiders responsibility to choose a spot that can withstand the impact of searches and for the finder to search in a careful manner that avoids leaving any lasting impacts.

..."is the hiders responsibility to choose a spot that can withstand the impact of searches..." And if they don't do that?

If only you had finished reading that sentence.

Oh I did all right and I am still waiting for your rational and direct response. I did not ask about the finders I asked abot the hider.

Edited February 20, 2008 by Team Cotati

3.9k · February 20, 2008

My particular pet peve is microcaches hidden in back country areas. If you have a huge area with lots of great hiding places, why make the cache the size of a film canister? The bigger the cache (within reason), the smaller the environmental impact. It may sound counter-intuitive, but if you have a tiny cache that's hard to find, more destruction will be done by cachers poking around and impacting the area.

What do you think?

A lot of people will agree with you. I don't - based on my personal experience. Around here, ammo cans are often hidden off-trail under bushes. When I look for an ammo can I often wind up bushwhacking a path to ground zero and trampling over bushes till I find the one with an ammo can. A micro on the other hand will be hidden under a rock, in hole in a tree, or hanging in a bush at trailside. When looking for micro, I stop and look around and become aware of the environment, then I carefully search the likely hiding spaces. Sure I may chase a centipede from under the rock or disturb the mouse in the tree, but I'll try not to and I put back anything I moved to find it. Certainly there are irresponsible hiders who hide needle-in-the-haystack micros that cause impatient geocachers to turn over every rock and leave a mess behind after their search. And irresponsible finders that resort quickly to scorched-earth searches. But I wouldn't blame the cache size for causing more environmental damage. What ever the size of the cache is the hiders responsibility to choose a spot that can withstand the impact of searches and for the finder to search in a careful manner that avoids leaving any lasting impacts.

..."is the hiders responsibility to choose a spot that can withstand the impact of searches..." And if they don't do that?

If only you had finished reading that sentence.

Oh I did all right and I am still waiting for your rational and direct response. I did not ask about the finders I asked abot the hider.

You asked what if the hider didn't "do that". The answer was, that it's also the responsibility of "the finder to search in a careful manner that avoids leaving any lasting impacts."

5.7k · February 20, 2008

My particular pet peve is microcaches hidden in back country areas. If you have a huge area with lots of great hiding places, why make the cache the size of a film canister? The bigger the cache (within reason), the smaller the environmental impact. It may sound counter-intuitive, but if you have a tiny cache that's hard to find, more destruction will be done by cachers poking around and impacting the area.

What do you think?

A lot of people will agree with you. I don't - based on my personal experience. Around here, ammo cans are often hidden off-trail under bushes. When I look for an ammo can I often wind up bushwhacking a path to ground zero and trampling over bushes till I find the one with an ammo can. A micro on the other hand will be hidden under a rock, in hole in a tree, or hanging in a bush at trailside. When looking for micro, I stop and look around and become aware of the environment, then I carefully search the likely hiding spaces. Sure I may chase a centipede from under the rock or disturb the mouse in the tree, but I'll try not to and I put back anything I moved to find it. Certainly there are irresponsible hiders who hide needle-in-the-haystack micros that cause impatient geocachers to turn over every rock and leave a mess behind after their search. And irresponsible finders that resort quickly to scorched-earth searches. But I wouldn't blame the cache size for causing more environmental damage. What ever the size of the cache is the hiders responsibility to choose a spot that can withstand the impact of searches and for the finder to search in a careful manner that avoids leaving any lasting impacts.

..."is the hiders responsibility to choose a spot that can withstand the impact of searches..." And if they don't do that?

If only you had finished reading that sentence.

Oh I did all right and I am still waiting for your rational and direct response. I did not ask about the finders I asked abot the hider.

You asked what if the hider didn't "do that". The answer was, that it's also the responsibility of "the finder to search in a careful manner that avoids leaving any lasting impacts."

And if the hider doesn't hide in a manner that allows a finder to "avoid leaving any lastig impacts", how is it that the finder accomplishes that goal?

February 20, 2008

And if the hider doesn't hide in a manner that allows a finder to "avoid leaving any lastig impacts", how is it that the finder accomplishes that goal?

It's just common sense man! Just because something is hidden or hanging from a branch in a tree or bush don't mean the "Finder" should tear off bark and rip branches off just to find the micro. Can you spell common sense!

5.7k · February 20, 2008

And if the hider doesn't hide in a manner that allows a finder to "avoid leaving any lastig impacts", how is it that the finder accomplishes that goal?

It's just common sense man! Just because something is hidden or hanging from a branch in a tree or bush don't mean the "Finder" should tear off bark and rip branches off just to find the micro. Can you spell common sense!

Just as I expected.

2.5k · February 20, 2008

My particular pet peve is microcaches hidden in back country areas. If you have a huge area with lots of great hiding places, why make the cache the size of a film canister? The bigger the cache (within reason), the smaller the environmental impact. It may sound counter-intuitive, but if you have a tiny cache that's hard to find, more destruction will be done by cachers poking around and impacting the area.

What do you think?

A lot of people will agree with you. I don't - based on my personal experience. Around here, ammo cans are often hidden off-trail under bushes. When I look for an ammo can I often wind up bushwhacking a path to ground zero and trampling over bushes till I find the one with an ammo can. A micro on the other hand will be hidden under a rock, in hole in a tree, or hanging in a bush at trailside. When looking for micro, I stop and look around and become aware of the environment, then I carefully search the likely hiding spaces. Sure I may chase a centipede from under the rock or disturb the mouse in the tree, but I'll try not to and I put back anything I moved to find it. Certainly there are irresponsible hiders who hide needle-in-the-haystack micros that cause impatient geocachers to turn over every rock and leave a mess behind after their search. And irresponsible finders that resort quickly to scorched-earth searches. But I wouldn't blame the cache size for causing more environmental damage. What ever the size of the cache is the hiders responsibility to choose a spot that can withstand the impact of searches and for the finder to search in a careful manner that avoids leaving any lasting impacts.

..."is the hiders responsibility to choose a spot that can withstand the impact of searches..." And if they don't do that?

If only you had finished reading that sentence.

Oh I did all right and I am still waiting for your rational and direct response. I did not ask about the finders I asked abot the hider.

You asked what if the hider didn't "do that". The answer was, that it's also the responsibility of "the finder to search in a careful manner that avoids leaving any lasting impacts."

And if the hider doesn't hide in a manner that allows a finder to "avoid leaving any lastig impacts", how is it that the finder accomplishes that goal?

Um, by not looking for that cache?

9.3k · February 20, 2008

The seeker always has a choice regarding the degree of impact they have on an ecosystem. If you don't think you can get to ground zero, find the cache, and get back out without causing undue destruction, walk away. It's just another smiley.

14.3k · February 20, 2008

The seeker always has a choice regarding the degree of impact they have on an ecosystem. If you don't think you can get to ground zero, find the cache, and get back out without causing undue destruction, walk away. It's just another smiley.

Yep! I have done this many times. There are plenty of other fish in the sea...

February 20, 2008

Just as I expected.

I'm happy you got what you expected

3.9k · February 20, 2008

My particular pet peve is microcaches hidden in back country areas. If you have a huge area with lots of great hiding places, why make the cache the size of a film canister? The bigger the cache (within reason), the smaller the environmental impact. It may sound counter-intuitive, but if you have a tiny cache that's hard to find, more destruction will be done by cachers poking around and impacting the area.

What do you think?

A lot of people will agree with you. I don't - based on my personal experience. Around here, ammo cans are often hidden off-trail under bushes. When I look for an ammo can I often wind up bushwhacking a path to ground zero and trampling over bushes till I find the one with an ammo can. A micro on the other hand will be hidden under a rock, in hole in a tree, or hanging in a bush at trailside. When looking for micro, I stop and look around and become aware of the environment, then I carefully search the likely hiding spaces. Sure I may chase a centipede from under the rock or disturb the mouse in the tree, but I'll try not to and I put back anything I moved to find it. Certainly there are irresponsible hiders who hide needle-in-the-haystack micros that cause impatient geocachers to turn over every rock and leave a mess behind after their search. And irresponsible finders that resort quickly to scorched-earth searches. But I wouldn't blame the cache size for causing more environmental damage. What ever the size of the cache is the hiders responsibility to choose a spot that can withstand the impact of searches and for the finder to search in a careful manner that avoids leaving any lasting impacts.

..."is the hiders responsibility to choose a spot that can withstand the impact of searches..." And if they don't do that?

If only you had finished reading that sentence.

Oh I did all right and I am still waiting for your rational and direct response. I did not ask about the finders I asked abot the hider.

You asked what if the hider didn't "do that". The answer was, that it's also the responsibility of "the finder to search in a careful manner that avoids leaving any lasting impacts."

And if the hider doesn't hide in a manner that allows a finder to "avoid leaving any lastig impacts", how is it that the finder accomplishes that goal?

So are you trolling suggesting that the hider has any degree of control over how the finder behaves while searching?

19k · February 20, 2008

As Charlie Brown used to say, "Good Grief!"

February 20, 2008

The topic, "Physical geocaches prohibited in ABDSP?, Anza Borrego Desert State Park Geocaching Policy" has a lot of interesting discussions that parallel this discussion on backcountry micros.

19k · February 20, 2008

OK, my last was an emotional reply, I'll admit. But come on, people... do you ever sneeze? Have you for one second considered the environmental impact of that one sneeze? We live on a planet where every living and non-living entity has an effect on the other. Get real... even your posting that log had an environmental impact... probably a much more significant one than your going after a cache in a environmentally sensitive area (not that I'd wish for that to take place!) But by even posting that message electronically, you have supported gold, copper, silicon, lead, tin, and iron mining and refining. Shall we go into the social responsibilities of owning a GPS unit? If you really want to Leave No Trace, recycle your computer, recycle your GPS, don't breath, don't eat, and whatever you do, don't step on ants!

19k · February 20, 2008

... and I consider myself a liberal. That's frightening!! :anicute:

Edited February 20, 2008 by knowschad

8k · February 20, 2008

And if the hider doesn't hide in a manner that allows a finder to "avoid leaving any lastig impacts", how is it that the finder accomplishes that goal?

Of course since the hider hid it without having to damage anything, one could always find it with out damaging anything. I always keep that in mind when searching. A responsible hider will consider that I may approach from a different direction or my GPS may be pointing some distance away. By being aware of the area, a responsible hider can decide to place the cache in a less sensitive area or to give an appropriate hint on the cache page to lessen the finders impact. Even a careful finder will leave some trace. If I come and see damage caused by the hider or even by other finders I'll likely report it in my log. If its significant I may post an SBA.

14.3k · February 20, 2008

The topic, "Physical geocaches prohibited in ABDSP?, Anza Borrego Desert State Park Geocaching Policy" has a lot of interesting discussions that parallel this discussion on backcountry micros.

Yes it does, although micros have nothing to do with ABDSP. I was alluding to what is happening in ABDSP in a previous post when I mentioned how a couple of irresponsible cachers (hiders and finders) "could" screw things up for all of us. The jury is still out in ABDSP. Oh wait, there was no jury and caching is no longer allowed in ABDSP, which is the largest state park in the lower 48. :anicute:

Edited February 20, 2008 by TrailGators

5.7k · February 20, 2008

And if the hider doesn't hide in a manner that allows a finder to "avoid leaving any lastig impacts", how is it that the finder accomplishes that goal?

Of course since the hider hid it without having to damage anything, one could always find it with out damaging anything. I always keep that in mind when searching. A responsible hider will consider that I may approach from a different direction or my GPS may be pointing some distance away. By being aware of the area, a responsible hider can decide to place the cache in a less sensitive area or to give an appropriate hint on the cache page to lessen the finders impact. Even a careful finder will leave some trace. If I come and see damage caused by the hider or even by other finders I'll likely report it in my log. If its significant I may post an SBA.

What hider? Where? You're making this stuff up aren't you?

38.2k · February 20, 2008

The bigger the cache (within reason), the smaller the environmental impact. It may sound counter-intuitive, but if you have a tiny cache that's hard to find, more destruction will be done by cachers poking around and impacting the area.

I agree that the potential exists for micros to cause more damage, but overall I've seen very little damage around any kind of cache hidden in the backcountry.

14.3k · February 20, 2008

I've seen very little damage around any kind of cache hidden in the backcountry.

Ditto.

5.7k · February 20, 2008

"It may sound counter-intuitive, but if you have a tiny cache that's hard to find, more destruction will be done by cachers poking around and impacting the area." If it is pssible to agree with something 1000%, then I agree with that statement 1000%. Otherwise I agree with it 100%.

14.3k · February 20, 2008

"It may sound counter-intuitive, but if you have a tiny cache that's hard to find, more destruction will be done by cachers poking around and impacting the area." If it is pssible to agree with something 1000%, then I agree with that statement 1000%. Otherwise I agree with it 100%.

In some places that's true and it others it's not. It all depends on where you hide it.

5.3k · February 20, 2008

Today, I shined my light into a hole in a tree and stuck a stick in there to see if anything was lurking deeper. In my rush to discover the micro, I totally forgot my Leave No Trace Ethics. I actually disturbed a mouse and its home in the tree.

How many times have you broken branches, torn down spider webs or flattened brush in the process of looking for a cache? What is the responsibility of the geocaching community when it comes from holding cachers and cache-hiders to appropriate environmental ethics? Even if their cache doesn't disturb the environment, is there someway to ensure that the people looking for it won't be tempted to jump around on cryptobiotic soil or disturb animals' habitats in the process?

My particular pet peve is microcaches hidden in back country areas. If you have a huge area with lots of great hiding places, why make the cache the size of a film canister? The bigger the cache (within reason), the smaller the environmental impact. It may sound counter-intuitive, but if you have a tiny cache that's hard to find, more destruction will be done by cachers poking around and impacting the area.

What do you think?

I agree with you, but most cachers will not.

February 20, 2008

My particular pet peve is microcaches hidden in back country areas. If you have a huge area with lots of great hiding places, why make the cache the size of a film canister? The bigger the cache (within reason), the smaller the environmental impact. It may sound counter-intuitive, but if you have a tiny cache that's hard to find, more destruction will be done by cachers poking around and impacting the area.

What do you think?

What if you have a well camouflaged regular sized cache thats just as hard to find? I know I don't have many finds or as much experience as many here, but the hardest caches I've found have no been micros. Maybe we should get rid of well camo'd caches as well as micros.

It just seems to me that if everyone took the same care while looking for every cache that it shouldn't matter what size it is. Sure it may take a little more time to find a micro than a regular hidden ammo can, but the extra 10 minutes will not make a noticeable environmental difference if you're being responsible.

24.7k · February 20, 2008

...My particular pet peve is microcaches hidden in back country areas. If you have a huge area with lots of great hiding places, why make the cache the size of a film canister? The bigger the cache (within reason), the smaller the environmental impact. It may sound counter-intuitive, but if you have a tiny cache that's hard to find, more destruction will be done by cachers poking around and impacting the area.

What do you think?

The math is on your side. The less time spent looking for a container the less impact people will have while looking for the container. It's that simple. All other things being equil the larger the container the easier the find.

My general advice for several reasons is to use the largest container the area can reasonably support.

That said. The impact of a cache in the woods is minimal at worst. Caching is a casual land use. Building a single trail in a single park has more impact than all the caches within 100 miles.

Edited February 20, 2008 by Renegade Knight

February 20, 2008

I have searched for several cleverly hidden micros in the woods that were quite difficult finds.

I agree that for smaller and harder to find caches, there is more traffic and impact on the area.

However in our area, I guess we are lucky that no one seems to use scorched earth tactics to locate these difficult finds. I see no problem with hiding caches in this manner.

The toll taken on the area is directly controlled by the person searching for the cache.

If a finder cannot locate a cache and is beginning to have a negative impact on the area, it is time for a DNF.

Since I am in Florida, the underbrush and plants in most areas grow back quickly. I think this topic probably has less bearing on our caches because of nature's quick regeneration here.

In fact, that can be an issue sometimes. There have been a few caches that I found that when placed, were in areas that required minimal bushwhacking. Going out to find them just 2 to 3 years after placement, there are a few of them that already can no longer be reached without some major effort.

I've learned that they are a lot easier to find if we search for them within about a year of placement.

In areas where the brush doesn't grow back so fast, this could be more of a factor. But it's still in the hands of the seeker to determine the balance between damage and DNF.

February 20, 2008

OK, my last was an emotional reply, I'll admit. But come on, people... do you ever sneeze? Have you for one second considered the environmental impact of that one sneeze? We live on a planet where every living and non-living entity has an effect on the other. Get real... even your posting that log had an environmental impact... probably a much more significant one than your going after a cache in a environmentally sensitive area (not that I'd wish for that to take place!) But by even posting that message electronically, you have supported gold, copper, silicon, lead, tin, and iron mining and refining. Shall we go into the social responsibilities of owning a GPS unit? If you really want to Leave No Trace, recycle your computer, recycle your GPS, don't breath, don't eat, and whatever you do, don't step on ants!

I'm with you on this one...

It's always a good idea to think about "unexpected" results of your actions (caching or otherwise). But if your response is to "over-react"... how can you ever leave the house (or on second thought, how could you own or live in a house)! The cachers I've met on average have been more aware of their impact on things than most other groups of people I've encountered. Not that any group of people is perfect, but on average cachers are "outdoors" folk that think about these things. The truth is, the Earth is far more resilient than many will give her credit for. I've never understood the impulse to fence off nature to protect it from humans... It's here for you to enjoy.

DCC

6.1k · February 20, 2008

Today, I shined my light into a hole in a tree and stuck a stick in there to see if anything was lurking deeper. In my rush to discover the micro, I totally forgot my Leave No Trace Ethics. I actually disturbed a mouse and its home in the tree.

...

What do you think?

You shouldn't feel guilty about disturbing the mouse. I'm sure he's glad you weren't a hungry barn owl.

February 20, 2008

Today, I shined my light into a hole in a tree and stuck a stick in there to see if anything was lurking deeper. In my rush to discover the micro, I totally forgot my Leave No Trace Ethics. I actually disturbed a mouse and its home in the tree.

How many times have you broken branches, torn down spider webs or flattened brush in the process of looking for a cache? What is the responsibility of the geocaching community when it comes from holding cachers and cache-hiders to appropriate environmental ethics? Even if their cache doesn't disturb the environment, is there someway to ensure that the people looking for it won't be tempted to jump around on cryptobiotic soil or disturb animals' habitats in the process?

My particular pet peve is microcaches hidden in back country areas. If you have a huge area with lots of great hiding places, why make the cache the size of a film canister? The bigger the cache (within reason), the smaller the environmental impact. It may sound counter-intuitive, but if you have a tiny cache that's hard to find, more destruction will be done by cachers poking around and impacting the area.

What do you think?

Are there bugs on your windshield?

2.2k · February 20, 2008

Today, I shined my light into a hole in a tree and stuck a stick in there to see if anything was lurking deeper. In my rush to discover the micro, I totally forgot my Leave No Trace Ethics. I actually disturbed a mouse and its home in the tree.

These conversations would have less angst if comments like "I actually disturbed a mouse and its home in the tree" were left off. When I see these kind of statements, I suit up and prepare for battle. If that cute little mouse that you were so concerned about disturbing happened into your house through a small hole, you'd snap his little neck (or at least most of us would).

The enjoyment I receive from geocaching is far more important than disturbing a little mouse or breaking a spider web. If breaking a spider web is going too far in your book, then maybe it's time to pack it up and find a different hobby.. Needlepoint has a very minimal impact on spider webs and cute little mice.

February 20, 2008

I hadn't considered that it's not the size of the cache but how easy it is to find that makes a difference. Needle-in-a-haystack caches seem to be the problem, not micros in general.

February 20, 2008

We (as a species, not as geocachers) make an impact.

Deal with it.

February 21, 2008

I think the problem is the word "micro in the woods".

20.7k · February 21, 2008

My wife and I went to central Florida for the long weekend. In our rush to enjoy ourselves, we totally forgot our Leave No Trace Ethics. One morning, we actually disturbed a rabbit as we left our hotel room. While eating a turkey leg, a seagull wandered by and made off with a chunk of turkey. Finally, I stepped on teh sandy soil to take some pictures of the space shuttle landing.

Florida should be evacuated of people so these transgressions against nature do not continue. What do you think?

BTW, what about missing caches, of whatever size? Those that take the 'owner is responsible' position are ignoring the fact that some seekers will continue to look for a missing container, thereby possibly disturbing mice and destroying spider webs.

February 21, 2008

The other day while looking for a cache hidden in a hollow tree, I woke up Mr. or Mrs. Possum. I bid he or she a good morning or good night, as the case may be & replaced their cover I had removed.

Of course I probably killed a whole bunch of bugs, etc. getting to & from the cache.

OH THE GUILT!!! Guess I'll have to quite caching. NOT!!!!!

Edited February 21, 2008 by nativefly182

5.7k · February 21, 2008

I hadn't considered that it's not the size of the cache but how easy it is to find that makes a difference. Needle-in-a-haystack caches seem to be the problem, not micros in general.

I hope that I haven't missed this but could you please give an example or two as to what you consider, "back country"?

4.4k · February 21, 2008

Actually there is no way to leave "NO" trace.

Everything there is even the critters leave a trace of their passings.

My main concern and I got a letter from our local Forest Ranger is geocachers who remove things other than what is inside the cache.

I have a special cache at a geologic point of interest and a long time geocacher who is suppose to be aware and is the local contact left right in their log that they just had to have some of what was there and took it home with them.

Mr. Ranger was not to pleased.

I then made a little banner for all my cache pages that reads

LEAVE NO TRACE.

I know we can not do this completely by my opening statement.

But we can and try to leave it as good or better than we found it.

That spider was not there before the cache...he came after.

I run across critters all the time in the back woods.

That's only natural your in their home.

I think that the big concern is their nesting spots.

In most states it is illegal to take things or disturb nests.

Here is a good example.

A buck was walking down the trail as he stumbled on a rock that was in the trail it disturbed the moth that had crawled under there trying to nest.

The rock then rolled down the hill and hit a mushroom that had just sprouted and broke it off at the base.

A nosey squirrel sitting in a tree above scampered down tearing the bark on the tree to get to the mushroom.

The buck turned to see what the commotion was and caught its horn in a spider web that was across the trail tearing it down as the spider frantically hung to the horn.

It is really up to each and everyone of us to be aware and do the best we can to leave things for others in the best way we can.

Being responsible is a BIG thing.

February 21, 2008

Almost every single cache that my team and I do are off the trail. In fact we don't really like to do very many caches that require us to stick to a trail. We don't tear up the environment when we are hiking and when we are trying to find the cache, even if it's a micro. I feel that it is the cachers responsibility to treat the environment with respect. It doesn't take a whole lot of effort to hike and seek carefully.

TEAM NIGHTWATCH

Leave No Trace Ethics

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment