Fire Tacks... damage to public or private property?

June 8, 2010

I have noticed a bit of hypocrisy when it comes to night caches that is somehow overlooked by the fake hippie types. The ones that think that walking on wild grass is damaging the eco system and now cry when they see a baby seal (but only since they started geocaching)!

Why is it 100% acceptable to people to place fire tacks in trees, but if a person were to nail something into a tree or screw an apparatus into a tree then they immediately are taken to task by cachers and reviewers alike?

Let's hear the weigh in!

June 8, 2010

I have noticed a bit of hypocrisy when it comes to night caches that is somehow overlooked by the fake hippie types. The ones that think that walking on wild grass is damaging the eco system and now cry when they see a baby seal (but only since they started geocaching)!

Why is it 100% acceptable to people to place fire tacks in trees, but if a person were to nail something into a tree or screw an apparatus into a tree then they immediately are taken to task by cachers and reviewers alike?

Let's hear the weigh in!

Now that you mention it, it is a bit odd.

I know nothing specific about fire tacks but if they are indeed just tacks then I have stepped on a tack.

It didn't kill me (hurt like heck).

I think driving a screw or nail into me might hurt me a little more.

(I have been compared to a tree by my wife a few times. I just stand there and drop stuff that she has to pick up)

That's the only reason I can think of.

June 8, 2010

Not a bad start. So we have "It would hurt more!" as our opening position.

22k · June 8, 2010

I have noticed a bit of hypocrisy when it comes to night caches that is somehow overlooked by the fake hippie types. The ones that think that walking on wild grass is damaging the eco system and now cry when they see a baby seal (but only since they started geocaching)!

Why is it 100% acceptable to people to place fire tacks in trees, but if a person were to nail something into a tree or screw an apparatus into a tree then they immediately are taken to task by cachers and reviewers alike?

Let's hear the weigh in!

Lemme guess, you nailed/screwed up a cache someplace.

June 8, 2010

Lemme guess, you nailed/screwed up a cache someplace.

Nope.

Edited June 8, 2010 by Flintstone5611

8.6k · June 8, 2010

Not that I am right... 'cuz I'm only right some of the time...

My guess would be that firetacks would not reach deep enough into the tree to have any effect upon it's life-sustaining function. They reach only into the bark and as such are not known to cause any actual damage to the tree.

A screw or a bolt is made to support weight, thereby reaching deeper (beyond the bark and possibly into or through the cambium layer), causing true and actual damage to the tree. These devices actually cut and remove wood fibers to make way for the threads.

Maybe splitting hair, but at least it is a splittable hair! :unsure:

June 8, 2010

Not a bad start. So we have "It would hurt more!" as our opening position.

I'm on your side. Try not to alienate people on your side.

June 8, 2010

Not that I am right... 'cuz I'm only right some of the time...

My guess would be that firetacks would not reach deep enough into the tree to have any effect upon it's life-sustaining function. They reach only into the bark and as such are not known to cause any actual damage to the tree.

A screw or a bolt is made to support weight, thereby reaching deeper (beyond the bark and possibly into or through the cambium layer), causing true and actual damage to the tree. These devices actually cut and remove wood fibers to make way for the threads.

Maybe splitting hair, but at least it is a splittable hair!

Kinda what i was trying to say. But said much better.

22k · June 8, 2010

Lemme guess, you nailed/screwed up a cache someplace.

Nope.

Then why the angst?

1.5k · June 8, 2010

So, let's take a look at Vermont, where every spring, maple syrup makers drive hundreds of taps into maple sugar trees to collect the sap. Yes, they pull them out, but haven't seen where they put a healing plug in the tree. And, they are much bigger than a nail or screw. Haven't seen all those maples dying off.

And, don't get me started on woodpeckers :unsure:

2.7k · June 8, 2010

From what I'm aware, firetacks are permitted because they do not cause permanent harm to the trees.

Nails and screws can also be manufactured with metals that *poison* the tree (like copper) whereas firetacks are designed with use on trees as the primary function - so one would imagine they should be constructed using inert materials.

Another thing to note is that land managers are used to seeing firetacks used by hunters (who pay for a hunting licence, therefore help sustain the finances of the parks), while the sight of someone in the woods with a cordless drill is a bit less usual (hence scary/unreasonable).

You should eventually be able to remove all traces of your geocache, once it comes time to archive it. The hole in the bark of a firetack will go away fairly soon, whereas, say a 1" hole drilled into a tree, or the mark from a 2" concrete screw, will be there long after the hunt has concluded.

June 8, 2010

I'm on your side. Try not to alienate people on your side.

Sorry, I thought you were starting us off with some candor as well!

I wasn't trying to be sarcastic, although in retrospect it would appear that way. It is just that I have had a couple disccusions on the issue and it often (and humourously) comes down to the "feelings" of the tree.

I am sure that anyone that has walked through a forest has stumbled across a tree that has "consumed" an old farmers fence. It just makes me laugh when I see people up in arms about one nail. Didn't anyone have a treehouse growing up? How did we hold them up? Coat hangers covered in camo duct tape?

You gotta love the double standard!

June 8, 2010

Lemme guess, you nailed/screwed up a cache someplace.

Nope.

Then why the angst?

No angst at all, but plenty of curiousity!

8.6k · June 8, 2010

So, let's take a look at Vermont, where every spring, maple syrup makers drive hundreds of taps into maple sugar trees to collect the sap. Yes, they pull them out, but haven't seen where they put a healing plug in the tree. And, they are much bigger than a nail or screw. Haven't seen all those maples dying off.

And, don't get me started on woodpeckers

This is true, but most likely the trees belong to them, eh? Outside of that, the sap collectors are very careful in the placement of the tap. A learned process, because placing a tap wrongly just may kill or at least shorten the lifespan/productivity of that tree.

BTW Ontario produces far more Maple Syrup than Vermont. They just advertise less. :lol:

June 8, 2010

I have seen trees growing around barbed wire, fences, and other structures and these trees are fine. I don't think a nail or a screw would hurt the tree, but at the same time, it should be done with respect and taste.

Nailing or screwing a piece of garbage to a tree is a bad idea. Meaning, just something ridiculous. I see nothing wrong with hanging a fake bird house to a tree. People hang real bird houses from trees all the time. I think limiting the amount of holes in a tree is a major reason to refrain from putting something into a tree.

if you were going to put anything in a tree, I would do something zinc coated, because the zinc is beneficial to trees.

Edited June 8, 2010 by mchaos

2.7k · June 8, 2010

I am sure that anyone that has walked through a forest has stumbled across a tree that has "consumed" an old farmers fence. It just makes me laugh when I see people up in arms about one nail. Didn't anyone have a treehouse growing up? How did we hold them up? Coat hangers covered in camo duct tape?

Be careful. The trees will happily go after people too:

From Waymark (in Toronto!): http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WM64MH_..._Toronto_Canada

2.7k · June 8, 2010

BTW Ontario produces far more Maple Syrup than Vermont. They just advertise less.

No need to advertise it here .... you gotta be quick if you want any. Sells out fast, just with the locals!

19k · June 8, 2010

I have noticed a bit of hypocrisy when it comes to night caches that is somehow overlooked by the fake hippie types. The ones that think that walking on wild grass is damaging the eco system and now cry when they see a baby seal (but only since they started geocaching)!

Why is it 100% acceptable to people to place fire tacks in trees, but if a person were to nail something into a tree or screw an apparatus into a tree then they immediately are taken to task by cachers and reviewers alike?

Let's hear the weigh in!

Somewhat overlooked by the what??? I agree with you about the overzealous amateur ecologists predicting gloom and doom, but please.... "fake hippie types"?

Really, the main argument against fasteners is trees is (pardon me here) "fake hippie type" land managers. I even created a thread here called "Hungry trees" that shows pictures of trees "eating" metal items. The trees themselves are not really the problem... the land manager's perception, however, is.

Firetacks, since they rarely even penetrate the outer bark, are not perceived as a threat by said land managers, apparently.

June 8, 2010

I am sure that anyone that has walked through a forest has stumbled across a tree that has "consumed" an old farmers fence. It just makes me laugh when I see people up in arms about one nail. Didn't anyone have a treehouse growing up? How did we hold them up? Coat hangers covered in camo duct tape?

Be careful. The trees will happily go after people too:

From Waymark (in Toronto!): http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WM64MH_..._Toronto_Canada

Now that is awesome!!

June 8, 2010

Somewhat overlooked by the what??? I agree with you about the overzealous amateur ecologists predicting gloom and doom, but please.... "fake hippie types"?

Really, the main argument against fasteners is trees is (pardon me here) "fake hippie type" land managers. I even created a thread here called "Hungry trees" that shows pictures of trees "eating" metal items. The trees themselves are not really the problem... the land manager's perception, however, is.

Firetacks, since they rarely even penetrate the outer bark, are not perceived as a threat by said land managers, apparently.

Really?? I have heard of a number of caches being antagonized and even archived because of this, but not at the request of the land managers...well at least not up here. I know the legislation is different in the USA. But an interesting opinion nonetheless!!

June 8, 2010

Firetacks, since they rarely even penetrate the outer bark, are not perceived as a threat by said land managers, apparently.

Yes, I believe this is what causes the double standard.

Of course, I guess it would also depend upon the tree you put the firetack or nail into. A 100 year old oak tree that I can't put my arms around probably isn't going to be hurt by a firetack or a nail. A year old sapling that I can encircle with my thumb and index finger might, although I seriously doubt it would be enough damage to seriously hurt or kill the tree.

People just need to use common sense.

8.6k · June 8, 2010

Is a cache fairly local to us that is placed nearby to a maple tree that is eating a highway guardrail. It has just about fully engulfed the rail into the tree. It makes the above photo look like a puppet show (almost). :lol:

Not naming or posting photo because of it's spoiler attitude. Sorry. :unsure:

EDIT: stoopid typo

Edited June 8, 2010 by Gitchee-Gummee

June 8, 2010

I am sure that anyone that has walked through a forest has stumbled across a tree that has "consumed" an old farmers fence. It just makes me laugh when I see people up in arms about one nail. Didn't anyone have a treehouse growing up? How did we hold them up? Coat hangers covered in camo duct tape?

Be careful. The trees will happily go after people too:

From Waymark (in Toronto!): http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WM64MH_..._Toronto_Canada

Now that is awesome!!

If you like that, check out the thread the dog with glasses started. Good stuff there.

June 8, 2010

If you like that, check out the thread the dog with glasses started. Good stuff there.

I already read way to many of his threads, lol. The last thing I need to do is search through them all. Could you post a link, it still sounds neat!

June 8, 2010

I have noticed a bit of hypocrisy when it comes to night caches that is somehow overlooked by the fake hippie types. The ones that think that walking on wild grass is damaging the eco system and now cry when they see a baby seal (but only since they started geocaching)!

Why is it 100% acceptable to people to place fire tacks in trees, but if a person were to nail something into a tree or screw an apparatus into a tree then they immediately are taken to task by cachers and reviewers alike?

Let's hear the weigh in!

First of all, I am a real hippie, with a buzz cut though. Secondly, when I lay awake late at night with my windows open, I can hear the sad moans of all the trees with tacks stuck in them(but I'm sure they glisten nicely in the moonlight).

Sure its just a little tack but put one in your arm and leave it there...how's it feel?

Good discussion to bring up Flintstone5611.

Would it fall under this kind of thing:

* Caches that deface public or private property, whether a natural or man-made object, in order to provide a hiding place, a clue or a logging method. *

7k · June 8, 2010

to my understanding, it isn't strictly "forbidden" to put a nail in a tree for a geocache. the guidelines only talk about "pointy" objects in conjunction with burying caches (or digging them out).

but of course i may be wrong.

PS: ah, just a minute late. this point of guidelines does seem relevant, but does a simple nail really count as "defacement"?

Edited June 8, 2010 by dfx

22k · June 8, 2010

Lemme guess, you nailed/screwed up a cache someplace.

Nope.

Then why the angst?

No angst at all, ...<snip>

Not even a little bit? :unsure:

June 8, 2010

Would it fall under this kind of thing:

* Caches that deface public or private property, whether a natural or man-made object, in order to provide a hiding place, a clue or a logging method. *

Ba-Zing! Who brought the red hot fire poker?!?

6.1k · June 8, 2010

Fire tacks are much smaller and easily removable, plus you do not need a hammer to install them. As a safety item, they prevent people from stumbling into trees and poles at night..

All the state forest rangers around here use nails to hang signs onto trees. They get away with it because they're the state forest rangers..

Edited June 8, 2010 by 4wheelin_fool

8.6k · June 8, 2010

Would it fall under this kind of thing:

* Caches that deface public or private property, whether a natural or man-made object, in order to provide a hiding place, a clue or a logging method. *

Ba-Zing! Who brought the red hot fire poker?!?

Might be a context problem with that.

A firetack would be considered a trailmarker, and that doesn't necessarily equate to anything listed there.

It's not a hiding place, or a clue and probably not a logging method.

Just sayin'...

EDIT: Just so you know, I am neither for nor against their use. Just playin' devil's advocate. :unsure:

Edited June 8, 2010 by Gitchee-Gummee

June 8, 2010

Not even a little bit?

In all honesty...none! I was thinking about how much more I have learned about the environment since I started geocaching (just a short time ago) and the relationship that we as geocachers have with our surroundings. Some have a very good geo-sense about them and others unfortunately don't.

In my efforts to cause a little trouble, I meditated on this and wanted to hear how people in the community felt. I don't have any caches that involve nails/screws and wildlife, nor am I really torn on the issue myself. I have an opinion, but I am here to get everyone elses. :unsure:

June 8, 2010

Wouldn't a fire tack be considered a "clue" as it directs you to the cache?

June 8, 2010

Might be a context problem with that.

A firetack would be considered a trailmarker, and that doesn't necessarily equate to anything listed there.

It's not a hiding place, or a clue and probably not a logging method.

Just sayin'...

EDIT: Just so you know, I am neither for nor against their use. Just playin' devil's advocate.

IMHO when you are searching for something and "someone" provides you a trail to it...that's a clue!

8.6k · June 8, 2010

Wouldn't a fire tack be considered a "clue" as it directs you to the cache?

Point of view, maybe, maybe not.

It marks a trail. Is marking a trail a clue? I just don't think so.

2.7k · June 8, 2010

Wouldn't a fire tack be considered a "clue" as it directs you to the cache?

I've had to post a hidden waypoint for each and every fire tack in the past as a "stages of a multicache" so, yes I would say they count as part of the hide.

Nowadays I use the "reference point" mark when I use them.

I don't call it defacing public property, as I can remove them without a trace quite easily - and I have done just that when decommissioning my earlier night caches.

June 8, 2010

Wouldn't a fire tack be considered a "clue" as it directs you to the cache?

I've had to post a hidden waypoint for each and every fire tack in the past as a "stages of a multicache" so, yes I would say they count as part of the hide.

Nowadays I use the "reference point" mark when I use them.

I don't call it defacing public property, as I can remove them without a trace quite easily - and I have done just that when decommissioning my earlier night caches.

Define defacing. Along the context of using a nail...not a 1" hole in a tree.

19k · June 8, 2010

If you like that, check out the thread the dog with glasses started. Good stuff there.

I already read way to many of his threads, lol. The last thing I need to do is search through them all. Could you post a link, it still sounds neat!

April 1, 2009, subject, "Hungry Trees".

June 8, 2010

If you like that, check out the thread the dog with glasses started. Good stuff there.

I already read way to many of his threads, lol. The last thing I need to do is search through them all. Could you post a link, it still sounds neat!

Ask the dog. It really is a very cool thread.

I'm too lazy to look up stuff and provide links.

(on edit)Dammit! He posted the link while I was typing.

Edited June 8, 2010 by brslk

June 8, 2010

If you like that, check out the thread the dog with glasses started. Good stuff there.

I already read way to many of his threads, lol. The last thing I need to do is search through them all. Could you post a link, it still sounds neat!

April 1, 2009, subject, "Hungry Trees".

Great thanks!!

19k · June 8, 2010

Wouldn't a fire tack be considered a "clue" as it directs you to the cache?

I've had to post a hidden waypoint for each and every fire tack in the past as a "stages of a multicache" so, yes I would say they count as part of the hide.

Nowadays I use the "reference point" mark when I use them.

I don't call it defacing public property, as I can remove them without a trace quite easily - and I have done just that when decommissioning my earlier night caches.

I guess, then, that it is either up to the reviewer, or in how you log those child waypoints, because I have done two night caches that had so many tacks and strips of reflective tape that the cache owner would have had to take months to write up the cache submission form, if he had to report each one.

2.7k · June 8, 2010

Wouldn't a fire tack be considered a "clue" as it directs you to the cache?

I've had to post a hidden waypoint for each and every fire tack in the past as a "stages of a multicache" so, yes I would say they count as part of the hide.

Nowadays I use the "reference point" mark when I use them.

I don't call it defacing public property, as I can remove them without a trace quite easily - and I have done just that when decommissioning my earlier night caches.

I guess, then, that it is either up to the reviewer, or in how you log those child waypoints, because I have done two night caches that had so many tacks and strips of reflective tape that the cache owner would have had to take months to write up the cache submission form, if he had to report each one.

Yeah. The first one had a lot of firetacks. And it took a looooooooong time to submit that one.

June 8, 2010

A tree growing naturally around a man made object is not the same as someone drilling a hole or hammering a nail into a part that's already grown.

Having said that, I'm not a tree surgeon nor have I ever played one on TV so I don't fully know the affects of putting a nail, screw or even a tack in a tree. If I were a land manager I'd probably want to err on the side of caution.

2.7k · June 8, 2010

Wouldn't a fire tack be considered a "clue" as it directs you to the cache?

I've had to post a hidden waypoint for each and every fire tack in the past as a "stages of a multicache" so, yes I would say they count as part of the hide.

Nowadays I use the "reference point" mark when I use them.

I don't call it defacing public property, as I can remove them without a trace quite easily - and I have done just that when decommissioning my earlier night caches.

Define defacing. Along the context of using a nail...not a 1" hole in a tree.

I don't use nails. A copper nail can kill the tree -- and that's a pretty good example of defacing a tree. A firetack leaves a 1mm x 5mm hole typically, which disappears pretty soon after the tack is removed.

I suspect one major reason for the "no nails" rule is that it is a lot easier to say "no nails" than "please ensure the nail you are using is safe for the tree".

On the other extreme, I remember howls of protest over a cache screwed to a tree near the Seaton Trail. The screw used was a typical 1" screw. The MTO already had 1.5" lag bolts going right through the same tree to hold up the "NO PARKING" sign. The cache was archived before the first person found it.

19k · June 8, 2010

A tree growing naturally around a man made object is not the same as someone drilling a hole or hammering a nail into a part that's already grown.

Having said that, I'm not a tree surgeon nor have I ever played one on TV so I don't fully know the affects of putting a nail, screw or even a tack in a tree. If I were a land manager I'd probably want to err on the side of caution.

Google is your friend. It doesn't hurt the trees. It does apparently hurt the land managers, and that is what really matters.

8.3k · June 8, 2010

So, let's take a look at Vermont, where every spring, maple syrup makers drive hundreds of taps into maple sugar trees to collect the sap. Yes, they pull them out, but haven't seen where they put a healing plug in the tree. And, they are much bigger than a nail or screw. Haven't seen all those maples dying off.

And, don't get me started on woodpeckers

Ahhh, but those woodpeckers are natural so that is okay. Now if you were to stick a keycase on the bottom of one of the sap collection pails you would be committing such a heinous sin that only [insert favorite deity] could possibly forgive.

But of course we really don't nail those tack to a tree. We use wonder glue. :lol:

19k · June 8, 2010

Wouldn't a fire tack be considered a "clue" as it directs you to the cache?

I've had to post a hidden waypoint for each and every fire tack in the past as a "stages of a multicache" so, yes I would say they count as part of the hide.

Nowadays I use the "reference point" mark when I use them.

I don't call it defacing public property, as I can remove them without a trace quite easily - and I have done just that when decommissioning my earlier night caches.

Define defacing. Along the context of using a nail...not a 1" hole in a tree.

I don't use nails. A copper nail can kill the tree

Even that is a myth, based on what I have researched. ****MAYBE*** (maybemaybemaybe) hundreds of copper nails, but even that is ridiculed by many that seem to have some insight into what makes trees grow. Again, the issue is one of human perception (re: land managers).

June 8, 2010

I don't use nails. A copper nail can kill the tree -- and that's a pretty good example of defacing a tree. A firetack leaves a 1mm x 5mm hole typically, which disappears pretty soon after the tack is removed.

I suspect one major reason for the "no nails" rule is that it is a lot easier to say "no nails" than "please ensure the nail you are using is safe for the tree".

On the other extreme, I remember howls of protest over a cache screwed to a tree near the Seaton Trail. The screw used was a typical 1" screw. The MTO already had 1.5" lag bolts going right through the same tree to hold up the "NO PARKING" sign. The cache was archived before the first person found it.

In reality there are some people that (through sheer ignorance) don't recognize the affect of certain materials on wildlife; if someone made that mistake it would take one log to educate that person and correct the matter (hopefully).

The example you stated (with the MTO signage) is the other side of the coin that I am choosing to prod. Wiped clean with extreme prejudice, it is puzzling!

2.7k · June 8, 2010

hundreds of copper nails, but even that is ridiculed by many that seem to have some insight into what makes trees grow. Again, the issue is one of human perception (re: land managers).

You're probably right. But nothing can kill geocaching faster than a land manager. Especially those 1" copper land managers :unsure:

June 8, 2010

Google is your friend. It doesn't hurt the trees. It does apparently hurt the land managers, and that is what really matters.

LOL!

June 8, 2010

You're probably right. But nothing can kill geocaching faster than a land manager. Especially those 1" copper land managers

Double LOL, and a golf clap!!

Fire Tacks... damage to public or private property?

Recommended Posts

Join the conversation