Cache Lifetimes

[+woffles]

Seeing the closures of caches on the AT I understand why they want some of them closed. I've seen some caches locally already that are showing signs of over usage. Random trails and general stomping down of vegetation are occurring. Having done trail work up on the Continental Divide I know the amount of work that goes into maintaining a healthy trail system. Repeated off trail use to a specific area will cause erosion and eventual failure of the land to sustain growth and will allow the top soil to wash away.

 

I was wondering what system if any is in place to limit the life of a cache to prevent damage to the local surroundings. If there isn't one, should there be a limit placed on the life of a cache? This would help prevent more closures like the AT. I'm sure a lot of people would complain about it but honestly, that really is being selfish when you consider the amount of damage that can occur to an area with repeated use.

 

I realize some caches don't fall under this due to their locations. Being in urban or rocky locations they wouldn't really need a lifetime limit. Seeing as how this site is promoting caching and posting the locations of them I feel that some of the responsibility falls to this site to help maintain the integrity of our wilderness.

 

So, what do you think? How do we handle this before it becomes an occurring problem? Apparently doing nothing won't solve it and will just result in more areas becoming off limits. I enjoy caching because it takes me to new areas to enjoy so I'd hate to see it go away. Could a rating system be devised for possible land damage which would control the lifetime of a cache? Once the lifetime limit is reached the cache will be automatically archived and will need to be moved to a new location? It might also help to keep cache locations more diverse and show forestry management services that we are trying to be responsible.

[+StarBrand]

I just don't see this as much of an issue. I've got some caches that have been out for 6+ years and are showing little or zero sign of trails to them. I am certain that some soils and locations are far more fragile than others but that should not impose a general limit on all caches. When/if a problem is recognized then it should be dealt with an on individual cache/location basis.

[rogheff]

I actually think the longer a cache is out there, the less evidence of a trail becomes. When a cache is first placed, the FTF hounds rush out and trample a path, subsequent seekers for the next several months increase the geotrail. Once all the "locals" have cleared that cache off their list, my caches see little action. Nature reclaims the area. The occassional cacher from out of town, or a new local cacher don't increase the geotrail as much as when the cache was first placed.

 

A cache near a busy highway or other high traffic area excluded as they would draw more out of town cachers.

[+woffles]

I just don't see this as much of an issue. I've got some caches that have been out for 6+ years and are showing little or zero sign of trails to them. I am certain that some soils and locations are far more fragile than others but that should not impose a general limit on all caches. When/if a problem is recognized then it should be dealt with an on individual cache/location basis.

 

Maybe a rule dealing with local damage that if your cache location is causing damage to the local area you voluntarily shut it down. Have it as a published guideline then. I just think we should do something to send a message to officials and head them off at the pass before they do it for us, because it's seems like it's just a matter of time before they do. I could be wrong but politician types like to meddle.

[Skippermark]

How do we handle this before it becomes an occurring problem?

Hide more parking lot caches? Pavement tends to be very durable.

 

Kidding aside, it seems that if the area is delicate, like with tall beach grasses, they get trampled easily, and a geotrail begins to form after a very short time. But, those are seasonal and die off when the weather turns chilly anyway, so it's not that big of deal.

 

As far as caches in more normal woods areas, we see very few geotrails forming, even with the FTFs. Maybe because our terrain is rocky with lots of hardy plants like mountain laurel that basically can survive everything.

 

But we have seen caches on steep inclines that get really worn down as people scramble up the hill or caches up in trees where people's boots cut pull lots of bark off. If that's the case, those should be addressed.

Edited September 22, 2008 by Skippermark

[+wigglesworth]

Is it the responsibility of the cache owner to place a cache where there will be no damage to the surroundings if a small number of cachers search the area?

 

Is it the responsibility of cachers to report to the owner if they notice damage becoming a potential issue?

[+Cherokee Bill]

At 61-yo, I've been hiking and backpacking the "AT for over 20-yrs. 1st I belong to a local "AT" club and the "ATC", so no one is more concerned about the "AT" than I am. However, my considered opinion is that the majority of Geocachers are only going to walk so far and go just so deep into the "woods" for a cache.

 

I challenge the author of this thread, or anyone else, to prove trail-damage by geocachers. I have NEVER seen a Geocacher on the "AT"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Ever been around the "AT" in the mountains around hunting-season, especially during "bear-season" around the Peaks of Otter (VA)? Hunters are thick as ants.

 

Trail damage, look for another reason, geocaching is not at fault

[+reedkickball]

Seeing the closures of caches on the AT I understand why they want some of them closed. I've seen some caches locally already that are showing signs of over usage. Random trails and general stomping down of vegetation are occurring. Having done trail work up on the Continental Divide I know the amount of work that goes into maintaining a healthy trail system. Repeated off trail use to a specific area will cause erosion and eventual failure of the land to sustain growth and will allow the top soil to wash away.

 

First off, you've been to 4 caches? So over half of the caches you've found are showing signs of over usage? Maybe if people didn't go visit them multiple times like you, there wouldn't be a problem? Just Kidding. I know Colorado doesn't have the great regrowth capability of the AT area, since it's semi-arid, but generally when people place a cache, they generally find a little used path that's already created, for a couple of reasons. One it allows them to hide it in a muggle free space, and second, most people (even geocachers) don't like to bushwhack all the time even when hiding a cache.

 

How do I know this? I go hunting FTFs all the time, and the interesting thing I find, is that there's a "geotrail" already going right to or right past the cache. Why? Because the hider followed an already established path in. Later on in future logs, I read people say, "I followed the geotrail".

 

Even then trails, aren't that big a deal (I've never seen a deer fall dead when they encounter an unauthorized trail. Actually they're one of the culprits for some trails), at least here on the east coast. In fact they just recently created a half mile section of trail of the Potomac Heritage Trail, unfortunately, it hasn't been used in months. You can't see the trail any longer, unless you look at the blazes on the trees, and that's a trail that's been created using rakes, chainsaws, and shovels to hold back to foliage.

 

I was wondering what system if any is in place to limit the life of a cache to prevent damage to the local surroundings. If there isn't one, should there be a limit placed on the life of a cache? This would help prevent more closures like the AT. I'm sure a lot of people would complain about it but honestly, that really is being selfish when you consider the amount of damage that can occur to an area with repeated use.

 

Just like StarBrand said, the longer the cache stays out there, the less possibility of damage there is. I just went and found a cache, where I almost had to crawl on my stomach, to get under the scrub trees. No one had been there for 4 months, it looks like no one has been there in years. But if you got an NPS official out there, they'd say my duck walk through the bushes destroyed the landscape for 50 years. Yes, it is true, I was ruthless against the thorny plants.

 

So, what do you think? How do we handle this before it becomes an occurring problem? Apparently doing nothing won't solve it and will just result in more areas becoming off limits. I enjoy caching because it takes me to new areas to enjoy so I'd hate to see it go away. Could a rating system be devised for possible land damage which would control the lifetime of a cache? Once the lifetime limit is reached the cache will be automatically archived and will need to be moved to a new location? It might also help to keep cache locations more diverse and show forestry management services that we are trying to be responsible.

 

If there is a problem with a particular cache, just like wigglesworth said, the cache owner should monitor it. The cache visitor should also post a note when they encounter a problem, whether it's a problem with the cache, or the area around the cache. Looking from your logs, it appears that everything is "OK" with the caches you found. I don't know, maybe you contacted the cache owner directly though about the problem.

 

Just because you see a trail, doesn't mean it was a geocacher-made trail. As for the AT caches, I would be surprised if any of them got more than 12 visitors a year. The particular archival that annoyed me, that wasn't on AT land (but axed by NPS), only had 3 visitors in the previous 12 months.

 

The geocaching community hasn't just done nothing. I've known many many cachers that have contacted NPS and other organizations, volunteered to set up guidelines, and even written the guidelines for park authorities. There are just some individuals within NPS that have an unhealthy vendetta against geocaching.

Edited September 22, 2008 by reedkickball

[rogheff]

 

How do I know this? I go hunting FTFs all the time, and the interesting thing I find, is that there's a "geotrail" already going right to or right past the cache. Why? Because the hider followed an already established path in. Later on in future logs, I read people say, "I followed the geotrail".

 

Interesting observation. I've noticed that when caching in the winter, how much use those geotrails get. I'm always amazed as to how much use the geotrails get by the little fuzzy critters in our woods. Many times, the only tracks breaking the snow cover are the rabbits, squirrels and deer on the geotrails.

[CoyoteRed]

My experiences seem to be a bit different that some other folks here. Part of the way I hunt for a cache is looking for the social trails. Works pretty good as many times it leads me directly to the cache.

 

There is already a mechanism in place to deal with environmental damage. An owner can move his cache up to 528' at will to deal with issues of placement. Do owners do this? Never seen it personally even after I send a note with my observations.

 

Should there be a limited life on caches in certain areas? Sure and it's set by the land owner. Some folks complain about it, but I'll point you back to where I mentioned COs don't move their caches like they should.

 

Sometimes we are our own worse enemy.

[+Renegade Knight]

... I was wondering what system if any is in place to limit the life of a cache to prevent damage to the local surroundings. If there isn't one, should there be a limit placed on the life of a cache? This would help prevent more closures like the AT. I'm sure a lot of people would complain about it but honestly, that really is being selfish when you consider the amount of damage that can occur to an area with repeated use....

 

You need to reverse the question and answer the broader question so owners can know when it's time to archvie the cache.

 

How much traffic does it take given soils and vegitation to where it's time to archive a cache? I approached the BLM on this issue 5 years ago and didn't get any information. Mostly because I probably didn't ask the right person and they didn't manage to forward the qeustion to the right person.

 

The simple truth is that in most circumstances remote caches see such little use that most of them are good for years and years in that they don't generate enough traffic to have an impact above negligable.

 

The AT Closure is a preference. It's not based on anything more than that because they would actually have to have the same answers on hand that I wasn't able to get from the BLM.

 

In the bigger scheme a cache is a temporary point of interest. The NPS you can argue deals with permanent points of interest and notices the impact from the permantent variety with thousands upon thousands of visitors. Not the what? Hundreds for a good and popular cache? Or 12 or so for a popular remote cache in my area.

[+Renegade Knight]

 

How do I know this? I go hunting FTFs all the time, and the interesting thing I find, is that there's a "geotrail" already going right to or right past the cache. Why? Because the hider followed an already established path in. Later on in future logs, I read people say, "I followed the geotrail".

 

Interesting observation. I've noticed that when caching in the winter, how much use those geotrails get. I'm always amazed as to how much use the geotrails get by the little fuzzy critters in our woods. Many times, the only tracks breaking the snow cover are the rabbits, squirrels and deer on the geotrails.

 

This is a good point. Cache owners seldom EVER make it hard for themselves when placing a cache. It would take a grad student writing a thesis to get real information. Everone else settles for opinion.

Edited September 23, 2008 by Renegade Knight

[+Isonzo Karst]

I was wondering what system if any is in place to limit the life of a cache to prevent damage to the local surroundings.

 

Some land managers have permits or permission processes with annual (or other period) renewals or expiration. These are generally automatic, not based on a real assessment of damage.

 

In general, no, there is no "system".

 

As others have said, much of the supposed geocache damage in the form of social trails is imaginary. Ie, the trail was there FIRST, and then the cache was placed. Obviously, there ARE places where the cache placement caused trail creation. I see this most often in suburban parks, not wilderness areas.

 

If there isn't one, should there be a limit placed on the life of a cache?

 

Perhaps, but administered by whom? and determined how? the current system relies on reports from finders and owner response. It's spotty, but free; and as good as, or better than, any automatic system - and certainly better than any system funded by taxpayer dollars.

 

This would help prevent more closures like the AT.

 

No, it would do nothing to prevent "closures like the AT". Many of the caches on that list have so few finds per year that the idea that damage is caused is silly. Many of them were placed with permission from the land manager.

Educating land managers to the real nature of geocaching might prevent such closures. NPS is still somehow convinced that geocaches are buried, and that cachers will tear up the area in their search.

 

"The notion of a “treasure hunt” immediately sets off an alarm for NPS managers because it implies that the “hunters” will be placing caches in unapproved areas, digging up park resources and damaging the park environment. Obviously, much as we want park visitors to enjoy their experience, we cannot allow a GPS activity if it would lead to destructive behavior. Burying caches would generally violate 36 CFR 2.1(a), and

could violate other regulations, as well." Policy Review GPS-based Recreational Activities in Park Areas

October 19, 2007 NPS Management Policies

Edited September 24, 2008 by Isonzo Karst

[+woffles]

At 61-yo, I've been hiking and backpacking the "AT for over 20-yrs. 1st I belong to a local "AT" club and the "ATC", so no one is more concerned about the "AT" than I am. However, my considered opinion is that the majority of Geocachers are only going to walk so far and go just so deep into the "woods" for a cache.

 

I challenge the author of this thread, or anyone else, to prove trail-damage by geocachers. I have NEVER seen a Geocacher on the "AT"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Ever been around the "AT" in the mountains around hunting-season, especially during "bear-season" around the Peaks of Otter (VA)? Hunters are thick as ants.

 

Trail damage, look for another reason, geocaching is not at fault

 

I've never been on the AT so can't attest to any trail damage there. I'm talking globally, just using the new archiving as an example to a possible spreading problem. You are also in a completely different environment. I'm in Colorado and in some areas it only takes one person going off trail to start permanent damage. Some of the fauna and flora is that sensitive, some of it isn't. Things grow a lot slower up in the mountains also so damage takes a while to repair if ever.

 

I'm also not trying to blame geocaching for damage. I'm trying to head off "perceived" damage by geocaching by being proactive. With bureaucrats it doesn't have to be true, just plausible. If people want to bury their heads in the sand and say not our problem then things will change and we won't be the ones guiding those changes. Leave no trace and other similar guidelines should be featured on here to help educate people when they go out to geocache.

[+briansnat]

I'm in Colorado and in some areas it only takes one person going off trail to start permanent damage.

 

Just curious how you get bear and deer to stick to the trails in Colorado. Seriously, there is a system in place. If you see that a cache is damaging an area you can ask that it be archived.

 

I honestly don't believe that this is a a huge problem though. I've found and hidden hundreds of caches and have yet to see this damage to the backcountry that I hear about so often. Does it happen? I'm sure it has somewhere, but it's so infrequent that it can be dealt with on a case by case basis.

[+HaLiJuSaPa]

I don't remember if it is NY State with permits for state parks or the new regulations in Rockland County (for those on here not in the NY metro area, a county around here that is one of the few to have passed cache permit laws for county parks), but one of them does have such a limit on the permit for a given location, I think it's like 2 or 3 years or something like that.

 

Ironically, I think the problem if it does exist, is early on when all the local cachers go for it/hunt for "FTF", etc. After about a month or so, you're lucky if you get more than a handful of finders/year, usually out of town cachers visiting the area.

[CoyoteRed]

I'm wondering if LNT zealots are using a different criteria for "damage" than most of the rest of us. I've mentioned using social trails, but the vast majority of social trails don't add up to what I would term as real damage. I'd probably term "damage" as trampled live vegetation that is killed, slope erosion, stuff like that. Trampling of dead leaves, rotting logs, etc. might not be "damage," but it doesn't look good. Of course, those trampled leaves and logs won't ever come back, but next year, with a new layer of leaves you'll never know anyone had been there.

 

I've always adhered the idea that one should leave the area like they had never been there. Many times we try to cover our tracks. Many times that is simply futile because of the terrain. Some times it is simply not necessary.

 

Are there social trails? Sure. Irreparable damage beyond what moving a cache would fix? I've not seen it.

 

But, it boils down to perception. Will that social trail become a spur? From a trail manger's point of view is that social trail to a cache any different than those folks cutting the switch-backs? Now, there, I've seen a lot of damage. The more popular the trail, the more likely you'll see it. I've seen places where they had to put up signs saying to not cut the switch-back and still see it happen. A caching social trail starts just like cutting a switch-back, next thing you know, it's a problem.

 

Seems like that might be the angle from which they're seeing it.

[+Juicepig]

...

Ever been around the "AT" in the mountains around hunting-season, especially during "bear-season" around the Peaks of Otter (VA)? Hunters are thick as ants.

 

Trail damage, look for another reason, geocaching is not at fault

...

 

Hunters pay AT for licenses though, unlikely that AT will want to blame them for any wrongdoing

[+Renegade Knight]

...

Ever been around the "AT" in the mountains around hunting-season, especially during "bear-season" around the Peaks of Otter (VA)? Hunters are thick as ants.

 

Trail damage, look for another reason, geocaching is not at fault

...

 

Hunters pay AT for licenses though, unlikely that AT will want to blame them for any wrongdoing

 

It would seem tree stands, blinds and other hunting equipment would run afoul of the same things that the NPS is proclaiming it doesn't like about caches.

Edited September 26, 2008 by Renegade Knight

[Luckless]

I don't remember if it is NY State with permits for state parks or the new regulations in Rockland County (for those on here not in the NY metro area, a county around here that is one of the few to have passed cache permit laws for county parks), but one of them does have such a limit on the permit for a given location, I think it's like 2 or 3 years or something like that.

 

Ironically, I think the problem if it does exist, is early on when all the local cachers go for it/hunt for "FTF", etc. After about a month or so, you're lucky if you get more than a handful of finders/year, usually out of town cachers visiting the area.

 

In the state parks around here you need a permit and you have to move caches every two years. Maybe this policy about moving a cache was meant to cut down on trail wear and tear, but the park manger told me I'd only have to move my cache a few feet. That isn't going to change things much. Actually a few feet is not really enough because you can just bet some cacher will put your cache back in its original place because "they wanted to hide it a little better". For the sake of the trails it probably is a good idea to move caches every so often- just perhaps a little more than a few feet.

The thing that this policy for our state parks, as it stands, might best be used for is to determine abandoned caches. If the owner doesn't contact the park with new coordinates for the cache after two years then I guess the park would have every right to determine the cache is not being looked after and maintained and has become abandoned. Seems then they should be able to pick it up as abandoned property. One of the arguments the AT is said to use is to call all geocaches abandoned property.