Unauthorized trails

[+ConsHaltonCache]

Bellow is a rant I posted as a note on a cache in one of my employers parks. I know I'm ranting but it just really bothers me that people have so blatant disregard for a natural area and blatantly ignore not only the cache owners notes but the on the ground signs too.

 

Just stay on the trails. Seriously. Disregard it like this and you ARE ruining it for everyone else.

 

I was doing some fieldwork in this area today and was EXTREMELY disappointed to see that peoples have been continuing to go OF THE TRAIL.

 

I'm going on a bit of a rant here but it is the principal behind this that has me so upset. (sorry for the rant Dex, this no way reflects your cache placement, only the mentality of so many who have come this way). First off let me say I like the placement of this cache and love the area its hidden. The blatant disregard to the park habitats and regulations is what is so upsetting. This rant goes for anyone who does this, just happens to be geocachers in this one instance. I came to this area at least 4 times last summer and very obviously (and REPEATEDLY) placed woody debris to keep people on the train and going in the right direction. After that failed I added a laminated sign. Not only did people ignore the SIGN I placed but they ignored the OBVIOUSLY and PURPOSEFULLY PLACED woody debris but they have CLEARED the wood away to create their own path and the sign is now gone. Seriously people. The trail goes the way it goes for a reason! It will only take you an extra minute or two to take the trail around to your destination. I KNOW it is geocachers doing this diversion from the trail because before the cache was located here there was not a unauthorized trail going this way and this is the location your GPS will tell you to go (and its a very different direction than the trail appears to be going). Like the listing says the trail will get you to the cache!! Just follow the loop around down the hill. The trail loops around for a reason and it will likely take you just as long to tumble down the steep part of the hill and through the shrubs than it would to just FOLLOW THE TRAIL. If you leave the trails within the park you can be charged with trespassing. This trail goes the way it does mainly to provide YOU with an enjoyable and safe route down the hill but many of the areas in our park contain extremely sensitive species that you could destroy by leaving the trail. I may see if the park can install a permanent sign at this location (but I didn't think we would have to do something that extreme) but if the park manager feels it it to costly then the cache may have to be relocated or retired (which I do not want to happen). Leaving the trails not only hurts the local environment but it hurts your fellow geocachers and the game as a whole. When an area is CLEARLY closed do not disregard this. We do prefer geocaches to be placed within reach of the trail but have allowed placement of geocaches up to 10 M away from the trail in areas without sensitive habitats but do not bushwhack any further than this! There are some preexisting caches that are farther than this from the trail but these are being reviewed on a site by site basis and may be re-located as needed. ANY cache leading to this type of unauthorized trail creation will be retired or relocated. I've had a great time meeting some of the geocaching community and very much enjoyed the places my own caching has taken me but it's these destructive activities that really disappoint me and paint the game in a bad light for others. I've been trying to be very pro-cahce placement in our parks but this kind of destructive activity will be taken into account for any future placements and the review of existing caches.

 

Frankly, I'm still shocked at the blatant disregard the geocachers have shown to an area that was clearly purposefully closed. I'm not sure how the closure could have been more obvious. (electric fence maybe, sirens that go off if you step off the trail? really? c'mon people!)

 

For me the game is about the journey to the cache and not getting in and out as fast as you can.

Please just respect the park and other cachers and stay on the trails (especially when ASKED to and clearly encouraged on site to!). Don't ruin it for everyone.

[+Chrysalides]

Sadly, some people will do whatever they want to do without regards to anything else.

 

Incidentally, geocachers are not the only ones who go off trail.

[+StarBrand]

Sounds like a cache that needs to be moved if it is encouraging folks to go where they do not belong.

 

Having said that. I am not entirely convinced that it is all Geocachers that have done what you describe. Maybe 1 or 2 or 3 - but once the 'shortcut' trail showed at all - then I can easily see other folks taking off on it as well.

[+J the Goat]

I acknowledge that you acknowledge that this is just a rant. That being said, this is not only a pointless rant, but it sounds whiny and you contradict yourself.

 

Please stay on the path. Unless it's one of the caches where you can't get there on the path, then it's okay, but only 10M in? If you leave the trail, you could get charged with trespassing. Unless it's one of the caches that isn't accessable from the trail? You had to put up the signs that ask people to remain on the trail? The park hasn't made it clear that they want people not to leave the trail?

 

I agree, we should be trying to do as little damage to the environment as possible. What you need to realize is that some people will ignore signs, wood chips, and whatever else you do to try to dissuade them from going in a certain direction if they are on a mission. Not everyone reads the cache page, so while it's a good idea to put special instructions there, and for some it will keep them where you want them to be, for others it's not information they'll have prior to the hunt.

 

*Sigh

 

I just read this and although it sounds mean, I really mean what I'm saying so please don't take offense to what I've said.

[+Pork King]

It just takes a few bad apples...

 

I'll admit that as a novice cacher, I used to bushwack when I didn't have to, but now I try to stay on the trails as much as possible, and I try to educate newer cachers to do so. Not only is it safer and doesn't impact the surrounding area as much, lots of times walking the trail, while taking a few minutes longer, will give you much better scenery and/or phot ops (if you're into that) than pretending you are hacking your way through a jungle.

[+Team Cotati]

I just can't hardly believe that there is or has ever been an 'unofficial' trail to a geocache that was created by geocachers going to the cache location. Most of these that I have seen or heard about are, after careful research, nothing more than animal trails that have likely been present for 50 years or more. The cache hider was simply being kind to the environment by hiding his cache along a pre-existing animal trail.

 

And even if there has been one or two unofficial trails created by geocachers, they are usually rendered invisible by the following spring.

[+Pork King]

I just can't hardly believe that there is or has ever been an 'unofficial' trail to a geocache that was created by geocachers going to the cache location. Most of these that I have seen or heard about are, after careful research, nothing more than animal trails that have likely been present for 50 years or more. The cache hider was simply being kind to the environment by hiding his cache along a pre-existing animal trail.

 

And even if there has been one or two unofficial trails created by geocachers, they are usually rendered invisible by the following spring.

 

You forgot to type this in /sarcasm/ font...

[+Team Cotati]

I just can't hardly believe that there is or has ever been an 'unofficial' trail to a geocache that was created by geocachers going to the cache location. Most of these that I have seen or heard about are, after careful research, nothing more than animal trails that have likely been present for 50 years or more. The cache hider was simply being kind to the environment by hiding his cache along a pre-existing animal trail.

 

And even if there has been one or two unofficial trails created by geocachers, they are usually rendered invisible by the following spring.

 

You forgot to type this in /sarcasm/ font...

 

No I didn't. That is because I am simply repeating what has been offered as true and accurate information in here on about 147 occasions.

 

The subject, as a practical matter, is no longer up for debate.

[knowschad]

I just can't hardly believe that there is or has ever been an 'unofficial' trail to a geocache that was created by geocachers going to the cache location. Most of these that I have seen or heard about are, after careful research, nothing more than animal trails that have likely been present for 50 years or more. The cache hider was simply being kind to the environment by hiding his cache along a pre-existing animal trail.

 

And even if there has been one or two unofficial trails created by geocachers, they are usually rendered invisible by the following spring.

 

You forgot to type this in /sarcasm/ font...

 

No I didn't. That is because I am simply repeating what has been offered as true and accurate information in here on about 147 occasions.

 

The subject, as a practical matter, is no longer up for debate.

Well, for one thing, the OP clearly stated, "I KNOW it is geocachers doing this diversion from the trail because before the cache was located here there was not a unauthorized trail going this way and this is the location your GPS will tell you to go" The OP works for the park in question. It is a privately owned organization that generously has allowed geocaching on its lands. I don't think that I am going to question the OP on the matter of whether the trail was caused by geocachers or not. I suspect he's probably right about that.

[+dorqie]

Some caches require bushwacking, and if you never read the cache page, you will never know.

I would attribute this more to people who aren't reading the description before heading out. (In general, not just to your specific situation)

You can post "no need to leave the trail" as much as you want, but there are still going to be people who just load the co-ords and rush out the door without reading that.

[+Sioneva]

Well, for one thing, the OP clearly stated, "I KNOW it is geocachers doing this diversion from the trail because before the cache was located here there was not a unauthorized trail going this way and this is the location your GPS will tell you to go" The OP works for the park in question. It is a privately owned organization that generously has allowed geocaching on its lands. I don't think that I am going to question the OP on the matter of whether the trail was caused by geocachers or not. I suspect he's probably right about that.

 

Might as well just ignore the nonsense of the shirtless one, acquaintance of pieces of punched-out paper. Unless your fingers need the exercise!

Edited June 15, 2010 by Sioneva

[Andronicus]

This appears to be one of the "special cases". Usualy, these geo-trails are very temporary.

 

Usualy I find it laghable to suggest that those 30 people who have found a cache all walked the same way, and that 30 walks could actualy cause permanent damage, and cause the extinction of some spiecis.

 

Of course, in this case it is in a park, and there are rules associated with the park, but whenever this comes up related to some wilderness, it is truly goofy.

[+narcissa]

You can use multi-caches to take people to the cache in a route that you've planned for them.

[+tzipora]

I've seen parks use nylon cording to fence off an area that needs special protection. When combined with "habitat restoration - please stay out" signs, it seems to be pretty effective. Perhaps if you put a version of the geocaching symbol on the sign as well, folks would realize that this means them.

[+northernpenguin]

Bellow is a rant I posted as a note on a cache in one of my employers parks. I know I'm ranting but it just really bothers me that people have so blatant disregard for a natural area and blatantly ignore not only the cache owners notes but the on the ground signs too.

 

Just stay on the trails. Seriously. Disregard it like this and you ARE ruining it for everyone else.

 

I was doing some fieldwork in this area today and was EXTREMELY disappointed to see that peoples have been continuing to go OF THE TRAIL.

 

...

 

For me the game is about the journey to the cache and not getting in and out as fast as you can.

Please just respect the park and other cachers and stay on the trails (especially when ASKED to and clearly encouraged on site to!). Don't ruin it for everyone.

 

I recently had a cache on another trail system removed because people were taking short cuts to the cache - that was located within 3 feet of the trail, but the trail looped around and people were cutting across private property to get there. Now, I understand there are those times when people don't know the trail loops back to the cache, which is a major reason I created the Ontario Trails Project. Most Halton Conservation Areas are mapped on that project, as the parks are local to me.

 

I also learned through the experience of my cache, which was on a portion of the GRLT with a loop is it isn't always the Geocachers taking the short cuts -- I have experienced mountain bikers and sometimes hunters who pose as Geocachers. Unfortunately it's the few bad apples that do indeed ruin the lot.

 

I am absolutely shocked someone would take the time to remove the wood and signage - but I've also seen that sort of thing in the Britton tract/Hilton complex many times in the fall with people tearing the "No Hunting" (or the Hunting Regulations) signs down, and then finding spent shotgun shells in the area. I've also seen this in other crown properties around the province. I'm particularly shocked if it's a geocacher removing these, as normally the cacher is just trying to visit, find the cache and leave. Removing the trail blockage is frankly more work than I would expect most cachers to bother with.

 

The bushwhacking thing is mainly education. The sort of idiot who's going to remove signage won't care about anything until a Conservation Officer spots them doing it. For the other 99% of geocachers, education is key about not placing/seeking caches off-trail in sensitive areas. Many new cachers have to be told to stay on the trail as long as possible, no matter what the GPS says.

 

Conservation Halton has some of the best places to visit in the Greater Toronto Area - if there's any way I can help keep please let me know.

[knowschad]

You can use multi-caches to take people to the cache in a route that you've planned for them.

Excellent suggestion. Another point that has been brought up a few times by someone here (sorry, I forget who) is that a cache that is close to the main trail is more likely to cause "social trails" than one that is a ways in, because the one that is farther off the trail will likely have people going off trail at many different spots.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

I've seen parks use nylon cording to fence off an area that needs special protection. When combined with "habitat restoration - please stay out" signs, it seems to be pretty effective. Perhaps if you put a version of the geocaching symbol on the sign as well, folks would realize that this means them.

While this may be true... we often see it as otherwise.

We live in an area with many waterfalls. Fences, both metal and wood w/signs, are placed to keep people from sensitive or dangerous areas. Yet it seems that o-so-many feel those structures are for climbing on/over/around.

 

I think the entire question has a direct bearing on responsibility and the deterioration of the gene pool!

[+Quossum]

...Many new cachers have to be told to stay on the trail as long as possible, no matter what the GPS says....

 

This is so true. My DH and I bushwhacked *much* too early on one of our earliest finds. I hope our excursion didn't cause any damage to the environment, but if it did, well, the environment certainly got us back, in the form of thorns, poison ivy, snake sightings, spiders, fallen logs to climb or go under...it really was an arduous adventure. How arduous? Here's my husband at the end of it:

 

When we found the cache, and it was about ten feet from the trail on the other side of the loop!

 

In our case, it was ignorance and inexperience, but still, we would never have gone in against the direct command of a sign, or removed or tampered with one in any way. And, we learned from this one!

 

--Q

[+BulldogBlitz]

there is no real defense for this activity.

 

i've seen it countless times here...and people have admitted as much in logs... a very recent placement here got a FTF hound out of his house at 10:30 PM... trying to find a way around a no-tresspassing barbed wire fenced area... he did find a break in the fence, crossed it and claimed it was confusing whether he could enter or not...

 

another one, the cache site is barricaded off due to construction... and has been for about 5 months. signs are clearly posted that pedestrian traffic is prohibited. i suppse we aren't pedestrians... we are geocachers. 5 months of logged attempts to find the cache... (several claimed to have found it... but i'm fairly certain the cache is long gone as the one spot the hint indicated is now a mound of dirt).

 

seems we have more than just a few bad apples.

[+Gamaliel]

I would archive the cache. Regardless of who or what is responsible for the damage, if you think it's geocachers then the land manager is likely to think it is geocachers and that could have consequences for park access in the future.

 

Let's be honest here, we're going to do stupid things in search of that smiley. We've all done them, and some people draw their personal lines in different places and disagree about what is appropriate and not-crazy in pursuit of a cache. When placing something, I always consider what geocachers will likely do in terms of parking and access and not what they should do. If they won't listen to requests and signage, then there's simply nothing that can be done. Remove the cache, end the damage, and stop rewarding people who cause damage with smileys.

 

While I'm not one who frets too much about geotrails and bushwacking damage - most of the wild lands around here get burned out by brush fire from lightning strikes or controlled burns fairly regularly - but one line I feel strongly about is not crossing boundaries deemed environmentally sensitive for whatever reason. I figure if the signs are there there's a good reason and the land managers know more about the environment than I. There are fragile areas (turtle nesting grounds, rare wildflowers) around here that don't need foot stomping, and there's plenty of crappy areas that can easily handle that stomping, so why take the risk? A local cache was archived because it was behind those signs in a small area that could have been a nesting ground for turtles or sea birds. Years of cachers didn't think twice about stomping through there, including a lot of people who should have known better. Shame on them.

[+TheSapaFamily]

I am so confused. So when is straying from the beaten path in a park ruining the park? Every park I have been too has no problem with hikers straying off the path. Each cache I have found involved a little hiking thru an unmarked path.

[+northernpenguin]

I am so confused. So when is straying from the beaten path in a park ruining the park? Every park I have been too has no problem with hikers straying off the path. Each cache I have found involved a little hiking thru an unmarked path.

 

There are places in parks referred to as Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest. Most land managers do not want people tromping through those places and destroying sensitive habitat. Since we don't walk out in the field with field reports of these areas, the land managers can request we stay on the trails.

 

Promoting bushwhacking past signage and a blocked trail will get geocaching banned on those properties. That's not what we want. Rule of thumb: If you pass a sign that says "STAY ON MARKED TRAILS", then you have two choices. Stay on the trail, or leave the property. Unless a bear is chasing you.

[+J the Goat]

I am so confused. So when is straying from the beaten path in a park ruining the park? Every park I have been too has no problem with hikers straying off the path. Each cache I have found involved a little hiking thru an unmarked path.

 

There are places in parks referred to as Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest. Most land managers do not want people tromping through those places and destroying sensitive habitat. Since we don't walk out in the field with field reports of these areas, the land managers can request we stay on the trails.

 

Promoting bushwhacking past signage and a blocked trail will get geocaching banned on those properties. That's not what we want. Rule of thumb: If you pass a sign that says "STAY ON MARKED TRAILS", then you have two choices. Stay on the trail, or leave the property. Unless a bear is chasing you.

 

Yes, however if you read the OP, it sounds as if the trail wasn't marked until the employee decided that he needed to post signs. If the park wanted people to stay on the trail that badly, it should have been posted already.

[+swfirefly]

None of this is really that shocking. If the cache is near such a sensitive area, it should be archived.

Edited June 16, 2010 by swfirefly

[+northernpenguin]

 

Yes, however if you read the OP, it sounds as if the trail wasn't marked until the employee decided that she needed to post signs. If the park wanted people to stay on the trail that badly, it should have been posted already.

 

I did read the OP, and that does not change what I said. If you encounter a "TRAIL CLOSED" sign, that means the same thing - stay on the marked trail. It does not mean, "REMOVE SIGN AND PROCEED".

 

I will admit I have a local bias here, being a resident of Halton Region, so here's my rant:

 

What has me worried here is the posts with a tone of "get over it, we bushwhack all the time". That's not going to endear the Land Manager to our game very much is it? Conservation Halton is a pioneer in this area, where the first reactions from the OTHER Park Authorities was to immediately ban the game, Conservation Halton was one of the first to find a way to allow it, several years ago. Let's not prove them wrong on this decision.

 

If they want to ask us geocachers to stay on the trails, we need to stay on the trails on their property. Otherwise we get an Ontario Parks style blanket ban on the activity. Conservation Ontario is very close to Parks Ontario so this could quite easily blow up into the archival of all caches on all conservation lands in the Province. It's a lot less expensive than ordering 5000 signs for every trailhead in every conservation area in Ontario!

 

The trails in the Conservation Areas in Ontario, and Halton typically skirt around ANSI locations but still get you close enough to see them - so it's not a case of "this area needs to be protected from all human activity", it's just you shouldn't be walking there. There's lots of rare salamander habitat in Halton's conservation areas and really, how many of us are looking for 1.5" salamanders when we're 10' from the cache? Having the trail skirt near ANSI locations is fine for 90% of hikers - they don't leave the trail and start pulling rocks and logs up.

 

If I recall correctly as well, the organized Conservation Areas that the CO manages DO have a "Take Nothing but Pictures, Stay on Marked Trails" sign at the Master of Trails in each park. If you sneak in the back door as a geocacher though, you may not see that signage.

 

We don't need a great big, "Please Stay on the Trails. Geocachers, that means you too" sign beside every cache, do we?

[4wheelin_fool]

None of this is really that shocking. If the cache is near such a sensitive area, it should be archived.

 

I agree.

 

Cachers should not hide caches in sensitive areas, and then blame others for the poor placement. Caches do not need to be everywhere.

 

You are not merely inviting someone to visit a spot, rather you are inviting them to look for an object hidden from the general public in a place 30+ feet wide, which is usually off trail. Many caches do not have any hints which makes the hunt even more thorough.

Edited June 16, 2010 by 4wheelin_fool

[+Avernar]

I am so confused. So when is straying from the beaten path in a park ruining the park? Every park I have been too has no problem with hikers straying off the path. Each cache I have found involved a little hiking thru an unmarked path.

It's not a city park with manicured lawns where walking on the grass and not on the paved trail is no big deal. It's a conservation area with trees and dense brush with a dirt trails. Staying on the trail is actually the easier way to get around.

 

There's usually nothing wrong with straying off the path a few meters to get the cache. Just stay on the path for a long as you possibly can.

[+ConsHaltonCache]

Some good responses (but some very ignorant ones too. Sad that so many just put their head in the sand and refuse to acknowledge an issue.). I do know it is only the bad apples and it was a rant.

 

Thanks muchly for the great comments Northernpenquin.

 

I agree I could write a similar rant about general trail users (and I think I have to my manager...). It has often taken over a year of re-closing trails before people get the point. But frankly this is the first time I have seen a trail closure go in reverse so drastically fast. I will be looking into a permanent trail sign with map here and hopefully that will solve the issue (and help prevent visitors getting lost which is also a problem in this area) but we really cannot do this at every site people leave the trails.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with Northernpenguins comments: if people continue to say "get over it, we bushwhack all the time" then the land managers WILL close areas to cachers. I don't want to see this happen but I am also one of the ecologists that have to go out year after year and see the damage first hand and after a while it really does get disheartening and eventually we may just give up trying to continually fight to educate the bad apples. It really does hurt me to see the "get over it, we bushwhack all the time" attitude (no mater what user it comes from. And yes we are communicating with other users to try and solve these problems with them too. Geocachers are a very very small part of the problem, but the fact they are any part of it at all bothers me). We see the effect of these attitudes slowly widdle away at our natural areas or populations of rare species. You stepping on one or two individuals may not seem like an issue for you but add every person that does it and every other factor affecting the population and it does become an issue. Every factor is another nail in the coffin...but that's a whole 'nother rant (and no I never said that a few off trailers will cause the extinction of anything but it DOES hurt our environment and it does contribute to overall declines).

 

We do review new cache placements in our parks to ensure they are not in the extremely sensitive area (this cache is not in one of these extremely sensitive zones) but I also feel the the ENTIRE park should be treated with respect. If everyone decided they did not need to stay on the trails then the park would be diminished. We cannot JUST protect tiny islands of the super rare things, the environment works as a whole. (but I'll stop there...I could go on and on about ecological values, and other things too).

 

Staying on the trails in this section is really for the park visitors sake in this section, but like I said, it's the principle that has me bothered.

 

Maybe in the future we will restrict cache placements to immediately beside the trails...but I know most cachers find these to be quite predictable and easy to find and did not want to make them to predictable or "easy" in our areas (thus the allowing them about 10M off the trail in some areas). And I also agree that users just not reading the cache description is a problem...but I thought it was a little more obvious when you reached the physical site.

 

As for how you can help:

 

I think the best thing that cachers can do is read the cache description and be aware of the recommendations. When you get to the park take a quick look at the trails map or grap a trails guide that way you can see where you are in relation to the cache and know if your on the right tail.

 

I also love the Ontario Trails Project and would highly recommend downloading their trails file to your GPS so you can know where the trails are in relation to your intended cache and only bushwhack if absolutely needed.

 

Also if you reach a cache on any of our lands (or the regional lands) and feel it is not an ecologically sound, or is an unsafe placement please contact us and let us know (either through this user name or by emailing: geocache@hrca.on.ca, both will come to me directly )

 

If you would like to place a cache on any of our lands you can review our guidelines and submit an application to us. Both available on our website at: http://www.conservationhalton.on.ca/ShowCa...m?subCatID=1313

 

And a map of our land holdings can be found: Conservation Halton Watershed Map Our lands are the dark green, Regional Forests are the light green.

[+Avernar]

Yes, however if you read the OP, it sounds as if the trail wasn't marked until the employee decided that he needed to post signs. If the park wanted people to stay on the trail that badly, it should have been posted already.

Why do people have this mentality that if it's not written somewhere not to do something it's a good idea to do it? "Um, this hot cup of coffee doesn't say I should stick my fingers into it so I guess I'm going to do it".

 

The trails are clearly defined and most have some kind of trail marker. Some people are just lazy and don't want to do extra walking. They're usually too dumb to realize that following the path is easier than bushwacking.

 

And there's no excuse for ripping off the sign and kicking over the barrier.

Edited June 16, 2010 by Avernar

[knowschad]

None of this is really that shocking. If the cache is near such a sensitive area, it should be archived.

 

I agree.

 

Cachers should not hide caches in sensitive areas, and then blame others for the poor placement. Caches do not need to be everywhere.

 

You are not merely inviting someone to visit a spot, rather you are inviting them to look for an object hidden from the general public in a place 30+ feet wide, which is usually off trail. Many caches do not have any hints which makes the hunt even more thorough.

Before making statements like that, please take a look at the OP's profile page, also take a visit to his Homepage. There's a little more going on here than you may realize:

Home Page:Visit Homepage

Occupation:Natural Heritage Ecologist

Location:Conservation Halton

 

Profile Information:

I am the main Conservation Halton staff member involved with geocacheing on Conservation Halton owned lands (and some on our partners lands too). The main task is to ensure they are placed acceptably (ecologically and safely). See our geocache placement guidelines for details: (visit link)

 

<stuff snipped, but there is more>>

 

The Bolding is mine, by the way.

[+J the Goat]

Some good responses (but some very ignorant ones too. Sad that so many just put their head in the sand and refuse to acknowledge an issue.). I do know it is only the bad apples and it was a rant.

 

Thanks muchly for the great comments Northernpenquin.

 

I agree I could write a similar rant about general trail users (and I think I have to my manager...). It has often taken over a year of re-closing trails before people get the point. But frankly this is the first time I have seen a trail closure go in reverse so drastically fast. I will be looking into a permanent trail sign with map here and hopefully that will solve the issue (and help prevent visitors getting lost which is also a problem in this area) but we really cannot do this at every site people leave the trails.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with Northernpenguins comments: if people continue to say "get over it, we bushwhack all the time" then the land managers WILL close areas to cachers. I don't want to see this happen but I am also one of the ecologists that have to go out year after year and see the damage first hand and after a while it really does get disheartening and eventually we may just give up trying to continually fight to educate the bad apples. It really does hurt me to see the "get over it, we bushwhack all the time" attitude (no mater what user it comes from. And yes we are communicating with other users to try and solve these problems with them too. Geocachers are a very very small part of the problem, but the fact they are any part of it at all bothers me). We see the effect of these attitudes slowly widdle away at our natural areas or populations of rare species. You stepping on one or two individuals may not seem like an issue for you but add every person that does it and every other factor affecting the population and it does become an issue. Every factor is another nail in the coffin...but that's a whole 'nother rant (and no I never said that a few off trailers will cause the extinction of anything but it DOES hurt our environment and it does contribute to overall declines).

 

We do review new cache placements in our parks to ensure they are not in the extremely sensitive area (this cache is not in one of these extremely sensitive zones) but I also feel the the ENTIRE park should be treated with respect. If everyone decided they did not need to stay on the trails then the park would be diminished. We cannot JUST protect tiny islands of the super rare things, the environment works as a whole. (but I'll stop there...I could go on and on about ecological values, and other things too).

 

Staying on the trails in this section is really for the park visitors sake in this section, but like I said, it's the principle that has me bothered.

 

Maybe in the future we will restrict cache placements to immediately beside the trails...but I know most cachers find these to be quite predictable and easy to find and did not want to make them to predictable or "easy" in our areas (thus the allowing them about 10M off the trail in some areas). And I also agree that users just not reading the cache description is a problem...but I thought it was a little more obvious when you reached the physical site.

 

As for how you can help:

 

I think the best thing that cachers can do is read the cache description and be aware of the recommendations. When you get to the park take a quick look at the trails map or grap a trails guide that way you can see where you are in relation to the cache and know if your on the right tail.

 

I also love the Ontario Trails Project and would highly recommend downloading their trails file to your GPS so you can know where the trails are in relation to your intended cache and only bushwhack if absolutely needed.

 

Also if you reach a cache on any of our lands (or the regional lands) and feel it is not an ecologically sound, or is an unsafe placement please contact us and let us know (either through this user name or by emailing: geocache@hrca.on.ca, both will come to me directly )

 

If you would like to place a cache on any of our lands you can review our guidelines and submit an application to us. Both available on our website at: http://www.conservationhalton.on.ca/ShowCa...m?subCatID=1313

 

And a map of our land holdings can be found: Conservation Halton Watershed Map Our lands are the dark green, Regional Forests are the light green.

 

I've read this entire thread, and I don't see one "ignorant" response. Your priorities lie in different places that other people's, and that's okay. It's actually a good thing. The whole "we bushwhack all the time" mentallity is okay too, as long as they're not disobeying posted signs. That's the biggest issue here, in my eyes at least. If your agency want's people to stay on the path, it has to be well marked in more than one place (like only at the main park entrance or in a trail map that some people may or may not pick up.) If the park wants people to stay strictly on the trails, than don't approve any caches that are off the trail, and make it very clear that the trails are the only place that we should be walking. Maybe placing signs near the sensitive areas that describe what they are and why they are sensitive would help a bit, as well as being educational.

 

This next point I can't take credit for, but I wholeheartedly agree with it. Bears don't stay on the path, neither do mountain lions, bobcats, badgers, wolves, mice, woodpeckers, ants, termites, squirrels, or any other species of animal. We should be able to wander if we so desire, as long as we obey posted signs and try to take as much care as possible.

[+ConsHaltonCache]

 

Why do people have this mentality that if it's not written somewhere not to do something it's a good idea to do it? "Um, this hot cup of coffee doesn't say I should stick my fingers into it so I guess I'm going to do it".

 

The trails are clearly defined and most have some kind of trail marker. Some people are just lazy and don't want to do extra walking. They're usually too dumb to realize that following the path is easier than bushwacking.

 

And there's no excuse for ripping off the sign and kicking over the barrier.

 

Hear! Hear!

[+Team Cotati]

 

Why do people have this mentality that if it's not written somewhere not to do something it's a good idea to do it? "Um, this hot cup of coffee doesn't say I should stick my fingers into it so I guess I'm going to do it".

 

The trails are clearly defined and most have some kind of trail marker. Some people are just lazy and don't want to do extra walking. They're usually too dumb to realize that following the path is easier than bushwacking.

 

And there's no excuse for ripping off the sign and kicking over the barrier.

 

Hear! Hear!

 

And you're in a park with clearly posted restrictions wrt staying on the trails and you get as close as you can to a geocache location on a trail yet it is still 75 yards to GZ????

[+ConsHaltonCache]

I've read this entire thread, and I don't see one "ignorant" response. Your priorities lie in different places that other people's, and that's okay. It's actually a good thing. The whole "we bushwhack all the time" mentallity is okay too, as long as they're not disobeying posted signs. That's the biggest issue here, in my eyes at least. If your agency want's people to stay on the path, it has to be well marked in more than one place (like only at the main park entrance or in a trail map that some people may or may not pick up.) If the park wants people to stay strictly on the trails, than don't approve any caches that are off the trail, and make it very clear that the trails are the only place that we should be walking. Maybe placing signs near the sensitive areas that describe what they are and why they are sensitive would help a bit, as well as being educational.

 

This next point I can't take credit for, but I wholeheartedly agree with it. Bears don't stay on the path, neither do mountain lions, bobcats, badgers, wolves, mice, woodpeckers, ants, termites, squirrels, or any other species of animal. We should be able to wander if we so desire, as long as we obey posted signs and try to take as much care as possible.

 

Wow, its that kind of attitude that really blows me away...clearly education is not helping in this case.

 

Lift up your foot and compare your nice hard soled heavy hiking boots to any paw of a Bear, Mountain Lion, Bobcat, Badger ect. See any difference? (insert sarcasim here Just a slight one.)

 

Also compare the number of human visitors to the number of wild animals in the area. Any difference there?

 

Responding at all to that post may not have been productive but this kind of attitude is what causes the issues...sadly education can't reach everyone. Really baffling.

[knowschad]

And you're in a park with clearly posted restrictions wrt staying on the trails and you get as close as you can to a geocache location on a trail yet it is still 75 yards to GZ????

That does not go to say that the cache is not closer than 75 yards from a trail. It is only saying that one can get to the cache by bushwacking 75 yards from a trail. Sometimes you just have to continue down the trail a ways to see that it loops back.

[+J the Goat]

I've read this entire thread, and I don't see one "ignorant" response. Your priorities lie in different places that other people's, and that's okay. It's actually a good thing. The whole "we bushwhack all the time" mentallity is okay too, as long as they're not disobeying posted signs. That's the biggest issue here, in my eyes at least. If your agency want's people to stay on the path, it has to be well marked in more than one place (like only at the main park entrance or in a trail map that some people may or may not pick up.) If the park wants people to stay strictly on the trails, than don't approve any caches that are off the trail, and make it very clear that the trails are the only place that we should be walking. Maybe placing signs near the sensitive areas that describe what they are and why they are sensitive would help a bit, as well as being educational.

 

This next point I can't take credit for, but I wholeheartedly agree with it. Bears don't stay on the path, neither do mountain lions, bobcats, badgers, wolves, mice, woodpeckers, ants, termites, squirrels, or any other species of animal. We should be able to wander if we so desire, as long as we obey posted signs and try to take as much care as possible.

 

Wow, its that kind of attitude that really blows me away...clearly education is not helping in this case.

 

Lift up your foot and compare your nice hard soled heavy hiking boots to any paw of a Bear, Mountain Lion, Bobcat, Badger ect. See any difference? (insert sarcasim here Just a slight one.)

 

Also compare the number of human visitors to the number of wild animals in the area. Any difference there?

 

Responding at all to that post may not have been productive but this kind of attitude is what causes the issues...sadly education can't reach everyone. Really baffling.

 

So if I go barefoot it's okay? No, I'm sure you'll find another reason to tell me I should stay on the 2 foot wide path, and have zero business going anywhere else ever. (I can use the bold button as well)

 

What you fail to realize is that while I'm sure I don't have all the knowledge you do about the sensitive areas locally (no sarcasm there, I'm a little more polite than that) I do pay as much attention as I can to my surroundings and take care to do little or no damage. Believe it or not, this is possible. Granted, I would be further able to avoid these more sensitive areas if I had a bit more education and information about what they were, but that leads back to my sign suggestion.

 

My opinion of what's okay VS. yours doesn't make either one of us more right, but calling someone with different ideas ignorant makes you just that. I do not condone the destruction of our parks, trails, or environment in general. We do need to try to preserve and protect those areas that are fragile, sensitive, homes to endangered species; the list goes on. I still maintain that if these areas are your concern, as well they should be, you can't expect people to just know that. Post an informative sign. Do something more than complain on a message board that sees a very small percentage of a small part of the population that is offending your park's rules.

 

And get off your high horse for a minute and realize that a difference of opinion (slightly if you pay attention) doesn't mean ignorance.

[+thedeadpirate]

I've read this entire thread, and I don't see one "ignorant" response. Your priorities lie in different places that other people's, and that's okay. It's actually a good thing. The whole "we bushwhack all the time" mentallity is okay too, as long as they're not disobeying posted signs. That's the biggest issue here, in my eyes at least. If your agency want's people to stay on the path, it has to be well marked in more than one place (like only at the main park entrance or in a trail map that some people may or may not pick up.) If the park wants people to stay strictly on the trails, than don't approve any caches that are off the trail, and make it very clear that the trails are the only place that we should be walking. Maybe placing signs near the sensitive areas that describe what they are and why they are sensitive would help a bit, as well as being educational.

 

This next point I can't take credit for, but I wholeheartedly agree with it. Bears don't stay on the path, neither do mountain lions, bobcats, badgers, wolves, mice, woodpeckers, ants, termites, squirrels, or any other species of animal. We should be able to wander if we so desire, as long as we obey posted signs and try to take as much care as possible.

 

It is attitudes like this that lead to geocaching being banned in parks.

 

You realize that there is a huge difference between wandering around in the woods with no particular goal in mind and creating a path to a specific point, right?

 

What I am seeing in the OP's post is that they have taken steps to specifically deter the paths and not only have people ignored it, but have actually removed the signs put up.

 

I am pretty confident that the only reason geocaching continues to be allowed in this particular park is because the OP is a geocacher. I imagine that had the same occurred and the park official was not a cacher that they would have put a ban on caching in their park.

 

I would suggest that the OP work to develop a specific geocaching policy as many other parks have done. Spell out precisely where geocachers are allowed and require permits in order to place caches. Furthermore, require the permit to be renewed annually upon inspection of the site to determine whether or not the placement is causing undo harm to the surrounding area.

 

Sound a bit restrictive? It is. And it is attitudes such as the one quoted that causes it to come to this or cause caching to be banned altogether.

[+J the Goat]

 

Also compare the number of human visitors to the number of wild animals in the area. Any difference there?

 

 

Actually, yes lets. You're telling me that you get more human visitors going off trail during the year than you have wildlife in your park? That's either a tiny park or it's in downtown New York. The non-urban park's I'm familiar with are chalk full of numerous kinds of wildlife.

[+thedeadpirate]

My opinion of what's okay VS. yours doesn't make either one of us more right

 

What you don't realize is that frankly his opinion is the only one that really matter in that particular park. He (and the rest of the staff) is the one that decides whether or not to ban caching in that park.

 

That goes for all land managers. We get to do what we do because land managers allow it.

 

Why do you think the guidelines prohibit things such as digging, defacing property, or knives? A lot of cachers would love to incorporate these things into their caches. However, it is land owners' concerns that drive these. If the land managers feel that geocaching will have a negative impact on their jurisdiction, then they are not going to allow it.

[+J the Goat]

I've read this entire thread, and I don't see one "ignorant" response. Your priorities lie in different places that other people's, and that's okay. It's actually a good thing. The whole "we bushwhack all the time" mentallity is okay too, as long as they're not disobeying posted signs. That's the biggest issue here, in my eyes at least. If your agency want's people to stay on the path, it has to be well marked in more than one place (like only at the main park entrance or in a trail map that some people may or may not pick up.) If the park wants people to stay strictly on the trails, than don't approve any caches that are off the trail, and make it very clear that the trails are the only place that we should be walking. Maybe placing signs near the sensitive areas that describe what they are and why they are sensitive would help a bit, as well as being educational.

 

This next point I can't take credit for, but I wholeheartedly agree with it. Bears don't stay on the path, neither do mountain lions, bobcats, badgers, wolves, mice, woodpeckers, ants, termites, squirrels, or any other species of animal. We should be able to wander if we so desire, as long as we obey posted signs and try to take as much care as possible.

 

It is attitudes like this that lead to geocaching being banned in parks.

 

You realize that there is a huge difference between wandering around in the woods with no particular goal in mind and creating a path to a specific point, right?

 

What I am seeing in the OP's post is that they have taken steps to specifically deter the paths and not only have people ignored it, but have actually removed the signs put up.

 

I am pretty confident that the only reason geocaching continues to be allowed in this particular park is because the OP is a geocacher. I imagine that had the same occurred and the park official was not a cacher that they would have put a ban on caching in their park.

 

I would suggest that the OP work to develop a specific geocaching policy as many other parks have done. Spell out precisely where geocachers are allowed and require permits in order to place caches. Furthermore, require the permit to be renewed annually upon inspection of the site to determine whether or not the placement is causing undo harm to the surrounding area.

 

Sound a bit restrictive? It is. And it is attitudes such as the one quoted that causes it to come to this or cause caching to be banned altogether.

 

Alright, so I'll retract the whole animal VS. human statement. Take it back. Didn't mean it. Cancel it. Didn't come across right, shouldn't have said it. Any other way to bring that one back?

 

As far as my bolding above goes, what needs to happen, and what I and my friends that I cache with attempt to do, is to not leave a trail when we're off the trail. And guess what? It can be done! We just have to pay attention to our surroundings to the best of our abilities and do the best we can to not disturb anything. It'll never be 100%, it doesn't matter how much attention you pay, but it can be almost that much. I guess that's where I was going with the whole animal thing, but that sure didn't work.

 

Nevermind the inconsistancies and contraindications that I've pointed out, as well as the suggestions I've made to help the OP with what clearly is a problem.

 

My attitude isn't going to ruin geocaching, this guy's park, or your birthday. The only difference between what we are saying is my saying it's okay to leave a path if you do it carefully and not in a fragile/sensitive area. Signs should not be ignored or removed, but they should also be adaquately placed.

[+Team Cotati]

And you're in a park with clearly posted restrictions wrt staying on the trails and you get as close as you can to a geocache location on a trail yet it is still 75 yards to GZ????

That does not go to say that the cache is not closer than 75 yards from a trail. It is only saying that one can get to the cache by bushwacking 75 yards from a trail. Sometimes you just have to continue down the trail a ways to see that it loops back.

 

Yeah and in this case, 75 yards is it.....period.

[+J the Goat]

My opinion of what's okay VS. yours doesn't make either one of us more right

 

What you don't realize is that frankly his opinion is the only one that really matter in that particular park. He (and the rest of the staff) is the one that decides whether or not to ban caching in that park.

 

That goes for all land managers. We get to do what we do because land managers allow it.

 

Why do you think the guidelines prohibit things such as digging, defacing property, or knives? A lot of cachers would love to incorporate these things into their caches. However, it is land owners' concerns that drive these. If the land managers feel that geocaching will have a negative impact on their jurisdiction, then they are not going to allow it.

 

Oh, but I do realize it. That's why I questioned why some caches are allowed 10M off the path, yet he complains that people are leaving the path to find caches when they don't need to. I have zero problems with parks having guidelines about geocaching. If it allows for more places to accept caches in their parks, that's even better. They lead for no confussion, no ambiguity, and there's no question about whether a cache is allowed or not. Signs should be posted in areas where they want people to stay strictly on the trails, and those signs need to be obeyed. I'm not even going to address the removal of signs, there's no reason or argument for that.

 

I'm also aware that not everyone is as conscious in attempting the whole "leave no trace" thing as I am. Education (as the OP pointed out, has had no effect on me) is the key here. Showinng and telling people where the sensitive areas are would help out a great deal here. Just spouting off about the ignorance of other people and complaining that he may now have to put up signs not only sounds like nothing but whining, but also does nothing to correct the problem.

[knowschad]

And you're in a park with clearly posted restrictions wrt staying on the trails and you get as close as you can to a geocache location on a trail yet it is still 75 yards to GZ????

That does not go to say that the cache is not closer than 75 yards from a trail. It is only saying that one can get to the cache by bushwacking 75 yards from a trail. Sometimes you just have to continue down the trail a ways to see that it loops back.

 

Yeah and in this case, 75 yards is it.....period.

What are you talking about, anyway?

 

The OP said that they have "allowed placement of geocaches up to 10 M away. 10 meters is 32 feet, not 75 yards!

[+thedeadpirate]

Oh, but I do realize it. That's why I questioned why some caches are allowed 10M off the path, yet he complains that people are leaving the path to find caches when they don't need to. I have zero problems with parks having guidelines about geocaching. If it allows for more places to accept caches in their parks, that's even better. They lead for no confussion, no ambiguity, and there's no question about whether a cache is allowed or not. Signs should be posted in areas where they want people to stay strictly on the trails, and those signs need to be obeyed. I'm not even going to address the removal of signs, there's no reason or argument for that.

 

If I understand what you are saying, you support a unified policy where all caches are restricted to a certain distance from the trail? I think the OP was saying that they try to allow different caches to be placed further depending on the particular concerns for a particular area. Perhaps making the policy more unified may help to ensure that cachers know they are to stay close to the trail in all areas of the park.

 

It is a shame that it would come to that, which I think was the whole point of the OP's rant. He seems to desire to allow geocaching to be more free in the park. If people would obey the signage that was put up, then this would be possible.

 

But, I have to agree that the more unified the policy is, the more likely people are to follow it. If it means more restrictions, I guess it becomes a necessary evil.

[+J the Goat]

Oh, but I do realize it. That's why I questioned why some caches are allowed 10M off the path, yet he complains that people are leaving the path to find caches when they don't need to. I have zero problems with parks having guidelines about geocaching. If it allows for more places to accept caches in their parks, that's even better. They lead for no confussion, no ambiguity, and there's no question about whether a cache is allowed or not. Signs should be posted in areas where they want people to stay strictly on the trails, and those signs need to be obeyed. I'm not even going to address the removal of signs, there's no reason or argument for that.

 

If I understand what you are saying, you support a unified policy where all caches are restricted to a certain distance from the trail? I think the OP was saying that they try to allow different caches to be placed further depending on the particular concerns for a particular area. Perhaps making the policy more unified may help to ensure that cachers know they are to stay close to the trail in all areas of the park.

 

It is a shame that it would come to that, which I think was the whole point of the OP's rant. He seems to desire to allow geocaching to be more free in the park. If people would obey the signage that was put up, then this would be possible.

 

But, I have to agree that the more unified the policy is, the more likely people are to follow it. If it means more restrictions, I guess it becomes a necessary evil.

 

If the choice is strict policy VS. no caches, then yes, I'm supportive of the unified policy. There are plenty of ways that the problem could be addressed, this being one of them. It's not my first choice, not at all. I would be supportive of whatever policy the park adopted in order to keep the area open for caches. I too wish it didn't have to come to this anywhere, it certainly hasn't here. That being said, I think the best solution to this problem is more education on some level or another. Stomping your feet about having to put up signs is the opposite of education, and calling people names who don't think like you do not only serves not purpose, but is counter-productive. Guess who's not going to visit these parks...

[+thedeadpirate]

Guess who's not going to visit these parks...

 

Would be nice if it were the people who ignore signage and cache listings.

[+J the Goat]

YAAAAAAYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!! The salty old avatar isn't mad at me!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[+thedeadpirate]

YAAAAAAYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!! The salty old avatar isn't mad at me!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I wasn't mad. But I will be if you don't GET OFF MY LAWN!!!!

[+J the Goat]

YAAAAAAYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!! The salty old avatar isn't mad at me!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I wasn't mad. But I will be if you don't GET OFF MY LAWN!!!!

 

Wait, I just have to finish building this geotrail...

[4wheelin_fool]

Geotrails are relatively harmless to the environment and they do disappear after a year of non-use. If the OP is going to go ballistic over something like that, then there is too much sensitivity for caches to be allowed.