Geocaches responsible for getting us BANNED

[+ReadyOrNot]

...Once the train starts down the wrong track with any authority it's hard to stop. Doesn't matter if the perceptions were completely wrong and from left field. It's hard to change minds once they are made up. Of course, you have a better chance if you can show the perceptions were false, but that is a harder row to hoe than not going down that path to begin with.

 

Cachers, as a group, are just as concerned as any land manager or state senator to make sure that geocaching doesn't have a negative impact on the environment or historic/archaeological assets. If we see a cache having a negative impact it is our duty to correct this. If we see potential for negative impact we are free to express our concerns to the cache owner who we hope will be responsible enough to take action to lessen the possibility for negative impact.

 

Both well said.

 

Yeah, very well said. So when you get arrested for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, you can rest assured that I'm sure their perception of the situation justified your being arrested... And don't worry about getting out of jail, because once you start down the judicial path, its hard to change minds. In fact, it would have been better if you didn't give off that incorrect perception to begin with. I guess next time it happens, you'll be more careful about causing someone else to perceive you incorrectly.

 

I feel much better.. Thanks! Can you perceive what I'm thinking right now?

I don't know why you keep thinking that there is some kind of easily workable judicial system with parks. You don't seem to understand how superintendents/rangers manage parks. If they perceive a threat then it's their job to take steps to mitigate that threat. They view geocaching as a privilege that they allow. They can rescind that privilege at any time. They don't have to consult with Joe Public. Some superintendents and rangers only perceive the negative side of geocaching and other activities since they are focused on protecting the park's resources. So if some of us mindlessly place caches "near" sensitive areas then we are threatening the game for everyone. So what is "near?" "Near" is their perception of what could be a threat. So instead of throwing your hands up and saying that "it's not fair" you could talk to these people in your area to get a clear image of what they would construe as a threat and then make sure the community understands this. This is what we are doing with the parks in our area and I think it's a wise and proactive move.

 

I don't disagree with you... I disagree that its somehow the cache owners fault that this happened. If it's not the cache owners fault, then it's the cache finders fault if they were digging 200 feet away from the cache. If it wasn't caused by a finder, then who's fault is it? The beer guzzling teenagers who came out there at 2am, started a bon-fire and screwed it up for everyone else. How do you mitigate that? You don't. It's an unfortunate thing that happened down there, but its NOT OUR FAULT that it happened.

 

If there's any fault, it's the rangers fault for being such a rigid <insert name here>.

 

Did the geocache cause geocaching to be banned down there? NO. Just because he PERCEIVED that it was the cause does not make it the ACTUAL cause. The actual cause was a misinformed, rigid ranger. There is a difference between perception and reality.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

There is a difference between perception and reality.

Technically true, however in actual human behavior perception IS reality.

[+TrailGators]

...Once the train starts down the wrong track with any authority it's hard to stop. Doesn't matter if the perceptions were completely wrong and from left field. It's hard to change minds once they are made up. Of course, you have a better chance if you can show the perceptions were false, but that is a harder row to hoe than not going down that path to begin with.

 

Cachers, as a group, are just as concerned as any land manager or state senator to make sure that geocaching doesn't have a negative impact on the environment or historic/archaeological assets. If we see a cache having a negative impact it is our duty to correct this. If we see potential for negative impact we are free to express our concerns to the cache owner who we hope will be responsible enough to take action to lessen the possibility for negative impact.

 

Both well said.

 

Yeah, very well said. So when you get arrested for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, you can rest assured that I'm sure their perception of the situation justified your being arrested... And don't worry about getting out of jail, because once you start down the judicial path, its hard to change minds. In fact, it would have been better if you didn't give off that incorrect perception to begin with. I guess next time it happens, you'll be more careful about causing someone else to perceive you incorrectly.

 

I feel much better.. Thanks! Can you perceive what I'm thinking right now?

I don't know why you keep thinking that there is some kind of easily workable judicial system with parks. You don't seem to understand how superintendents/rangers manage parks. If they perceive a threat then it's their job to take steps to mitigate that threat. They view geocaching as a privilege that they allow. They can rescind that privilege at any time. They don't have to consult with Joe Public. Some superintendents and rangers only perceive the negative side of geocaching and other activities since they are focused on protecting the park's resources. So if some of us mindlessly place caches "near" sensitive areas then we are threatening the game for everyone. So what is "near?" "Near" is their perception of what could be a threat. So instead of throwing your hands up and saying that "it's not fair" you could talk to these people in your area to get a clear image of what they would construe as a threat and then make sure the community understands this. This is what we are doing with the parks in our area and I think it's a wise and proactive move.

 

I don't disagree with you... I disagree that its somehow the cache owners fault that this happened. If it's not the cache owners fault, then it's the cache finders fault if they were digging 200 feet away from the cache. If it wasn't caused by a finder, then who's fault is it? The beer guzzling teenagers who came out there at 2am, started a bon-fire and screwed it up for everyone else. How do you mitigate that? You don't. It's an unfortunate thing that happened down there, but its NOT OUR FAULT that it happened.

 

If there's any fault, it's the rangers fault for being such a rigid <insert name here>.

 

Did the geocache cause geocaching to be banned down there? NO. Just because he PERCEIVED that it was the cause does not make it the ACTUAL cause. The actual cause was a misinformed, rigid ranger. There is a difference between perception and reality.

In this case it wasn't the cache owner's fault because that cache followed the guidelines given to us by that park. However, the park also claimed that several other caches were "near" sensitive areas. We have no proof of this but it is their perception and claim. My point was that if all caches had been 528' away instead of 200 feet from sensitive areas then there were have been huge odds that no cacher would ever get near that Indian Cairn. So it would have changed the perception that it was not likely a geocacher that was at fault. I still don't think a geocacher did it, but what I think doesn't matter. They don't run the park by what geocachers perceive. So if we stayed 528' away from every sensitive area in this park then that would have eliminated ~80,000 acres of land. That would have left 545,000 acres for us to cache in. Hindsight is 20-20, but we can apply this new knowledge to other parks to make sure we have tons of margin for error so there is no risk of a false perception by the rangers. Edited March 15, 2008 by TrailGators

[+Logscaler and Red]

Aftr reading SOME of this (again) my opinion is:

 

 

 

[+Confucius' Cat]

In an earlier post, Confucious Cat, (I think?), mentioned negligence, and provided a definition. In my opinion, a cache hider can only be found negligent if a reasonable and prudent person would come to the conclusion that a hide, due to its nature, resulted in damage to an area. I don't know what the national or global odds are regarding caches placed versus caches whose surrounding areas have been damaged, but my personal observations are less than 1 percent. If damage occurs at 1 percent of the hides, would it be reasonable or prudent to make such a prediction?

For that 1%, YES, it would. If you can define your cache as being in that 1%, then you should accept culpability for facilitating damage caused by idiots.

 

If a person is 100% eco-friendly, they would not choose caching as a hobby simply because people are going to step on plants and break twigs off trees.

If a person is "100% eco-friendly" (as would be defined by those "environmentalist whackos" that think mankind is NOT a part of nature), said person should do his/her civic duty and go to the local "Ethical Suicide Parlor" and get turned into Solyient Green to be used to feed the eco-friendly (wild) anilmals, who have a RIGHT to be here.

 

Banned is banned. Simply as that. There will be occasions when the ban is not fair or based on real-world facts. Sometimes it will be because of past experiences. The idea is not to totally eliminate the chances of negative consequences of any cache, but to reduce them as much as our enjoyment of the hobby will allow.

 

That's got to be one of the more silly things I've ever heard. As if there is no difference between truth and fiction? That's like telling someone on death row who is innocent that there is no difference between them and a person on death row that is guilty. They may both be on death row, but the difference is HUGE..

 

Come on now...

 

Edit: (Added rolled eyes)

 

"Come on now" is right. Is either of them going to be any less dead?

 

Ummmm.. You don't think there's a difference between a dead innocent person and a dead guilty person? If you don't see a difference, then I have nothing more to say.

What difference does it make if there is a difference?

Is there a part of "DEAD" you don't understand?

• As far as this earth is concerned, it is PERMANENT
  
• We all get our turn to go there
  
• we get to stay dead no matter how we get to become dead
  
• once one is dead, the reason for one becoming dead is irrelevant
  
• DEAD is DEAD, whether the death was natural, premature, justified, guilty, innocent, framed, convicted by 1000 lying witnesses, lynched, whatever. DEAD is still DEAD
  
• BANNED is BANNED (end of analogy)
  

OBTW- BANNED is not necessarily PERMANENT as DEAD is (analogy fails)

[+ReadyOrNot]

Is there a part of "DEAD" you don't understand?

 

Ok, you explain to the parent of a 6 year old that dies from cancer that there is no difference between their death and the death of a prisoner who killed 27 people and is put to death.. Or there is no difference between their death and the death of a 98 year old man that lived a full life.

 

And go tell a soldiers wife that there is no difference between her husbands death at war and the death of a convict who spent their life causing pain and anguish.

 

The outcome may be the same, but the difference is GREAT. I'm surprised at you Cat.

[+Confucius' Cat]

Is there a part of "DEAD" you don't understand?

 

Ok, you explain to the parent of a 6 year old that dies from cancer that there is no difference between their death and the death of a prisoner who killed 27 people and is put to death.. Or there is no difference between their death and the death of a 98 year old man that lived a full life.

 

And go tell a soldiers wife that there is no difference between her husbands death at war and the death of a convict who spent their life causing pain and anguish.

 

The outcome may be the same, but the difference is GREAT. I'm surprised at you Cat.

Perhaps you could explain to those people how that difference is going to make a difference... like how it will bring their loved one back? Or how the serial killer is "deader" than the kid?

 

Death is the great equalizer.

 

My old friend, Solomon said, "And moreover I saw under the sun, in the place of justice, that wickedness was there; and in the place of righteousness, that wickedness was there. I said in my heart, God will judge the righteous and the wicked; for there is a time there for every purpose and for every work. I said in my heart, It is because of the sons of men, that God may prove them, and that they may see that they themselves are but as beasts. For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; and man hath no preeminence above the beasts: for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again." -Ecclesiastes 3:16-20 ASV (emphasis mine)

 

People die for just reasons and unjust reasons (at least as judged by mere humans). In truth however, at least according to the historic Christian faith, there is no such thing as an "unjust" death. Death is a curse of the Devil and was never intended by the Creator AT ALL, but has been foisted upon all mankind due to the first man's sin.

 

Christianity teaches "The wages of sin is death" and "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God" So technically, in the view of Christianity, there really IS no difference between "just" and "unjust" death. "It is appointed to man once to die..."

 

I'm surprised at you, Sock.

 

Death is death. Banned is banned.

 

Truly it IS an injustice to be banned for an unjust reason, but BANNED is still BANNED.

 

Unlike death however, bannination can be reversed- IF we are willing to consider the reason for the bannination and take steps to correct the problem and/or the banninator's perception of the problem- either of which yields the same result.

[+tozainamboku]

This topic is about dead.

 

I think people are missing what ReadyOrNot is saying.

 

The argument is being made that since land managers will ban caching if they perceive a problem the best way is to prevent the problem - whether this is to put spoiler hints on the cache page, not hide micros in the woods, make hides easy to find, or just don't put caches in sensitive areas in the first place. The question is whether any of these would stop the perception that geocaches cause problems. TrailGators seems to think that if there had been a rule to be 528 ft. from an archaeological site instead of 200 ft., we would still be able to place caches in ABDSP. In fact no matter what is done, someone will blame geocaches if there is a problem. Its just too easy a target. Instead of making suggestions to prevent problems it would be better to explain that the overwhelming majority of geocachers are just as concerned about protecting sensitive areas as the park managers. We are willing to work with them to enforce guidelines that go beyond what the general guidelines are. We are willing to get caches that do cause problems removed. We are willing to educate the cachers that don't get it that there is never a need to destroy anything to find a cache and when something needs to be moved when searching is should be put back. Caches hidden too close to historic artifacts or in environmentally sensitive area need to be moved to prevent inadvertent damage by searchers. Requiring spoiler hints or that caches must be a certain size and painted blaze orange not only misses the point of geocaching but essentially tells land managers that geocachers can't be trusted to be careful when searching for a difficult hide. If it doesn't result in a outright ban it will eventually result in parks that only allow "approved-style" hides.

[Clan Riffster]

This topic is about dead.

As with most Toz posts; Well said!

[CoyoteRed]

I think people are missing what ReadyOrNot is saying.

I don't think I'm missing his point. I just think he is wrong.

 

His point, as far as I can tell, is the cache placer has no culpability in any damage done by seekers of his cache. That is absurd, IMHO.

 

It, also, seems to me his point is that because a ranger or other land steward can ban geocaching on his ward for any or no reason then a cache placer doesn't have to worry about creating an issue that would increase the chances of getting banned. This, too, is absurd.

 

And, a point I'm getting is if a seeker causes an issue with the stewards and causes a ban, then "Oh, well!" I think that is irresponsible thinking.

 

...essentially tells land managers that geocachers can't be trusted to be careful when searching for a difficult hide.

Well, yeah, that is exactly what that means and it is an accurate assessment. I'm a geocacher and I don't trust geocachers to be careful when seeking a cache. No, not geocachers as a whole, rule, generality, or even a good portion of the population. The problem is there is a small percentage of geocachers whose only thoughts are for themselves. There are those who will read restrictions written on the cache page and promptly ignore them. Cachers who don't don't trade kindly. Cachers who don't put the cache back where it supposed to be or in the same condition or better in which they found it. The list goes on and on.

 

Most of the above situations are very or relatively trivial, but when a seeker does damage that is permanent and irreversible then that is, well, not trivial. The cache owner is the person who brought the seeker there. The seeker is like a guest of the cache owner. You can't bring a friend, who is not known to the host, to a party and just shrug your shoulders if he pukes in the host's aquarium. The host is going to be looking to you to control your friend--and possibly for you to leave.

 

I do believe there are instances where we need to get away from the stump-the-geocacher mentality and go back to stump-the-muggle. I'm not advocating blaze orange large containers. Let's be reasonable. We all know there are hide-types that a cacher will recognize instantly while surviving against muggle discovery for years. The closer to a sensitive area the more appropriate this type of hide becomes.

Edited March 15, 2008 by CoyoteRed

[+Confucius' Cat]

Ok, you explain to the parent of a 6 year old that dies from cancer that there is no difference between their death and the death of a prisoner who killed 27 people and is put to death.. Or there is no difference between their death and the death of a 98 year old man that lived a full life.

 

And go tell a soldiers wife that there is no difference between her husbands death at war and the death of a convict who spent their life causing pain and anguish.

 

The outcome may be the same, but the difference is GREAT. I'm surprised at you Cat.

I have rethought my response to this and I think a more appropriate reply would be:

 

I would like to see you tell the convict's wife or mother and the wife of the 98 yr old man that they should NOT grieve over the death of their loved ones because "their deaths are JUST."

 

This is much more on topic here in trying to explain that since the outcome of bad actions or even perceived bad actions by geocachers is the same- bannination, it is useless to argue whose fault the bannination is. What we must do is do ALL we can do to see that future episodes have an improved outcome. We can do thisin many ways and ONE of those ways is by, as hiders, taking SOME responsibility and using SOME forethought for the predictable consequences of our hides.

 

I do believe there are instances where we need to get away from the stump-the-geocacher mentality and go back to stump-the-muggle. I'm not advocating blaze orange large containers. Let's be reasonable. We all know there are hide-types that a cacher will recognize instantly while surviving against muggle discovery for years. The closer to a sensitive area the more appropriate this type of hide becomes.

Exactly.

[+ReadyOrNot]

Truly it IS an injustice to be banned for an unjust reason, but BANNED is still BANNED.

 

That's all I am trying to say

[+TrailGators]

TrailGators seems to think that if there had been a rule to be 528 ft. from an archaeological site instead of 200 ft., we would still be able to place caches in ABDSP.

Actually what I said it would have made it less likely they we would have been blamed. It would be a much more of a stretch to blame a cache that was 528+ feet away with a 528' tighter guideline that we could follow in parks.

 

In fact no matter what is done, someone will blame geocaches if there is a problem.

 

We are willing to work with them to enforce guidelines that go beyond what the general guidelines are.

I never said that tighter guidelines would end blame but I do think they could help shield us from it.

 

I agree that there are things we can do to mitigate the chances of anything happening or false perceptions. There are lessons learned from actual bannings that can be applied. We have success stories in other parks where geocaching has been reistated with tighter guidelines that work!

Edited March 15, 2008 by TrailGators

[+tozainamboku]

I think people are missing what ReadyOrNot is saying.

I don't think I'm missing his point. I just think he is wrong.

 

His point, as far as I can tell, is the cache placer has no culpability in any damage done by seekers of his cache. That is absurd, IMHO.

If this is his point, I agree with you. I started a thread once on whether I as a hider should be responsible for the seekers actions. I'm not going to search for it, someone else can link to it. But essentially I started out saying that I can't control the seekers action so I didn't feel responsible for what some idiot did when searching for my cache. I pretty much was jumped on by everyone else for that attitude and changed my mind by the end of the thread to agree that I could do things to mitigate problems such as avoiding sensitive areas, not hiding needle-in-the-haystack hides in inappropriate areas, having a meaningful hint, doing cache maintenance regularly, etc.

 

The issue is just how far do I have to go. If I don't want cachers to cause damage I could simply not hide any caches. As has been pointed out, even a blaze orange ammo can can go missing or a cacher might getting bad coordinates and simply be looking for it in the wrong place. Even the easiest to find cache could conceivably cause a problem if an idiot seeker insists on using a scorched earth search technique. The root cause of the problem is not the cache but the idiots who believe that getting a find is more important than searching responsibly. I can't stop the idiots, but I do agree I can take steps to reduce the chances someone will act like an idiot.

...essentially tells land managers that geocachers can't be trusted to be careful when searching for a difficult hide.

Well, yeah, that is exactly what that means and it is an accurate assessment. I'm a geocacher and I don't trust geocachers to be careful when seeking a cache.

I'm sure Senator Ceips will love to use this next time she tries to ban geocaching. One of the most respected geocachers in South Carolina says "I don't trust geocachers to be careful when seeking a cache".

[+TrailGators]

...essentially tells land managers that geocachers can't be trusted to be careful when searching for a difficult hide.

Well, yeah, that is exactly what that means and it is an accurate assessment. I'm a geocacher and I don't trust geocachers to be careful when seeking a cache.

I'm sure Senator Ceips will love to use this next time she tries to ban geocaching. One of the most respected geocachers in South Carolina says "I don't trust geocachers to be careful when seeking a cache".

Toz, you took that out of context and left out the next part:

No, not geocachers as a whole, rule, generality, or even a good portion of the population. The problem is there is a small percentage of geocachers whose only thoughts are for themselves.

This is true and this is why we need to make park guidelines more foolproof.

[J.A.R.S.]

It is especially unfair to letterboxers, who rarely cause the environmental problems caused by geocaches, yet are erroniously classified as "a variant of geocaching" by ignorant Park employees (grrrr). Letterboxing has been around since 1854, and clues are supposed to take you directly to the box without disrupting natural areas, so long as you can decipher the meaning of the clues (if you can't, you might not even be in the right town).

A little bit about the history of letterboxing:

• It began in Dartmoor, England in 1854 - a business card hidden in a glass bottle.
  
• It took 40 years for a 2nd letterbox to be planted. Another 44 years before a third letterbox was planted.
  
• From 1854 to 1976 (122 years) the number of letterboxes hidden in the moors of Dartmoor increased from 1 to 15. Letterboxing didn't really take off until 1976 when Tom Gant created a guide map pinpointing the fifteen letterboxes in existence. After the publication of the guide the hidden letterboxes grew into the 1000s by the 1980s.
  
• The guide is available to letterboxers who have found 100 letterboxes. You basically poke around until you find your first 100.
  
• Letterboxing didn't come to North America until 1998 when the Smithsonian magazine published an article about the British past time.
  

So, technically letterboxing started over 100 years ago but didn't really take off in England until 1976 and didn't start in North America until 1998. And in England anyway, you have to poke around for your first 100 (no direct access so that one doesn't disrupt the natural environment).

 

There are no public logs on the letterboxing databases. This gives the appearance that letterboxing does not damage the environment and that all letterboxers conscientiously place and maintain their letterboxes. When there is damage done as a result of a letterbox hide, no one knows about it except those who visit the letterbox. There's no "should be archived" option on the letterboxing databases. If a letterbox hider has abandoned the box and that box goes missing, finders could spend quite a bit of time searching for something that's not there - going over and over the area looking for a non-existent letterbox in a stump. If someone inadvertently plants in a sensitive area there's no way to warn others - the only recourse is to email the owner who hopefully is still active and will move or retire the box and change the status online.

 

Sometimes the clues are so mysterious that they do not lead a letterboxer directly to the box:

(from the Atlas Quest boards)

"Then I discovered that there were about 50 gazillion trees like that in the immediate area. I tried to "think outside the box" (really, I did not intend for that to be a horrible pun), but came up with nothing but spider webs in my hair. I'm gonna go back and find that freakish tree with animal traits though! "

"I have the same issues with *rock* clues. I went looking for a box and part of the clue was to look for the large rock.....ok there were hundreds of rocks there all sizes....so....define large. I don't mind the challenge but I don't want to turn over every rock I think MIGHT be the right one."

"My sister and brother and I, after looking for a box with a directive to "look under the mossy rock" on a trail where there is nothing but mossy rocks for about a quarter of a mile, have started turning bad clue-writing into a game. We have come up with things like, "Go to forest. Look under the pine tree.""

"Seriously, I need to know if it's just me. Feel free to tell me I'm just a whiner or whatever, BUT I spent 4 hours hiking the same trail and searching the forest for this particular letterbox. I think the clue needs work... Personally, I believe clues should be of relatively permanent landmarks. Not Dead Trees.

 

A clue that tells you to take a certain number of steps where a trail branches then peer to the right and spy a dead tree. Then to go past that tree to another dead tree laying on the ground.

 

HELLO! I'm in a freekin forest. Is there only one dead looking tree to my right? Highly unlikely. Is there only one dead tree on the ground? Gimme a break."

 

and these comments from letterboxers:

"We were following clues for a box and it specifically mentioned that a seeker should "go past the sensitive area--please stay out" sign and then proceed to the box."

"PLEASE DON'T PLANT IN STONE WALLS!

They drive me crazy. Even when there are hints like "it is under a triangle shaped rock" or "it is in a nice little cave" can be almost useless. "Underneath a rock" is not really specific when there are hundreds or thousands of rocks in a small area. The problem is that in a stone wall EVERYTHING looks like a good hiding spot. Add onto that confusion about steps vs paces and I have nearly lost my mind. I am that guy who wants to tear the whole wall apart to find the box, but I have resisted the urge."

[J.A.R.S.]

Oh, by the way, I'm an avid letterboxer (since 2002) and love the past time just as much as I like geocaching. I just want to set the record straight about the history of letterboxing -- the North American version didn't start until 1998 (geocaching started in 2000). I also want to set the record straight on the perception that all letterboxing clues lead directly to a letterbox.

[Kyul_and_Carbon]

Oh, by the way, I'm an avid letterboxer (since 2002) and love the past time just as much as I like geocaching. I just want to set the record straight about the history of letterboxing -- the North American version didn't start until 1998 (geocaching started in 2000). I also want to set the record straight on the perception that all letterboxing clues lead directly to a letterbox.

 

I personally have no idea what letterboxing is but by these quotes alone, in relation to this thread - I can see that a letterboxer would be more likely to cause "eco-damage" because the clues do not lead directly to the box or talk about something common in the area (dead trees or mossy rocks).

[+Too Tall John]

I can see that a letterboxer would be more likely to cause "eco-damage" because the clues do not lead directly to the box or talk about something common in the area (dead trees or mossy rocks).

I've not done a lot of letterboxing, but my impression is that the examples given are not the ideal hide your average letterboxer would think of. Clues should lead a letterboxer directly to a letterbox, as long as they read them right...

 

JARS point isn't that letterboxing causes more damage than geocaching, but that the potential for damage by hunting a letterbox has been highly understated in this thread.

[J.A.R.S.]

I can see that a letterboxer would be more likely to cause "eco-damage" because the clues do not lead directly to the box or talk about something common in the area (dead trees or mossy rocks).

I've not done a lot of letterboxing, but my impression is that the examples given are not the ideal hide your average letterboxer would think of. Clues should lead a letterboxer directly to a letterbox, as long as they read them right...

 

JARS point isn't that letterboxing causes more damage than geocaching, but that the potential for damage by hunting a letterbox has been highly understated in this thread.

Right. There are good hides, there are bad hides in either game. In my experience I have not noticed considerable damage to the environment by either geocaching or letterboxing. From what I've read on the boards most of the banning has been done because of perceptions not reality. Latest 2 examples being Discovery Park in Seattle and the Anza Borrego Desert State Park

[+TrailGators]

Right. There are good hides, there are bad hides in either game. In my experience I have not noticed considerable damage to the environment by either geocaching or letterboxing. From what I've read on the boards most of the banning has been done because of perceptions not reality. Latest 2 examples being Discovery Park in Seattle and the Anza Borrego Desert State Park

I agree and thanks for sharing that! I hadn't heard about Discovery Park, but after reading that thread the commonalities with ABDSP and other parks that geocaching has been banned are clear. There were some great proactive ideas posted in that thread. Getting a clear understanding of what the park staff concerns/perceptions is the key. I agree that easier difficulty hides make sense in many of these parks. Also many parks are not concerned with a few geotrails but as caching spreads in these parks it has the potential to create many geotrails. The is clearly a perception but if you look at Google Maps and the density of caches in some areas is not unfounded. I have my opinion on this, but is the 528' guideline is too liberal for many parks? Edited March 16, 2008 by TrailGators

[Mushtang]

[*]The guide is available to letterboxers who have found 100 letterboxes. You basically poke around until you find your first 100.

 

There are no public logs on the letterboxing databases.

 

How does someone know you've found 100 in order to give you the guide?

[J.A.R.S.]

[*]The guide is available to letterboxers who have found 100 letterboxes. You basically poke around until you find your first 100.

There are no public logs on the letterboxing databases.

How does someone know you've found 100 in order to give you the guide?

From the Dartmoor Letterboxing website http://www.dartmoorletterboxing.org/contact.htm :

 

The '100-Club'

 

Anyone who has visited over a hundred letterboxes is welcome to join the 100-club, which gives members access to the latest clue catalogue and a regular newsletter.

 

To become a member, take a copy of your stamps to the letterboxing meet, which is held on Dartmoor every March and October on the Sunday that clocks change.

Apparently there are some popular Tors where you'll find lots of letterboxes hidden within a few feet of each other.

[BorderMonum]

Reading through this thread has been interesting. I have a couple of observations about the impact geocaching has on public lands.

 

First, federal (and most state) land managers are required by law to protect those lands from impacts. Some lands, such as those administered by the BLM and Forest Service, allow things like grazing and mining. Those types of activities have a specific footprint and the leases have stipulations that govern those impacts.

 

Recreational use of those lands is regulated and there is almost always a regional plan in place to protect "sensitive" areas from various types of recrational use. For example, an off road vehicle club wants to hold a rally on BLM lands. The organization tells the BLM where the rally will be. If the area has "sensitive areas" the rally is either relocated, or some sort of mitigative plan is put into effect to protect those areas.

 

Second, no land managing agency has the money to inventory all the lands under their jurisdiction to identify "sensitive" areas. If the area the car rally people want to use has not been inventoried, the agency requires that they pay for the surveys, and any resulting mitigation.

 

Third, there are several types of cultural and historical resources that are protected by civil rights and religious freedom legislation that prevents the disclosure of these locations to the public. If a manager/ranger etc tells you the area is sensitive, you may never see the object/place/collection of whatever that is off limits. Sometimes you have to accept that it is not for you to know.

 

Fourth, many, many cultural and historical sites are not obvious to the untrained eye. Turning over a couple of rocks may seem benign but unless you are permited to conduct archaeological investigations it is not your call to make.

 

If geocaching is a recreational activity that can have an impact on the landscape (whether that impact is the fault of the person who placed the cache or the seekers of that cache) and that landscape is under the public (i.e. federal/state) domain, then expect to be banned if things are damaged. The alternative is to hire qualified archaeologists and biologists to clear your proposed geocache. Or make sure the area you have chosen has been inventoried in the past.

[+gof1]

Reading through this thread has been interesting. I have a couple of observations about the impact geocaching has on public lands.

 

First, federal (and most state) land managers are required by law to protect those lands from impacts. Some lands, such as those administered by the BLM and Forest Service, allow things like grazing and mining. Those types of activities have a specific footprint and the leases have stipulations that govern those impacts.

 

Recreational use of those lands is regulated and there is almost always a regional plan in place to protect "sensitive" areas from various types of recrational use. For example, an off road vehicle club wants to hold a rally on BLM lands. The organization tells the BLM where the rally will be. If the area has "sensitive areas" the rally is either relocated, or some sort of mitigative plan is put into effect to protect those areas.

 

Second, no land managing agency has the money to inventory all the lands under their jurisdiction to identify "sensitive" areas. If the area the car rally people want to use has not been inventoried, the agency requires that they pay for the surveys, and any resulting mitigation.

 

Third, there are several types of cultural and historical resources that are protected by civil rights and religious freedom legislation that prevents the disclosure of these locations to the public. If a manager/ranger etc tells you the area is sensitive, you may never see the object/place/collection of whatever that is off limits. Sometimes you have to accept that it is not for you to know.

 

Fourth, many, many cultural and historical sites are not obvious to the untrained eye. Turning over a couple of rocks may seem benign but unless you are permited to conduct archaeological investigations it is not your call to make.

 

If geocaching is a recreational activity that can have an impact on the landscape (whether that impact is the fault of the person who placed the cache or the seekers of that cache) and that landscape is under the public (i.e. federal/state) domain, then expect to be banned if things are damaged. The alternative is to hire qualified archaeologists and biologists to clear your proposed geocache. Or make sure the area you have chosen has been inventoried in the past.

 

So you created this account to come into the forums and preach to us?

How <YAWN> interesting.

[BorderMonum]

Actually, I was doing some research on border monuments along the US Mexican border and came across this board. I was not preaching - the posts in this particular forum give the impression that a portion of you think that rangers (managers etc) are stopping your activity out of spite, ignorance or meanness. I was attempting to provide information about why some folks do the things they do. If you want to remain ignorant - it’s ok by me.

[+Miragee]

Actually, I was doing some research on border monuments along the US Mexican border and came across this board. I was not preaching - the posts in this particular forum give the impression that a portion of you think that rangers (managers etc) are stopping your activity out of spite, ignorance or meanness. I was attempting to provide information about why some folks do the things they do. If you want to remain ignorant - it’s ok by me.

I read your previous post, and understand those concerns by Rangers and Land Managers, but in the case of what happened in Anza Borrego Desert State Park, the removal (stealing) of the caches was done out of "spite, ignorance and meanness."

 

Some of the caches were fewer than ten feet away from a road in a non-sensitive area. Others that involved a longer hike, had fewer than six visitors per year, and were also in non-sensitive areas.

[+gof1]

Sorry, but I just find it hard to believe it a coincidence that you used your brand new account to drag up a thread that hasn't been active in two months.

[BorderMonum]

Actually, I was doing some research on border monuments along the US Mexican border and came across this board. I was not preaching - the posts in this particular forum give the impression that a portion of you think that rangers (managers etc) are stopping your activity out of spite, ignorance or meanness. I was attempting to provide information about why some folks do the things they do. If you want to remain ignorant - it’s ok by me.

I read your previous post, and understand those concerns by Rangers and Land Managers, but in the case of what happened in Anza Borrego Desert State Park, the removal (stealing) of the caches was done out of "spite, ignorance and meanness."

 

Some of the caches were fewer than ten feet away from a road in a non-sensitive area. Others that involved a longer hike, had fewer than six visitors per year, and were also in non-sensitive areas.

[BorderMonum]

Actually, I was doing some research on border monuments along the US Mexican border and came across this board. I was not preaching - the posts in this particular forum give the impression that a portion of you think that rangers (managers etc) are stopping your activity out of spite, ignorance or meanness. I was attempting to provide information about why some folks do the things they do. If you want to remain ignorant - it’s ok by me.

I read your previous post, and understand those concerns by Rangers and Land Managers, but in the case of what happened in Anza Borrego Desert State Park, the removal (stealing) of the caches was done out of "spite, ignorance and meanness."

 

Some of the caches were fewer than ten feet away from a road in a non-sensitive area. Others that involved a longer hike, had fewer than six visitors per year, and were also in non-sensitive areas.

 

I have no knowledge of that particular situation. Are the areas labeled as sensitive listed as such on maps?

 

I spend a lot of time in the field in the western US, and have many stories about mean, spiteful regulators. Yup, they can be meanies. However, most are not. Just trying to do their job.

 

As for posting in a forum that has not been active - I confess I did not look at the date. As for establishing an account my reasoning is this: What you do for fun impacts what I do for a living. I joined because there is a lot of useful information here. (one other group of people I run into regularly are the crazy crystal people burying their crap in arch sites - I'll take cachers any day over them).

 

I have run into you folks while out doing my job. To date all have been nice, polite people interested in learning about their environment - both natural and cultural. In fact, the more people who understand why particular things are protected the better. Information is power, but if you wish to be adversarial that is your choice.

[+The Leprechauns]

Second, no land managing agency has the money to inventory all the lands under their jurisdiction to identify "sensitive" areas. If the area the car rally people want to use has not been inventoried, the agency requires that they pay for the surveys, and any resulting mitigation.

Living as I do in a state that DOES have a statewide, GIS-based inventory of sensitive areas, and which works cooperatively with geocachers to check proposed placements against that database, I cannot give your post any credibility. I had to adjust a proposed cache once because the inventory database warned of protected rare ferns in the area.

 

Be careful when you make sweeping statements like that.

[+Dread_Pirate_Bruce]

What the CO thinks is an easy hide, one that can be accessed without damage to the surroundings is not necessarily an easy find for someone who has only coordinates and a GPS. (Just recall the last time you looked for a micro in ivy on a fence or wall or in a nook or cranny in a tree ... the GPS got you within 10 feet, so you only had 100 square feet of ivy to search or a dozen nooks or crannies in a tree to search.) One who knows where he put the cache can retrieve it without disturbing anything else. One who needs to find it may have to touch lots of things first.

 

So, the real question is: If the goal of geocaching is to bring people to interesting places, is there a good reason to use a smaller cache or hide it better than is necessary to keep it from getting muggled? I think not.

 

Lots of urban micros are there just to give cachers something to look for. In that case, making it challenging just for the sake of making it challenging is rarely a problem (subject to the bit about it being in ivy or a nook or cranny in a tree).

 

Game on.

[+TrailGators]

Actually, I was doing some research on border monuments along the US Mexican border and came across this board. I was not preaching - the posts in this particular forum give the impression that a portion of you think that rangers (managers etc) are stopping your activity out of spite, ignorance or meanness. I was attempting to provide information about why some folks do the things they do. If you want to remain ignorant - it’s ok by me.

I read your previous post, and understand those concerns by Rangers and Land Managers, but in the case of what happened in Anza Borrego Desert State Park, the removal (stealing) of the caches was done out of "spite, ignorance and meanness."

 

Some of the caches were fewer than ten feet away from a road in a non-sensitive area. Others that involved a longer hike, had fewer than six visitors per year, and were also in non-sensitive areas.

Before any conclusion can be reached, we need to clearly understand all the caches/incidents that got them so riled up. It wouldn't matter if 300 caches were perfectly fine if a few of them were not. We have yet to hear "all" the facts. Unfortunately they were completely unwilling to explain in detail or negotiate because they've made up their minds that cachers are trouble for them. This is why I now recommend that regions should have reps to keep an open friendly dialogue with the local park managers that have given permission, so they can abreast of any concerns or issues before things escalate.

[+team lagonda]

mebe they juss dont want no cashes thar..

[+Kiwi Nomad]

Unfortunately if someone in a postition of power decides (with out all the information available) that they don't like geocaching there may not be much that can be done to fix it in the short term.

 

After any banning incident we need to look at why it happened and what we as a community could have done differently. Also look at places where it is working what are they doing.

 

You can't always blame the person whos cache triggered the banning as having done anything wrong. With more and more people and caches out in the wild and geocaching being in the news more the goal posts are going to keep moving. What was ok when they placed the cache may no longer be ok any more. Thats not their fault and you might not know the goal post has moved until its too late.

 

If the hole next to the Indian rocks was done by a non geocacher then you can't blame any geocacher for the banning, things happen sometimes. That doesn't mean you can't try and use this situation to stop it happening somewhere else.

 

Or just wait for a change of mangaement.

 

Marco Polo was banished for life from Venus. You would think this would mean he could never return in actual fact this just meant until the guy who bannished him was no longer in charge. He did eventualy get to go home again. Alll it took was time.

 

[Edited by moderator to remove potty language.]

Edited May 8, 2008 by Keystone

[+SixDogTeam]

 

Marco Polo was banished for life from Venus.

 

Who gives a fig about Venus? Everybody knows Saturn is the hotspot now...

[+TrailGators]

Unfortunately if someone in a postition of power decides (with out all the information available) that they don't like geocaching there may not be much that can be done to fix it in the short term.

 

After any banning incident we need to look at why it happened and what we as a community could have done differently. Also look at places where it is working what are they doing.

 

You can't always blame the person whos cache triggered the banning as having done anything wrong. With more and more people and caches out in the wild and geocaching being in the news more the goal posts are going to keep moving. What was ok when they placed the cache may no longer be ok any more. Thats not their fault and you might not know the goal post has moved until its too late.

 

If the hole next to the Indian rocks was done by a non geocacher then you can't blame any geocacher for the banning, things happen sometimes. That doesn't mean you can't try and use this situation to stop it happening somewhere else.

 

Or just wait for a change of mangaement.

 

I agree. If possible, we should try to learn something. ABDSP may not be anyone's fault because their rules changed without notice. The problem were the 4000 "sensitive spots" scattered all over almost 1000 square miles of land in that park. There was really no way to know where all of them were. So the only way to safely avoid all of them would have been to keep all caches close to established trails. We could have done this had we know then what we know now, but it's too late. So I think we will have to wait for a change of park management and also be on good behavior until then, so we don't get a bad reputation with the other park officials for being rebellious and uncooperative.

[BorderMonum]

Second, no land managing agency has the money to inventory all the lands under their jurisdiction to identify "sensitive" areas. If the area the car rally people want to use has not been inventoried, the agency requires that they pay for the surveys, and any resulting mitigation.

Living as I do in a state that DOES have a statewide, GIS-based inventory of sensitive areas, and which works cooperatively with geocachers to check proposed placements against that database, I cannot give your post any credibility. I had to adjust a proposed cache once because the inventory database warned of protected rare ferns in the area.

 

Be careful when you make sweeping statements like that.

 

Wow, I had no idea any state had everything inventoried. That is an amazing thing: all the archaeological and historical sites located and assessed, and even more amazing (because it is a relatively recent thing) is that sacred places and TCP have been identified. Even for a small state like RI that is a massive undertaking - something us out west will likely never experience. You are very lucky. What state are you in?

[+sbell111]

Euphoria.

[+TrailGators]

Wow, I had no idea any state had everything inventoried. That is an amazing thing: all the archaeological and historical sites located and assessed, and even more amazing (because it is a relatively recent thing) is that sacred places and TCP have been identified. Even for a small state like RI that is a massive undertaking - something us out west will likely never experience.

The CA budget cuts make that even less likely of happening out here. I still don't understand what the issue they would have with geocaching if caches were required to be within x feet of an existing road/trail...

[BorderMonum]

The CA budget cuts make that even less likely of happening out here. I still don't understand what the issue they would have with geocaching if caches were required to be within x feet of an existing road/trail...

 

If the road existed before the NHPA the right-of-way may not have been surveyed yet. Like I said earlier, more traditional users often pay for the inventories themselves in order to use a particular area. You guys are in a strange place – more impacts than day hikers, but much less than off roaders. In addition, many times descendant communities do not pinpoint the area they consider scared - sometimes it’s a big circle, or many square miles. And trails themselves are often sacred. Sometimes public use of the trails is no big thing – depends on the original use of the trail. Sometimes it’s a seasonal thing. It varies. So it may just be easier to ban the entire activity than develop a management plan that deals with your activity. Whether that is due to laziness, shortage of funding, or just meanness I do not know.

[+TrailGators]

Whether that is due to laziness, shortage of funding, or just meanness I do not know.

Neither do I but I have my suspicions. When you really think about it, this is all very petty. We pay taxes to support these lands and yet we aren't allowed to enjoy a teeny tiny fraction of the area in them. Then we have to pay extra for a survey to protect a lot of stuff that doesn't need to be protected. Did you know that 50 year old garbage is protected? Someone left a bunch of old rusty coffee cans in the desert for 50+ years ago and now that garbage is protected. I'm not making this up...

[+briansnat]

You guys are in a strange place – more impacts than day hikers, but much less than off roaders.

 

I'm not sure where you get that. As an avid hiker and geocacher I can assure you that hikers have far more of an impact on an area than geocachers. For one, they are out there in far, far greater numbers. I've seen numerous areas nearly devoid of vegetation, with heavy erosion and compacted soil, all caused by hikers. In nearly 800 cache hunts I've yet to encounter that around a geocache in the wild.

 

As far as land managers acting out of spite. Maybe it's not spite, but perhaps laziness. In one large state park in my region, illegal ATVers have been ripping the land apart for years, yet they go about their business relatively unhindered. Not enough resources to enforce the laws we're told. Yet the same park had enough resources to send their personnel out to remove all the caches hidden there.

 

If the goal is to protect the land, where should they be allocating their resources?

 

Geocache site (there is a cache in this photo)

 

or...

 

Illegal ATV trail

Edited May 9, 2008 by briansnat

[+gof1]

Seems this hornets nest has been well stirred.

[+Shop99er]

You guys are in a strange place – more impacts than day hikers, but much less than off roaders.

 

As far as land managers acting out of spite. Maybe it's not spite, but perhaps laziness. In one large state park in my region, illegal ATVers have been ripping the land apart for years, yet they go about their business relatively unhindered. Not enough resources to enforce the laws we're told. Yet the same park had enough resources to send their personnel out to remove all the caches hidden there.

 

If the goal is to protect the land, where should they be allocating their resources?

 

It's much easier to go find a cache that, as a general rule, is not moving than it is to chase down the ATV/Dirt Bike crowd. In the case you cite, I'm gonna go with lazy.

 

Out here, we have a county forest...about 600 acres, that has banned the ATV/Dirt Bike crowd. The motor-heads had a hissy-fit. Stuff like "We pay taxes, we have the right..." and so on (sound familiar?).

 

Well, the county came back with " Yes, you pay taxes, and you're tearing up the forest. Keep Out." I know of one DB'er that decided to ignore the ban, and he got slapped with a several hundred-dollar fine. Meanwhile, the caching community went on about it's business. There are something like 10-12 caches in that forest right now. We never hear a peep from the county. We are also very careful about where we hide them. The several-year stalemate with the State Park Dept taught some valueable lessons.

 

Educating the correct people, and talking to them like adults was and is the key. At leat here.

[BorderMonum]

You guys are in a strange place – more impacts than day hikers, but much less than off roaders.

 

I'm not sure where you get that. As an avid hiker and geocacher I can assure you that hikers have far more of an impact on an area than geocachers. For one, they are out there in far, far greater numbers. I've seen numerous areas nearly devoid of vegetation, with heavy erosion and compacted soil, all caused by hikers. In nearly 800 cache hunts I've yet to encounter that around a geocache in the wild.

 

I see your point when the resources are plant/animal. When it comes to archaeological sites and TCPs, it is the act of moving things around (rocks, structural elements etc) that get ya'll in trouble when those items are part of a protected resource. Yes hikers do that too - using rocks as tent stakes, making fire rings etc. But it is the ubiquity with which it is done that is the issue. As someone pointed out in an earlier post, all it takes is one bad apple. And I noted that the posts in other forums all caution not to mess up things. But in the western US, all it would take is one person mucking up a shrine to get everyone riled up and on the "ban" bandwagon. Sure, off roaders do more damage, as do timber trucks, yahoos with too much alcohol and ammo and not enough sense ( I have been shot at). But with the pervasive "good old boy" mentality at a lot of agencies (off roading is manly did you know?) you can see why pedestrian activites get the short end of the stick.

 

As for 50 year old cans being considered important - age is only one determining criterion. But that is a good example of an instance where something does not look "important" when it very well could be. I guess that is my point all along - a random wall, a rock cairn, an overhang could look like nothing - when it is in fact sacred to someone, or archaeologically/historically significant and thus, "important".

[+HaLiJuSaPa]

You guys are in a strange place – more impacts than day hikers, but much less than off roaders.

 

I'm not sure where you get that. As an avid hiker and geocacher I can assure you that hikers have far more of an impact on an area than geocachers. For one, they are out there in far, far greater numbers. I've seen numerous areas nearly devoid of vegetation, with heavy erosion and compacted soil, all caused by hikers. In nearly 800 cache hunts I've yet to encounter that around a geocache in the wild.

 

As far as land managers acting out of spite. Maybe it's not spite, but perhaps laziness. In one large state park in my region, illegal ATVers have been ripping the land apart for years, yet they go about their business relatively unhindered. Not enough resources to enforce the laws we're told. Yet the same park had enough resources to send their personnel out to remove all the caches hidden there.

 

If the goal is to protect the land, where should they be allocating their resources?

 

Geocache site (there is a cache in this photo)

 

Couldn't agree with you further Brian, great post!

or...

 

Illegal ATV trail

[magellan315]

 

Wow, I had no idea any state had everything inventoried. That is an amazing thing: all the archaeological and historical sites located and assessed, and even more amazing (because it is a relatively recent thing) is that sacred places and TCP have been identified. Even for a small state like RI that is a massive undertaking - something us out west will likely never experience. You are very lucky. What state are you in?

 

Pennsyvania and specifically the state parks and state forests, which includes 117 state parks and 2.1 million acres of forests. Contrary to what you think many federal, state, and local agencies do the same. They have to, part of their job is knowing what resources are on their land and what needs to be protected. This is hardly a recent practice, certain technological improvments have made the process easier than inthe past.

 

I think you are equally confused about the west. I've spent time in Nevada and I can assure you the BLM people at Red Rocks have a simialr inventory. I think you need to do more research about this before you make any more blanket statements about what agencies do to inventory their land.

Edited May 9, 2008 by magellan315

[+Team GeoBlast]

As for 50 year old cans being considered important - age is only one determining criterion. But that is a good example of an instance where something does not look "important" when it very well could be. I guess that is my point all along - a random wall, a rock cairn, an overhang could look like nothing - when it is in fact sacred to someone, or archaeologically/historically significant and thus, "important".

 

You do see the shortcomings of this don't you? Defining "important" or "significant" to "someone" is something that nobody s capable of doing using intuition. It seems to me that this is a function of the land manager to make sure this information is easily accessed. If the area is so sensitive and "important" that these places are everywhere...maybe closing it to everyone should be considered?

 

If this information on the location of these places has been made clear to the local reviewer and cachers... I can't see this being a problem with Geocachers hiding caches in an "important" place. Just like any of the other groups of land users, we are receptive and respectful people.

[+Dread_Pirate_Bruce]

What would our archeologists and park services be doing had the ancients not left things around to document their existence? What if the ancients had cleaned up after themselves?