Destruction at Ground Zero

[+Unkle Fester]

Get out the flamethrowers and popcorn, the shows going to begin:

 

[soapbox]

 

Been noticing a trend thats getting worse: The amount of destruction at Ground Zero.

 

I feel like I've seen everything now (I'm sure I haven't); Pulled apart stumps, trampled underbrush, trails blazed...

 

I showed up to a cache a couple weeks ago, I was 3rd to find and it looked like someone came through with a machete that morning and hacked back the vegitation for 30'. I contacted the CO and he was devistated.

 

For those who use a different term, a Machete is a long knife-like blade used to hack back vegitation.

 

I went to a cache on a coin challenge and even though the description clearly says its within arm reach of the trail, you could see fresh geotrails tracking all around the forrest as people blindly followed their GPSr's before letting them settle down. Two days ago I went for a half hearted attempt at a FTF (wasn't real interested) and DNF'd it. Went back yesterday (one day later) and fresh trails are hacked all over the under bush.

 

Holy Cow! Is the Machete the newest, must have geo accessory? I have heard of a couple local cachers carrying them, but is it really needed? Is it the right thing to do?

 

I honestly see why many park managers don't want caches there because of this type of behavior. Are we doing this to ourselves?

 

Is the difficulty level of finding some caches so great that people feel the need to tear up the surroundings to remove possible hiding spots? I live by the "tread lightly" theory and that may be why I have so many FTDNF's (First To Did Not Find). I will go in, peek around, maybe pull aside some branches or poke around the moss, but I do draw a line. If I'm getting the feeling I need to tear everything apart, I won't do it. Sadly, I know if I return in a couple days, everything will be pulled apart fo me, exposed and the find much easier.

 

Now, I've been caching for just over a year, and I have seen some messed up search area's, but it seems to me this is a trend that is getting worse. We do have a responsability... I would think.

 

[/soapbox]

[+power69]

Get out the flamethrowers and popcorn, the shows going to begin:

 

[soapbox]

 

Been noticing a trend thats getting worse: The amount of destruction at Ground Zero.

 

I feel like I've seen everything now (I'm sure I haven't); Pulled apart stumps, trampled underbrush, trails blazed...

 

I showed up to a cache a couple weeks ago, I was 3rd to find and it looked like someone came through with a machete that morning and hacked back the vegitation for 30'. I contacted the CO and he was devistated.

 

For those who use a different term, a Machete is a long knife-like blade used to hack back vegitation.

 

I went to a cache on a coin challenge and even though the description clearly says its within arm reach of the trail, you could see fresh geotrails tracking all around the forrest as people blindly followed their GPSr's before letting them settle down. Two days ago I went for a half hearted attempt at a FTF (wasn't real interested) and DNF'd it. Went back yesterday (one day later) and fresh trails are hacked all over the under bush.

 

Holy Cow! Is the Machete the newest, must have geo accessory? I have heard of a couple local cachers carrying them, but is it really needed? Is it the right thing to do?

 

I honestly see why many park managers don't want caches there because of this type of behavior. Are we doing this to ourselves?

 

Is the difficulty level of finding some caches so great that people feel the need to tear up the surroundings to remove possible hiding spots? I live by the "tread lightly" theory and that may be why I have so many FTDNF's (First To Did Not Find). I will go in, peek around, maybe pull aside some branches or poke around the moss, but I do draw a line. If I'm getting the feeling I need to tear everything apart, I won't do it. Sadly, I know if I return in a couple days, everything will be pulled apart fo me, exposed and the find much easier.

 

Now, I've been caching for just over a year, and I have seen some messed up search area's, but it seems to me this is a trend that is getting worse. We do have a responsability... I would think.

 

[/soapbox]

I recently saw one that was interlaced 5 sided brick on a slope. there was sand underneath. that would constitute burial yet they didn't replace them after looking.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

The fault is with the abundance of cache owners who don't think at all about the area around their cache.

 

There are some areas that can only handle 1-star caches (any landscaped area), places that can handle a bit of a search (natural areas), and those that can handle more difficult hides (well off the beaten path). Too many cache owners think that that adding stars to their rating absolves them of finding an appropriate location. These are the same people who think checking "stealth required" will keep their cache safe 10 feet from the front window of Starbucks.

 

Yes, seekers have some responsibility not to intentionally destroy things or let muggles know what they're doing, but the root of the responsibility rests squarely on the cache owner.

[+classiccanadianblizz]

The fault is with the abundance of cache owners who don't think at all about the area around their cache.

 

There are some areas that can only handle 1-star caches (any landscaped area), places that can handle a bit of a search (natural areas), and those that can handle more difficult hides (well off the beaten path). Too many cache owners think that that adding stars to their rating absolves them of finding an appropriate location. These are the same people who think checking "stealth required" will keep their cache safe 10 feet from the front window of Starbucks.

 

Yes, seekers have some responsibility not to intentionally destroy things or let muggles know what they're doing, but the root of the responsibility rests squarely on the cache owner.

 

I would have to Disagree with Team GPSaxophone.... that is like saying that a gun manufacture is responsible for what a person does with the gun after they bought it from a store. I feel that as geocachers and outdoor enthusiasts we are ALL responsible for our own actions in the environments that we are in; need to remember that no matter what you do, someone is going to be watch and waiting for a excuse to complain about it and possibly get the activity shut down. just my 2 cents

[+Team GPSaxophone]

The fault is with the abundance of cache owners who don't think at all about the area around their cache.

 

There are some areas that can only handle 1-star caches (any landscaped area), places that can handle a bit of a search (natural areas), and those that can handle more difficult hides (well off the beaten path). Too many cache owners think that that adding stars to their rating absolves them of finding an appropriate location. These are the same people who think checking "stealth required" will keep their cache safe 10 feet from the front window of Starbucks.

 

Yes, seekers have some responsibility not to intentionally destroy things or let muggles know what they're doing, but the root of the responsibility rests squarely on the cache owner.

 

I would have to Disagree with Team GPSaxophone.... that is like saying that a gun manufacture is responsible for what a person does with the gun after they bought it from a store. I feel that as geocachers and outdoor enthusiasts we are ALL responsible for our own actions in the environments that we are in; need to remember that no matter what you do, someone is going to be watch and waiting for a excuse to complain about it and possibly get the activity shut down. just my 2 cents

So it doesn't matter that a cache owner has "invited" 40 people to look for a well hidden cache in a delicately landscaped area? Certainly that area wasn't designed for that amount of foot traffic. I'm not blaming the landscaper (the gun manufacturer), I'm blaming the cache owner.

 

Hide caches appropriate for the location.

[+va griz]

I think I side with team GPSax on this one. To continue the gun analogy, while the gun manufacture (the company that makes Bison tubes in Geo-terms) isn't responsible, the range that invites you to shoot (cache owner) should make sure the back stop is safe (appropriate location).

[+Renegade Knight]

...I showed up to a cache a couple weeks ago, I was 3rd to find and it looked like someone came through with a machete that morning and hacked back the vegitation for 30'. I contacted the CO and he was devistated....

 

Another owner has learned the lesson. One part of hiding a cache is the diffuculty of the find relative to the enivronment. If it's in a sensative area, make it easy for a cacher to find. If it's all concrete and asphast and lawn, sure ramp up the difficulty.

 

There is a lot of art to this. Owners do need to watch for it and take action if things are not working out as planned.

[+briansnat]

The fault is with the abundance of cache owners who don't think at all about the area around their cache.

 

There are some areas that can only handle 1-star caches (any landscaped area), places that can handle a bit of a search (natural areas), and those that can handle more difficult hides (well off the beaten path). Too many cache owners think that that adding stars to their rating absolves them of finding an appropriate location. These are the same people who think checking "stealth required" will keep their cache safe 10 feet from the front window of Starbucks.

 

Yes, seekers have some responsibility not to intentionally destroy things or let muggles know what they're doing, but the root of the responsibility rests squarely on the cache owner.

 

I would have to Disagree with Team GPSaxophone.... that is like saying that a gun manufacture is responsible for what a person does with the gun after they bought it from a store. I feel that as geocachers and outdoor enthusiasts we are ALL responsible for our own actions in the environments that we are in; need to remember that no matter what you do, someone is going to be watch and waiting for a excuse to complain about it and possibly get the activity shut down. just my 2 cents

 

I think there is enough blame to spread around. Hide a cache on a steep, moss covered slope and you're going to see damage no matter how careful people are.

 

I found one over the weekend, a needle in the haystack micro. The clue said "under two rocks". After a half dozen failed attempts by others I arrived with a group of cachers and every rock in the area had been disturbed. In most cases they were carefully put back by the searchers, but the fact that dozens of rocks were movied was quite noticeable. Is this serious damage? Of course not. 6 months after the cache is gone nobody will be able to tell it was there, but right now if the wrong person happened on the spot it certainly won't look good for geocachers.

 

My experience has been that there are very few intances of noticeable damage around caches and in the few instances where this was, it was nothing more than a few bent blades of grass, or overturned rocks.

Hardly an environmental disaster and in fact little different than what you see after a bear has moved through an area looking for grubs. But still, it wouldn't be good for our sport should a naturalist or park ranger decied to visit a few cache sites to assess impact.

 

As far as someone who would use a machete to hack his way to a cache, there is a word for him. Moron.

Edited August 11, 2009 by briansnat

[+jicknarson]

While I see your reasoning, Team GPSaxophone, I think the issue is the difference between using one's eyes and brain, vs the "scorched earth" method. Just the way I am interpreting this.....

[+Team GPSaxophone]

I think I side with team GPSax on this one. To continue the gun analogy, while the gun manufacture (the company that makes Bison tubes in Geo-terms) isn't responsible, the range that invites you to shoot (cache owner) should make sure the back stop is safe (appropriate location).

Excellent analogy FTW!

[knowschad]

If I read the OP correctly, Uncle Fester is specifically referring to the use of a machete, and if that is true, it is inexcusable. Somebody has been watching too many Indiana Jones movies.

[+DeadHead82]

 

As far as someone who would use a machete to hack his way to a cache, there is a word for him. Moron.

 

Bolding mine, totally bro, what the heck is so hard about leave no trace. I wouldn't EVER think of destroying anything in my path to get to a cache. A smiley on my map is certainly not worth disturbing a place to the point where other people, cachers or not, wouldn't be able to enjoy it themselves.

[+Xaa]

I think it is too easy to just put the responsibility on cache owners. Cachers should read descriptions, cachers should behave responsible when caching. I'd say a good solution would be to make far more multi's, even if they are just of the "find point A, walk 50 meter, find the cache" type, so people would be forced to read (and hopefully honor!) descriptions.

 

(hey, I just found myself a good argument for those 50 meter multi's that I dislike because they seem like "tradi in disguise").

 

If we just can't rely on cachers being nice environment-loving hobbyists, then 'we' (there is no "we", I know) might consider to force them to be.

[+bflentje]

If I read the OP correctly, Uncle Fester is specifically referring to the use of a machete, and if that is true, it is inexcusable. Somebody has been watching too many Indiana Jones movies.

 

So are all you saying there is NEVER a time and place for the use of a machette? I have never done this, but it sure sounds like a good idea on some Knowschad hides.

[+Kit Fox]

Most often I observe the "scorched earth" technique being employed by the non-outdoorsman type who have no regard for nature, ignore the tenants of "leave no trace" and were too busy to bother reading the description in the first place. As a cache owner with over 100 hides, I experienced this phenomenon on a couple of my hides. The commonality for all my affected caches was that the caches were hidden close to roads which are easily accessible by "park and grabbers" who are more interested in smileys than the conditions of the environment around them. I can comfortable say that nearly all of my caches hidden in remote areas, that lack "power trails," don't ever see this type of desctruction.

 

If you hide caches easily accessible by the masses, in areas incapable of sustaining heavy damage, you are partly responsible for the destruction. When I choose hiding spots, I taken into account the "careless cache finder factor."

[+bflentje]

Most often I observe the "scorched earth" technique being employed by the non-outdoorsman type who have no regard for nature, ignore the tenants of "leave no trace" and were too busy to bother reading the description in the first place. As a cache owner with over 100 hides, I experienced this phenomenon on a couple of my hides. The commonality for all my affected caches was that the caches were hidden close to roads which are easily accessible by "park and grabbers" who are more interested in smileys than the conditions of the environment around them. I can comfortable say that nearly all of my caches hidden in remote areas, that lack "power trails," don't ever see this type of desctruction.

 

If you hide caches easily accessible by the masses, in areas incapable of sustaining heavy damage, you are partly responsible for the destruction. When I choose hiding spots, I taken into account the "careless cache finder factor."

 

Uh oh, his avatar just got better.

[+DragonsWest]

Most often I observe the "scorched earth" technique being employed by the non-outdoorsman type who have no regard for nature, ignore the tenants of "leave no trace" and were too busy to bother reading the description in the first place. As a cache owner with over 100 hides, I experienced this phenomenon on a couple of my hides. The commonality for all my affected caches was that the caches were hidden close to roads which are easily accessible by "park and grabbers" who are more interested in smileys than the conditions of the environment around them. I can comfortable say that nearly all of my caches hidden in remote areas, that lack "power trails," don't ever see this type of desctruction.

 

If you hide caches easily accessible by the masses, in areas incapable of sustaining heavy damage, you are partly responsible for the destruction. When I choose hiding spots, I taken into account the "careless cache finder factor."

 

This.

 

I have only 6 hides, but even my first took into account the delicacy of environment, keeping bushwhacking to a minimum. Much of California is environment which doesn't tolerate much foot traffic, so keep people on the trail or on stony ground is good plan. What may not look like fragile environment to some really is and takes years to recover the tearing away of only a few plants.

 

I have commented on a few to COs, one removed his cache, another hasn't. People invade protected areas to hide and seek caches, even where it's clearly posted NOT TO.

 

I've witnessed a few caches where the bushwhacking after only a few finds is evident. Stop looking at the GPSr and look at the trail fellow cachers have left in the grass, brush, etc.

[knowschad]

If I read the OP correctly, Uncle Fester is specifically referring to the use of a machete, and if that is true, it is inexcusable. Somebody has been watching too many Indiana Jones movies.

 

So are all you saying there is NEVER a time and place for the use of a machette? I have never done this, but it sure sounds like a good idea on some Knowschad hides.

 

 

However, some of your Cannon River caches are even more deserving.

[knowschad]

Most often I observe the "scorched earth" technique being employed by the non-outdoorsman type who have no regard for nature, ignore the tenants of "leave no trace" and were too busy to bother reading the description in the first place. As a cache owner with over 100 hides, I experienced this phenomenon on a couple of my hides. The commonality for all my affected caches was that the caches were hidden close to roads which are easily accessible by "park and grabbers" who are more interested in smileys than the conditions of the environment around them. I can comfortable say that nearly all of my caches hidden in remote areas, that lack "power trails," don't ever see this type of desctruction.

 

If you hide caches easily accessible by the masses, in areas incapable of sustaining heavy damage, you are partly responsible for the destruction. When I choose hiding spots, I taken into account the "careless cache finder factor."

 

Uh oh, his avatar just got better.

 

Yeah, that's one ugly picture of Ann Coulter, isn't it?

[+Steve&GeoCarolyn]

I have only 6 hides, but even my first took into account the delicacy of environment, keeping bushwhacking to a minimum.

 

I wonder if this word is part of the problem. From what I can tell it means various things. It means going off-trail while being sensitive to the environment. It means going off trail carelessly and leaving a path of broken branches and disturbed earth. And it means taking a machete to the vegetation. The last definition is the only one I'd known before geocaching.

 

As a newbie, I had trouble understanding what it meant in a cache description when it said, "Some bushwhacking required" (or "No bushwhacking required"). When we got there I couldn't understand why the cache owner meant us to cut a path through the woods when it was perfectly reasonable to simply walk through the area carefully. (I ended up deciding that some people were just crazy-destructive but that we didn't have to be.) Now I know that the word has multiple meanings in the geocaching world and I am comfortable with it. However, I suspect other people may have some of the same confusion I did.

 

Carolyn

[+uxorious]

I never could understand the breaking of branches, trampling the brush, and tearing apart stumps.

 

If that branch, brush or stump wasn't damaged, and someone hid/found the cache your looking for, why would you think it needed damaging now? It really doesn't take that much more time to think a little while your looking.

[+sbell111]

Most often I observe the "scorched earth" technique being employed by the non-outdoorsman type who have no regard for nature, ignore the tenants of "leave no trace" and were too busy to bother reading the description in the first place. As a cache owner with over 100 hides, I experienced this phenomenon on a couple of my hides. The commonality for all my affected caches was that the caches were hidden close to roads which are easily accessible by "park and grabbers" who are more interested in smileys than the conditions of the environment around them. I can comfortable say that nearly all of my caches hidden in remote areas, that lack "power trails," don't ever see this type of desctruction.

 

If you hide caches easily accessible by the masses, in areas incapable of sustaining heavy damage, you are partly responsible for the destruction. When I choose hiding spots, I taken into account the "careless cache finder factor."

Uh oh, his avatar just got better.

Yeah, that's one ugly picture of Ann Coulter, isn't it?

Most of them are.

 

Look at this one:

 

[+sbell111]

I have a hard time getting worked up over damaged stumps.

[+classiccanadianblizz]

While I see your reasoning, Team GPSaxophone, I think the issue is the difference between using one's eyes and brain, vs the "scorched earth" method. Just the way I am interpreting this.....

That is a much better way of putting it than I did... The ultimate responsibility lies on the shoulders of the end user. EVERYONE needs to be responsible for their own actions. A lot of people think I am a total a** for my views, but I have never been one to blame others for my actions. Now that I have stirred the pot some more... I shall fade away into the night

[knowschad]

I have only 6 hides, but even my first took into account the delicacy of environment, keeping bushwhacking to a minimum.

I wonder if this word is part of the problem.

 

I suspect you may be right about that. I personally stopped using that word in my online logs some time back because of the implications both to other (especially newer) cachers, as well as to land managers. If I have good reason to mention having to leave the trail, I will use words like "had to hike cross-country".

[+bittsen]

I had a cache where people had done the same thing. I posted a thread about it here.

What I have found out is that there are a lot of forum posters who will easily say that the cache owner is responsible for the actions of all cachers.

 

I just shake my head.

[+Renegade Knight]

While I see your reasoning, Team GPSaxophone, I think the issue is the difference between using one's eyes and brain, vs the "scorched earth" method. Just the way I am interpreting this.....

That is a much better way of putting it than I did... The ultimate responsibility lies on the shoulders of the end user. EVERYONE needs to be responsible for their own actions. A lot of people think I am a total a** for my views, but I have never been one to blame others for my actions. Now that I have stirred the pot some more... I shall fade away into the night

 

There are two sides to the issue.

The person who should go to jail for the vandalism is the guy who did the deed.

That doesn't mean that the cache owner can't factore in the vandals when they hide a cache. They can and should as a courtesy to the land owner.

 

Each has an action they own, and both make an impact.

[+DragonsWest]

I have only 6 hides, but even my first took into account the delicacy of environment, keeping bushwhacking to a minimum.

 

I wonder if this word is part of the problem. From what I can tell it means various things. It means going off-trail while being sensitive to the environment. It means going off trail carelessly and leaving a path of broken branches and disturbed earth. And it means taking a machete to the vegetation. The last definition is the only one I'd known before geocaching.

 

As a newbie, I had trouble understanding what it meant in a cache description when it said, "Some bushwhacking required" (or "No bushwhacking required"). When we got there I couldn't understand why the cache owner meant us to cut a path through the woods when it was perfectly reasonable to simply walk through the area carefully. (I ended up deciding that some people were just crazy-destructive but that we didn't have to be.) Now I know that the word has multiple meanings in the geocaching world and I am comfortable with it. However, I suspect other people may have some of the same confusion I did.

 

Carolyn

 

I think some people are just over enthusiastic and don't spend the time reading guidlines and employing sense. Where I live it takes considerable time for nature to recover as rain falls but once a year, on average. The plants must make the most of it and often depend upon dead plant matter to help them take hold and grow. Open ground isn't the invitation to plant prosperity it is in some states. I don't think some people realize this and think a little bushwhacking won't do much harm. The damage of 30 cachers tearing through the brush can take up to 10 years to recover.

 

There are still many open places to place caches, even in the environmentally sensitive parks, which require no bushwhacking at all. I'm at home on sick today so I'm busying myself with fake rocks and other cover I can place right in the open. No idea when I'll get some of these planted, but I'm always working toward easy access and keeping people on the trails.

[sdarken]

Damage around a cache area can be caused by a couple of people behaving badly (or not knowing any better) or it can be caused by the combined affect of having dozens of people each causing a small amount of damage as they search.

 

A well-hidden cache that's accessible to a lot of people in a fragile location (eg: a carefully landscaped area) is a recipe for problems.

[+sTeamTraen]

I would like to see this added to the list of "Caches may be quickly archived if we see..." section of the guidelines:

Caches placed in such a way that seekers are likely to degrade the environment or structures nearby, even inadvertently

In the meantime, maybe we could all pretend that that's in there anyway.

[Skippermark]

I feel like I've seen everything now (I'm sure I haven't); Pulled apart stumps, trampled underbrush, trails blazed...

I know of a cache in a state we once visited that has high difficulty/high terrain cache that has devious hides in the woods. One of the stages is something very small tucked under a piece of bark on the tree. The hint is "woof." To me that means bark, either slid under the bark, something cammo'd to look like bark...something like that.

 

Another stage is a lock and lock painted to look like a rock and hidden in a rock pile on a very steep slope.

 

The owner went to do maintenance on the cache and was very upset because all the bark was off the tree and rocks had been moved all around at the other stage.

 

Yes, picking apart the tree isn't good, but unintended things can happen when searching.

 

A finder might barely touch a piece of park to see if it's real, and it will break off in his hand because 14 other people have wiggled it before him. He didn't set out to break the bark, but it happened by accident. Or someone thinks they see the container and wiggle it to pull it out of it's hole, but it's really part of the tree.

 

And the rocks, if you zero out in a rock field, you're going to think it's a rock and have to move some aside to find it. I imagine that could get frustrating and some finders might not put them back where they belong, but part of the blame has to go to the hider.

 

If you're going to hide a cache in an area where things like that can happen, then they're as much to blame as the person finding it.

[gojkgo]

WAIT...bears eat grubs? I thought they only ate honey and people and pickanic baskets. Learn something new every day.

 

FWIW, I think the responsibility lies with both cache owners and seekers. It doesn't have to be one thing or another, and it rarely is.

 

Yeah, that's one ugly picture of Ann Coulter, isn't it?

That's awfully redundant.

[+Unkle Fester]

If I read the OP correctly, Uncle Fester is specifically referring to the use of a machete, and if that is true, it is inexcusable. Somebody has been watching too many Indiana Jones movies.

I wasn't singling out just the use of a machete, but it added the needed emphasis and is a practice I have heard of. The trend of destruction in general has disturbed me.

 

I understand the typical geotrail, that's not the problem. But I strongly agree that we need to rethink the word "Bushwhacking"

 

Lots of great discussion here. Lots of things to think about as we move this sport/hobby forward.

[+hudsonfam]

I think that less effort should be spent on figuring out who to blame and more on simply preventing it from happening. If a particular cache is inviting damage, it should be removed - period. Who, how, or why doesn't matter.

 

This is why our environment is in the mess it's in - everyone's so busy pointing their finger in the other direction and waiting for someone else to clean it up.

[+mikehoffman]

Get out the flamethrowers and popcorn, the shows going to begin:

 

[soapbox]

 

Been noticing a trend thats getting worse: The amount of destruction at Ground Zero.

 

I feel like I've seen everything now (I'm sure I haven't); Pulled apart stumps, trampled underbrush, trails blazed...

 

I showed up to a cache a couple weeks ago, I was 3rd to find and it looked like someone came through with a machete that morning and hacked back the vegitation for 30'. I contacted the CO and he was devistated.

 

For those who use a different term, a Machete is a long knife-like blade used to hack back vegitation.

 

I went to a cache on a coin challenge and even though the description clearly says its within arm reach of the trail, you could see fresh geotrails tracking all around the forrest as people blindly followed their GPSr's before letting them settle down. Two days ago I went for a half hearted attempt at a FTF (wasn't real interested) and DNF'd it. Went back yesterday (one day later) and fresh trails are hacked all over the under bush.

 

Holy Cow! Is the Machete the newest, must have geo accessory? I have heard of a couple local cachers carrying them, but is it really needed? Is it the right thing to do?

 

I honestly see why many park managers don't want caches there because of this type of behavior. Are we doing this to ourselves?

 

Is the difficulty level of finding some caches so great that people feel the need to tear up the surroundings to remove possible hiding spots? I live by the "tread lightly" theory and that may be why I have so many FTDNF's (First To Did Not Find). I will go in, peek around, maybe pull aside some branches or poke around the moss, but I do draw a line. If I'm getting the feeling I need to tear everything apart, I won't do it. Sadly, I know if I return in a couple days, everything will be pulled apart fo me, exposed and the find much easier.

 

Now, I've been caching for just over a year, and I have seen some messed up search area's, but it seems to me this is a trend that is getting worse. We do have a responsability... I would think.

 

[/soapbox]

i machete is a must have for me.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

If I read the OP correctly, Uncle Fester is specifically referring to the use of a machete, and if that is true, it is inexcusable. Somebody has been watching too many Indiana Jones movies.

 

I've seen plenty of damage done then a machete wasn't used. I was looking for a cache a few weeks ago that was part of a series (get a number from seven different caches to get a complete set of coordinates for a mystery cache). When I arrived in the area I found that the signal bounce was worse than normal event though there wasn't a lot of tree cover. Once my GPS settled down it lead me to a somewhat open area so I expanded my search a bit. I then noticed that just about every tree in a 100' radius had some of the bark ripped off it Many of the trees had hidey holes in them and it was obvious that someone (or more than one person) figured the cache must be in one of them. It sounds pretty bad but it gets even worse. The cache was hidden in an old cemetary.

[+geodarts]

I have certainly seen caches placed in a rocky, wooded area where gpsr reception will vary, with a hint like "touching rock" (if that). While I would like to think that everyone who searches there would be very careful, the end result is a predictable group of overturned rocks and broken branches.

 

I have seen caches placed directly in areas infected with Sudden Oak Death. Again, I would like to think that anyone who comes there (particularly when the trails are wet) would clean and disinfect their shoes to limit the spread of the disease, but somehow I doubt it.

 

Cache owners need to think about where the container is being placed. Cache finders need to be aware of their impact upon an area. Its not an either/or situation.

[+texasgrillchef]

I think I side with team GPSax on this one. To continue the gun analogy, while the gun manufacture (the company that makes Bison tubes in Geo-terms) isn't responsible, the range that invites you to shoot (cache owner) should make sure the back stop is safe (appropriate location).

 

While I agree with this concept 100%.... I don't think that is what the OP was getting at.

 

Example... Placing a cache in an URBAN GARDEN obvioulsy wasn't designed to handle a ton of geocachers.

 

Yet... the OP was ALSO refering to cache/hides that are out in state/city parks that are off the "Trail" system. This is where the geocache HUNTER is responsible for NOT using a machette and hacking down the forest to get to the cache/hide that is located in a nice wilderness area of a State &/or city park.

 

It goes both ways... CO's SHOULD take responsibilty for WHERE they put their caches. However... geocache hunters should NOT be using lawn mowers, machettes and other tools to CREATE a path to GZ, or be doing anything out of the oridnary to find the cache.

 

One example I will give. In our area a CO put a cache hide under some trees. To get there you had to hike yourself across a huge field of waist to chest high grass. Now JUST walking through it automatically creates a "Trail". When my wife, & beagle were making our way back from the cache/hide to the city created trail system. We easily followed our way "home" from just the path we INADVERTANTLY created walking through the grass. We tried to MINIMIZE that path as much as possible. Yet their is only so much we could do. So in that respects a CO would in my opinion be responsible for that kind of path..... WHAT the CO would NOT be responsible for... is if I brought along my handy dandy Troy-Bilt "Brush Mower" and MOWED my way through the field. THAT would NOT be cool.... and in that case I would be the responsible party... NOT the CO.

 

See my point?

 

It's that mowing, or use of a machette or any other power tool, or piece of lawn equipment that the OP was complaining about being used!

[+Kit Fox]

While I see your reasoning, Team GPSaxophone, I think the issue is the difference between using one's eyes and brain, vs the "scorched earth" method. Just the way I am interpreting this.....

That is a much better way of putting it than I did... The ultimate responsibility lies on the shoulders of the end user. EVERYONE needs to be responsible for their own actions. A lot of people think I am a total a** for my views, but I have never been one to blame others for my actions. Now that I have stirred the pot some more... I shall fade away into the night

 

Keep in mind that the careless and foolish "scorched earth cachers" would have never visited that particular spot had you not place cache there in the first place.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/hiding.aspx

 

 

When thinking about where to place a cache, keep these things in mind:

You are ultimately responsible for the cache so make sure you know the rules for the area where your cache is being placed. Respect the area around your chosen location. Keep in mind that others will be walking in these areas.

 

If it's the location of a wild animal nest, or if it is off-trail with delicate ground cover, too much activity may damage the very nature of why this area is cool.

Do not place caches on archaeological or historical sites. In most cases these areas are highly sensitive to the extra traffic that would be caused by vehicles and humans.

[+Unkle Fester]

While I see your reasoning, Team GPSaxophone, I think the issue is the difference between using one's eyes and brain, vs the "scorched earth" method. Just the way I am interpreting this.....

That is a much better way of putting it than I did... The ultimate responsibility lies on the shoulders of the end user. EVERYONE needs to be responsible for their own actions. A lot of people think I am a total a** for my views, but I have never been one to blame others for my actions. Now that I have stirred the pot some more... I shall fade away into the night

 

Keep in mind that the careless and foolish "scorched earth cachers" would have never visited that particular spot had you not place cache there in the first place.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/hiding.aspx

 

 

When thinking about where to place a cache, keep these things in mind:

You are ultimately responsible for the cache so make sure you know the rules for the area where your cache is being placed. Respect the area around your chosen location. Keep in mind that others will be walking in these areas.

 

If it's the location of a wild animal nest, or if it is off-trail with delicate ground cover, too much activity may damage the very nature of why this area is cool.

Do not place caches on archaeological or historical sites. In most cases these areas are highly sensitive to the extra traffic that would be caused by vehicles and humans.

So if I have to worry about my hide and the scorched earth cachers, what is my incentive to doing anything beyond an LPC?

 

Should someone elses reckless searching habits prevent me from placing a cache where reasonable people will search in a reasonable manner?

 

Why should others suffer, and why should I suffer from the effects of the inconsiderate scorched earth cacher?

 

This could become one of those issues that hinders caching in the future. But how then do you educate the masses? I'll be honest, I have little tollerence for those without a common courtesy. Even public land is owned by someone (even if it's the taxpayer)

[+Woodstramp]

I've been watching the decomposition of a LP skirt micro for a couple of weeks. Kind of like one of those time lapse studies of an animal in decay. It just happens to be next to a stop light on my way to work. This LP skirt is plastic. When I first counted coup on this hide the skirt was tilted. I did a "peek-a-boo-gotcha" on it, put the skirt back down and left. A week later half the skirt was on the ground. Now both halves are on the ground.

[+Isonzo Karst]

a trend thats getting worse: The amount of destruction at Ground Zero.

 

Worse only in the sense that more people geocaching means more traffic at Ground Zero. Lots of cacher turnover, with each new generation of cachers making the same errors over and over - and in greater and greater numbers. Most finders are novices, and many hiders are. This is one of the fundamental weaknesses of the sport.

 

Your example of the user trails developing, "even though the description clearly says its within arm reach of the trail, you could see fresh geotrails tracking all around the forrest as people blindly followed their GPSr's before letting them settle down" is classic. I saw this recently at an event - the cache, a novice hide, in the thick tall grass of a temporarily dry lake bed (! like it's never going to start raining!) and the cachers, thrashing around, trampling that grass in all directions. In this particular area, the beat up GZ hardly matters, it's lake bed now, but mostly that's the norm for GZ, everything in a largish circle around GZ is going to be moved, or stepped on.

 

People are big animals, who inherently do not tread lightly. Sadly, many hiders are poorly equipt to understand the impact of even a few searches of the site. I think it IS the cache owner's responsibility to think about the impact of searchers, and to consider that some searchers will be clumsy. Because some searchers will be clumsy.

[Clan Riffster]

Yeah, that's one ugly picture of Ann Coulter, isn't it?

No, the hair's all wrong. Ann's a blonde. The avatar in question is clearly a brunette.

My guess? Nancy Pelosi. The makeup suggests a high moonbat factor, indicative of Nancy's political muse.

 

Back on topic: (to avoid further Left Wing chastisement)

As a Libertarian minded personality, I tend to lean toward holding folks responsible for their own actions, not the actions of others. While I might shake my head at someone placing a cache in a sensitive area, so long as they do so without damaging that area, I really can't find it in my heart to hold them accountable for the actions of some mook who practices scorched earth cache finding techniques. As a 6'02", 330# ole crippled guy, I figure if I can search an area leaving no trace, (or call a DNF if I feel I can't), I figure dang near everybody else should be able to do so as well.

[+chrisrayn]

I think I side with team GPSax on this one. To continue the gun analogy, while the gun manufacture (the company that makes Bison tubes in Geo-terms) isn't responsible, the range that invites you to shoot (cache owner) should make sure the back stop is safe (appropriate location).

 

And that, children, is what we call an extended metaphor.

[+Kit Fox]

So if I have to worry about my hide and the scorched earth cachers, what is my incentive to doing anything beyond an LPC?

 

Please don't

 

Should someone elses reckless searching habits prevent me from placing a cache where reasonable people will search in a reasonable manner?

 

Figure out the key to making "scorched earth cachers" avoid your caches, everyone else will enjoy them, only with less destruction. My solution was hide more puzzle caches, and more caches requiring hiking boots and backpacks. This reduced the destruction by 90%.

 

Why should others suffer, and why should I suffer from the effects of the inconsiderate scorched earth cacher?

 

This could become one of those issues that hinders caching in the future. But how then do you educate the masses? I'll be honest, I have little tollerence for those without a common courtesy. Even public land is owned by someone (even if it's the taxpayer)

 

The underlying problem is the fact that many geocachers consider your cache to be nothing more than "yet another smiley," and they will do anything to find it. These are the same clueless fools that purposely hop fences at night time to get FTFs on caches hidden in parks closed at sunset (then brag about it on the cache page). The facts are sad, but i've managed to dodge the stupidity factor by hiding caches that "scorched earth cachers" don't like to find.

[+sbell111]

So if I have to worry about my hide and the scorched earth cachers, what is my incentive to doing anything beyond an LPC?

 

Should someone elses reckless searching habits prevent me from placing a cache where reasonable people will search in a reasonable manner?

 

Why should others suffer, and why should I suffer from the effects of the inconsiderate scorched earth cacher?

 

This could become one of those issues that hinders caching in the future. But how then do you educate the masses? I'll be honest, I have little tollerence for those without a common courtesy. Even public land is owned by someone (even if it's the taxpayer)

This post depends on the premise that one inconsiderate cacher spoils it for the rest of us. This differs from your original rant which was that lots of geocachers are blazing trails, etc. I certainly agree with those that make the point that if you are placing a cache in a location that cannot handle lots of visitors, then you should rethink your hide. This, in my opinion, is the point that you are arguing against in the quoted post above. While I agree with you that you will never be able to stop that one reckless person from being stupid (and if that's the case, why rant about it?), that doesn't change the logic of the argument that the cache owner brings people to the location, so is responsible for ensuring that the location can handle the traffic.

 

Also, I think it's fair to add that I have cached in lots of areas. Many of which I really wish that I had brought a machete with me. In these specific locations, I really do not believe that the fantasized trailblazing would have done any real damage. I am not one who believes that we should have to tip toe through the forest to ensure that we don't accidently knock a leaf off a bush.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

The key behind eliminating "scorched earth" cachers is figuring out how many cachers will look for your cache in that first few days or weeks and making sure you're hiding the cache in an area that can support that much foot traffic.

 

If I hide a cache in the mountains I may get 10 visitors the first few weeks and then one or two every week. If I hide a cache in town I'll probably get 40 visitors the first few weeks and 5 more every week afterwards. Obviously my in-town caches need to be easier to find so I don't have that many people turning over every rock.

Edited August 12, 2009 by Team GPSaxophone

[+MsMotorcycle]

I must say, when I started as a letterboxer several years ago, I can't remember a time when I saw a "geo-trail" of any kind, ever. I was never aware of such a thing until I started geocaching. I know the main difference is that there are far fewer letterboxers and far fewer boxes are published on the www.

 

Just the other day, I noticed one cache had 4 geo-trails leading to it, 3 were unnecessary in my opinion, for if cachers would just take a moment and take their eyes off the GPSr, they would see the trail into the woods that obviously leads to the cache. At GZ of this same cache, there was a young tree broken in half and I'm no tree expert, but it looked very healthy from what I could see of its insides.

 

It's like anything I suppose, it starts out great and along the way people ruin things by acting less responsible than they should until someone steps in and says, "OK here are the new rules." I can clearly see a day in the future when it will be monitored more heavily, perhaps with a reviewer needing to visit the cache personally before approving it. Which would mean more reviewers would be needed, for sure.

 

I will admit, when I was a new cacher, I would often come upon a spot which made me think, "This would make a great place for a cache." And that would be the end of the thought. I realize now that I'm a bit more experienced that there is much more thought that needs to go into placing a cache.

 

I personally feel it is more fun to find a cache without a geo-trail.

Happy caching!

[gojkgo]

So why doesn't Groundspeak use their unique position to hammer home the "leave no trace" concept? Their site is in front of the eyes of most geocachers. Yet when I look through the "Getting Started" and "How to find a Geocache" type pages, there is at best some brief and somewhat vague mentions of being respectful of the environment. Most of the environmental messages seem to orbit CITO, which is also very important, but basic edicts about leaving no trace, and how to do that, seem necessary. Break nothing. Crush nothing. Change nothing. Replace anything you move exactly as you found it. I.e., leave no trace. For those with a bit more common sense and environmental sensitivity, it would serve as a reminder.

 

GS could infuse their site with the "Leave no trace" concept, which could only benefit both the game and the environments in which its played. This concept could be highlighted in all pages devoted to helping newbies get started, as well as search pages and even cache listing pages. The message seems important and GS seems to be in the best position to get it out to everyone.

[Skippermark]

I think that less effort should be spent on figuring out who to blame and more on simply preventing it from happening. If a particular cache is inviting damage, it should be removed - period. Who, how, or why doesn't matter.

Are you suggesting someone take a cache that doesn't belong to them?