Bushwhack or not to Bushwhack?

[ktroxell72]

What do you think of caches hidden well off of the trail? Do you think bushwhacking damages the area you are searching? Post your thoughts and check out this discussion.... <<URL removed by moderator due to commercial content>>

Edited March 3, 2008 by Moose Mob

[+jpwrangler]

[+briansnat]

Do you think bushwhacking damages the area you are searching?

 

It's been my experience that the opposite is true. When a cache is hidden a short distance from a trail, all the searchers tend to turn off in the same spot, wearing a path to the cache.

 

When a cache is hidden well off the trail, searchers tend to approach from a variety of directions, giving the area time to recover. A second factor is that caches far off trail tend to get far fewer visitors. Usually a handful a year.

 

I've placed 225 caches, most of which are well off the trail. I challenge anybody (with the exception perhaps of Tom Brown, or another professional tracker) to tell that a cache is there by looking at the area.

[+Cav Scout]

I prefer caches off the trail.

 

But no matter how you look at it, a regular cache hide in general is damaging. Things to consider when hiding a cache is the location. You must think like a cacher and wonder how you would look for it yourself. If you want to limit the damage to the surrounding area, give good clues and make sure your coordinates are close to the actual hide. Last and most important would you want the area damaged? If not , don't put a cache there. If it's a geological area make it into a earth cache.

[+Isonzo Karst]

Ditto everything that briansnat said (except the number of hides - I have about 100 less). The further off trail, the better. The worst distance is 10 - 100 feet, about the distance most land mangers tend to dictate. Of course, the other question is, what's so wrong with user trail? nearly all trails started out as user trails. Side spur trails spread out the traffic.

 

A good bit of new user trail is developing in a forest section near me. The "developers" are deer with some feral hogs helping. Now that they've broken that trail, I'm liable to find a place along it to hide a cache. Eventually someone will surely decide that "the cachers made all this trail" - and call it damage too.

Edited March 2, 2008 by Isonzo Karst

[+The Leprechauns]

I also like taking people down a nice trail and then hiding the cache well off the trail so everyone takes a slightly different route. I look for areas where there is already damage (deer trails, fallen trees and lots of tangled underbrush, etc.) and where cache searchers won't create more damage.

 

I hid four "hiking caches" in a State Park a few years back. Each of them was from 100 to 500 feet off the trail, reached through bushwacking. I took pictures of each hiding place as part of applying for permission. Three years later, I removed all four ammo boxes and took another set of pictures. There was no noticeable difference except for the undergrowth being three years taller. Each time I visited any of those caches for maintenance, I took a slightly different path once I left the trail.

 

One of my favorite land manager policies is a nearby national forest which requires that caches be far away from developed areas such as campgrounds and picnic areas. Put them out far away where there will be less impact, and less chance of alarming a muggle because of accidental discovery. Smart land manager!

[Tahosa and Sons]

There are very few trails where I hide some of my back country caches.

With only a visitor or two a year it makes little difference to the area.

[+carleenp]

As long a the area would not need to be really trampled in order to bushwack, I agree with the others who have stated that a bushwack does less damage. People tend to take different routes or follow things like existing animal trails to get the caches that are further off of a trail.

 

When something is right off the trail, a social path can quickly form. However, even with social paths, they will quickly grow back over if the cache is removed. Plants get stepped on all the time in woods by both people and animals. Unless there is something uniquely sensitive about the area, that shouldn't really be a big concern. If it is a truly sensitive area, then I suggest that putting a cache there at all could be inappropriate. In that case, lead finders by on the trial to show it to them, but put the cache itself in a less sensitive area.

[+hukilaulau]

I generally agree with the "greater distance from trail = less damage" theory, but in my area there are a couple of hiders who are experts at hiding caches within 2 to 4 FEET of a trail in such a way that there is no evidence of the cache from the trail. I'm not able to do it, but I always stop and admire the art when I find one of these caches...

[+teamavalon-co]

As we were hunting a cache at a local open space park, it became very apparent that there was a clear path leading directly to the cache that was being worn in the vegetation - well away from the main path through the park. As I believe that geocachers respect the outdoors, I think we should be sure to take responsibility for maintaining the natural habitat as much as possible. A good idea for cachers would be to check regularly to see if it should be moved to preserve the vegetation. As hunters, when we log our finds, we should report the cache as needing maintenance if the location itself needs work not just the container. This will help keep our reputation just like the Cache In Trash Out mindset.

[Neos2]

As we were hunting a cache at a local open space park, it became very apparent that there was a clear path leading directly to the cache that was being worn in the vegetation - well away from the main path through the park.

How did you know the path was being worn in the vegetation by cachers--as opposed to say, the cache owner chose the spot because there was a deer trail to the general area of the cache?

 

I'm not saying that cachers didn't create the trail you saw...I'm just pointing out that I've seen places where it was not humans who created the original swath through the vegetation (based on my personal knowledge of the area and knowing there had been the trail there many years before geocaching existed).

 

I agree that caches placed well off the trail tend to cause less of a social trail, as there are multiple points of entry into the growth.

I also agree that cache owners should periodically check their caches to see if they need to shift them a few feet.

I also realize that after removing the cache, in the majority of instances, the most well worn path will disappear in a season or two, as primary and secondary succession of native vegetation occurs.

[+briansnat]

As we were hunting a cache at a local open space park, it became very apparent that there was a clear path leading directly to the cache that was being worn in the vegetation - well away from the main path through the park.

How did you know the path was being worn in the vegetation by cachers--as opposed to say, the cache owner chose the spot because there was a deer trail to the general area of the cache?

 

I'm not saying that cachers didn't create the trail you saw...I'm just pointing out that I've seen places where it was not humans who created the original swath through the vegetation (based on my personal knowledge of the area and knowing there had been the trail there many years before geocaching existed).

 

 

That's true. Most cache owners will take the path of least resistance when hiding a cache, and that often involves following an existing animal path or social trail. If the cache is placed near the path, subsequent searchers might see the path and blame the cache, but in reality the cache is there because of the path rather than vice-versa.

 

I recall the second person to find one of my caches complaining about the trail that already formed to the cache. I had to explain that the pathl was there long before my cache.

 

In nearly 800 cache hunts I've only seen a handful of paths where it was pretty evident that they were caused by geocacher traffic. In every instance the cache was a very short distance (50 feet or less) from parking or a popular trail.

[+Isonzo Karst]

As others have said, cachers often make use of existing social trails.

 

I used to cache in more urban city and county parks. One of the things I noticed was how often caches were placed on "potty" trails. Parks with no facilities, or often locked facilities, or remote only at one end facilities, will often have these social trails back into the cover of the woods where folks have gone to relieve themselves.

Removing the caches won't make those trails disappear (though it might represent an improvement to the geocaching scene. )

[+StarBrand]

I'll just echo that I see much more vegitation damage to caches that are a short distance off of an existing trail then I do anywhere else. Then, as others have said, it is often a secondary trail of some sort that was pre-existing any cache. The further off the beaten path - the more pristine the area will stay.

[+Peconic Bay Sailors]

I have to agree with briansnat...

farther is better...

If you have to make it a bushwacking cache...

we try to avoid them if possible...

Edited March 3, 2008 by Peconic Bay Sailors

[+The Fej]

Responsible cache owners should occationally check on any caches they have hidden that require bushwhacking to see if it is causing damage. If excessive damage is apparant, they should start thinking about archiving the cache. The way I see it, if you have a cache up for a few years and it causes damage to the area around it. It is nothing that a few years of inactivity in that area won't fix.

 

Me personally, I love bushwhacking caches. Those tend to be some of my favorites because it takes you off the beaten path, and I love the challenge of fighting my way through the brush to find the cache. It just somehow feels more rewarding to me. But I am guilty of generally trying to find and follow the "Cachers' Trail" into a bushwhacking cache.

Edited March 3, 2008 by The Fej

[+ZSandmann]

This is the second topic I have seen that you have created to promote your blog.

 

On topic: I will bushwhack if it is not a protected area. Shortest distance between two points and all that.

[Ferreter5]

The farther from the trail the better in limiting the social trails that might form -- usually also makes for a more enjoyable walk, for me anyway.

 

I've seen deer highways in parks that are larger that the trails established by the parks department, so I'm not too worried about a few social trails forming. They'll disappear a few years after the cache is removed anyway.

[+Renegade Knight]

What do you think of caches hidden well off of the trail? Do you think bushwhacking damages the area you are searching? Post your thoughts and check out this discussion.... <<URL removed by moderator due to commercial content>>

It's my opinion that building trails and parks in general does far more damage than leaving nature be. I like access and don't mind a road to get it. But once there I really don't need a park and paved trail to enjoy things.

 

To answer the qeustion. Most of the damage was done long before a cache was hidden near a trail. Caches hidden off trail attract few vists (which explains why they build parks and trails to encourage visits...) and are non issue. Caches near trails are also fine since the parks normally chose to concentrate people in those locations and have succeded in doing so.

Edited March 4, 2008 by Michael

[magellan315]

Are you promoting your blog or promoting a discussion?

[ktroxell72]

To Magellan315 and ZSandmann: I will have to admit, I am doing a little of both. This is a very important issue that needed to be discussed. I am glad to see the topic received so much attention. I thought it would be a good way for people to view some other thoughts on geocaching. Thanks.

<<URL removed by moderator due to commercial content>>

Edited March 3, 2008 by Moose Mob

[+mickebush77]

it's very hard to me to not do bushwalking.(see my name)

but i pratice leave no trace method