Unauthorized trails

[+Chokecherry]

Knowing that there are a lot of people who don't read descriptions because they don't have paperless caching and just got the coordinates for the next nearest I have sat and really considered the various points of entry to get to the cache I want to place because there is the reality that there are some people who will take the shortest trip between points A and B instead of the most scenic trip.

 

Cache hiders should be aware of this factor when figuring out if it's a good idea to hide a cache somewhere. If the area is not conducive to this reality then it might not be the best place to place a cache.

[+briansnat]

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.

 

I've only encountered geotrails when the cache was near a trail or parking and in nearly every instance the trail was no different than a game trail, and would recover quickly when the cache was removed. I can count the caches on one hand where the cache created a compacted treadway and those where at caches that were 50 feet or less from a parking lot or road. How sensitive could the spot be if they put in a parking area?

 

The farther away from a trail, road or parking that the cache is, the less likely it is that that a trail will develop because cachers will approach from different directions, spreading out the impact and giving it time to recover.

 

I have over 200 active caches and probably 3/4 of them require some degree of bushwacking, ranging from a a few hundred feet to a half mile. I defy anybody outside a Tom Brown Jr. type tracker to show me evidence that there is a cache there. There are no geotrails to these caches. There is no visible damage to the surrounding areas.

 

I did encounter a ton of damage at a cache a few weeks ago. The area around the cache was torn up, rocks over turned, holes dug, vegetation destroyed. An absolute mess.

 

Here are a few pics of the damage:

 

 

 

It was absolutely disgusting how the area around the cache was

torn apart. The culprit needs to be spanked.

But who was he? There were no recent logs on the cache.

Well here is a clue:

 

 

 

Yep, it was a bear digging for grubs. You can see the claw marks in the photos if you look real close (they were a lot more evident in person).

 

My point is that we should keep this in perspective. A single bear looking for grubs or a deer foraging for acorns can cause far more damage than a geocacher. But the damage is temporary, whether made by a bear or man.

 

If the park rules tell you to stay on the trail, then by all means stay on the trail, but going off trail is not an environmental catastrophe. Hunters do it, mushroomers do it, orienteers do it, nature photographers do it, a lot of people do it. Occasional bushwhacking in an area hurts nothing.

Edited June 17, 2010 by briansnat

[+Avernar]

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????

Since the cache has been approved/reviewed by the land manager then the stay on trail restriction for the last 25 meters or so has been waived (assuming that no official trail gets you closer). However, that does not mean you can turn that into 100+ meter bushwack.

[+Avernar]

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.

Conservation Halton already does have a Geocaching policy. The local geocaching groups and individuals have worked hard to get it in place as opposed to a ban on caches.

 

Most of us in this neck of the woods wouuld like to keep it that way rather than loose it just because some ignorant/disrespectful/lazy cacher decides to blaze his own trail to the cache.

 

It's the same with camping. Ever hear of "Leave no trace"? But there's always going to be some moron (or group of morons, they tend to flock together) who will trash the campsite area.

[+Avernar]

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!

Exceptions can always be made. If a cache is somewhere where they don't want it to be, they have a direct line to the reviewers...

[+Avernar]

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.

There's the key point. The OP put a sign and a barrier and they were removed. That's what the OP is going ballistic over.

[knowschad]

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.

Well... yes, and no. They always grow back, but often the now hard packed, barren soil will become habitat for an unwelcome plants that weren't there beforehand. I do *tend* to agree with you, but I do think that its important to keep that fact in mind. What grows back isn't always what was there beforehand, or what you would like to bet there.

[+briansnat]

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.

Well... yes, and no. They always grow back, but often the now hard packed, barren soil will become habitat for an unwelcome plants that weren't there beforehand. I do *tend* to agree with you, but I do think that its important to keep that fact in mind. What grows back isn't always what was there beforehand, or what you would like to bet there.

 

And how often have you encountered a compacted, geocache related treadway more than say 100 feet from a parking lot or road?

Edited June 17, 2010 by briansnat

[+northernpenguin]

 

And how often have you encountered a compacted treadway more than say 100 feet from a parking lot?

 

There's actually LOTS of these trails along the Niagara Escarpment which is what most Halton Conservation Areas feature. Not only do the trails compact, but water tends to flow down these shortcuts and contributes to soil erosion and habitat damages far beyond the initial cache hunt.

 

Social trails are a BIG threat to the Escarpment (World Biosphere Preserve) and it's been an issue for Bruce Trail hikers since before geocaching started. Geocaches placed on the Escarpment can increase the problem and if the land owner (Conservation Halton) identifies and closes one of these trails - then we need to respect that.

[+briansnat]

 

And how often have you encountered a compacted treadway more than say 100 feet from a parking lot?

 

There's actually LOTS of these trails along the Niagara Escarpment which is what most Halton Conservation Areas feature. Not only do the trails compact, but water tends to flow down these shortcuts and contributes to soil erosion and habitat damages far beyond the initial cache hunt.

 

Social trails are a BIG threat to the Escarpment (World Biosphere Preserve) and it's been an issue for Bruce Trail hikers since before geocaching started. Geocaches placed on the Escarpment can increase the problem and if the land owner (Conservation Halton) identifies and closes one of these trails - then we need to respect that.

 

It has been an issue since before geocahing started you say . Then perhaps it should be shut off to all visitors.

 

I recently spent a weekend backpacking in the Catskills. We went to a popular overlook where the area around it was devoid of vegetation and heavily eroded. This damage was caused by hikers. 100 feet away was a discreetly hidden geocache with no noticeable evidence of the cache being there.

 

In most instances when a geocache is in a remote or sensitive spot it doesn't receive enough visits to make an impact.

[knowschad]

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.

Well... yes, and no. They always grow back, but often the now hard packed, barren soil will become habitat for an unwelcome plants that weren't there beforehand. I do *tend* to agree with you, but I do think that its important to keep that fact in mind. What grows back isn't always what was there beforehand, or what you would like to bet there.

 

And how often have you encountered a compacted, geocache related treadway more than say 100 feet from a parking lot or road?

Not very often. And you?

[knowschad]

And how often have you encountered a compacted treadway more than say 100 feet from a parking lot?

There's actually LOTS of these trails along the Niagara Escarpment which is what most Halton Conservation Areas feature. Not only do the trails compact, but water tends to flow down these shortcuts and contributes to soil erosion and habitat damages far beyond the initial cache hunt.

 

Social trails are a BIG threat to the Escarpment (World Biosphere Preserve) and it's been an issue for Bruce Trail hikers since before geocaching started. Geocaches placed on the Escarpment can increase the problem and if the land owner (Conservation Halton) identifies and closes one of these trails - then we need to respect that.

It has been an issue since before geocahing started you say . Then perhaps it should be shut off to all visitors

Yup. I was a trout fisherman for years before I started to geocache. The holy grail of trout fishermen is to find a trout stream that hasn't got a fisherman's trail along the banks. Very few are that fortunate, and they are in extremely remote places.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

And how often have you encountered a compacted treadway more than say 100 feet from a parking lot?

There's actually LOTS of these trails along the Niagara Escarpment which is what most Halton Conservation Areas feature. Not only do the trails compact, but water tends to flow down these shortcuts and contributes to soil erosion and habitat damages far beyond the initial cache hunt.

 

Social trails are a BIG threat to the Escarpment (World Biosphere Preserve) and it's been an issue for Bruce Trail hikers since before geocaching started. Geocaches placed on the Escarpment can increase the problem and if the land owner (Conservation Halton) identifies and closes one of these trails - then we need to respect that.

It has been an issue since before geocahing started you say . Then perhaps it should be shut off to all visitors

Yup. I was a trout fisherman for years before I started to geocache. The holy grail of trout fishermen is to find a trout stream that hasn't got a fisherman's trail along the banks. Very few are that fortunate, and they are in extremely remote places.

Especially when the grizzly shows up for the salmon runs!

 

More people = more trails. Whatchagonnado? Close off nature?

Edited June 17, 2010 by Gitchee-Gummee

[knowschad]

And how often have you encountered a compacted treadway more than say 100 feet from a parking lot?

There's actually LOTS of these trails along the Niagara Escarpment which is what most Halton Conservation Areas feature. Not only do the trails compact, but water tends to flow down these shortcuts and contributes to soil erosion and habitat damages far beyond the initial cache hunt.

 

Social trails are a BIG threat to the Escarpment (World Biosphere Preserve) and it's been an issue for Bruce Trail hikers since before geocaching started. Geocaches placed on the Escarpment can increase the problem and if the land owner (Conservation Halton) identifies and closes one of these trails - then we need to respect that.

It has been an issue since before geocahing started you say . Then perhaps it should be shut off to all visitors

Yup. I was a trout fisherman for years before I started to geocache. The holy grail of trout fishermen is to find a trout stream that hasn't got a fisherman's trail along the banks. Very few are that fortunate, and they are in extremely remote places.

Especially when the grizzly shows up for the salmon runs!

 

More people = more trails. Whatchagonnado? Close off nature?

The difference, I think, is that trout (and salmon) fishermen buy licenses. We don't.

 

PS: When did youse guys get grizzly bears up there?

Edited June 17, 2010 by knowschad

[+northernpenguin]

More people = more trails. Whatchagonnado? Close off nature?

 

Actually, that has happened to some parks in Peel region, next door to Halton. The social trails got to the point where they erected a fence and said people are banned for 10 years to allow for the environment to recover.

 

If people stick to the marked trails, it's not an issue. When people take the attitude that they can make up their own rules because it's "public" or "government owned" land, then we have problems. This thread is about someone who followed a marked trail, and saw a shortcut trail to the cache. Rather than following the proper, marked trail to the cache, they removed "TRAIL CLOSED" signage and debris, and reopened the trail for other users by doing that.

 

That's the land manager expressing a 'rule', which is in their right to do so, and no matter what we think of the rule, no matter how many deer we see on that closed trail, or bears driving ATVs to salmon fishing spots .... we have to walk around, on the marked trail, or it changes from a Conservation Area to an ecological preserve.

 

We have had geocaches removed from another area trail, and the (different) landowner threatening to withdraw permission for the trail to cross his property in the area due to a few idiotic bushwhackers. That hurts more than geocachers - it hurts hikers, birdwatchers, photographers and historians too (access to a heritage site is via that trail). Not to mention we've got a local trail association some kinda pissed off at geocachers. There's another 180 km or so of trail with caches that could be threatened too now.

 

An opinion does not trump a landowner's rights.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

I see and understand both sides of the debate.

 

I also reiterate my statement about the gene pool, but perhaps I should include parental guidance as a starting point.

 

Ha! I guess that reroutes it to the gene pool, again.

 

--------

 

Grizzly: I was envisioning the dog w/glasses wading after sockeye in BC or AK, with pole in hand!

[+thedeadpirate]

And how often have you encountered a compacted, geocache related treadway more than say 100 feet from a parking lot or road?

 

There are caches further than 100 feet from parking?

[knowschad]

More people = more trails. Whatchagonnado? Close off nature?

 

Actually, that has happened to some parks in Peel region, next door to Halton. The social trails got to the point where they erected a fence and said people are banned for 10 years to allow for the environment to recover.

Park managers can certainly be extremists that seem to think that life without humans would be preferable to life with humans. I don't know, but strongly suspect, that the existing thinking in the scholastic disciplines that it takes to become an environmentalist/park manager these days tends to favor such thinking. Personally, I give more credit to Mother Nature than they seem to. But that said...in this case, at least, it is their land.

 

An opinion does not trump a landowner's rights.

Can't argue with that!

Edited June 17, 2010 by knowschad

[+FireRef]

Maybe its just me, and maybe it's just in my area, but this "stay on the trail" thing I see all over the place here isn't something I ever seem to run into in the areas of northern PA and western NY. What is the problem with going into a set of woods, like our gamelands, and walking around "off trail"? Many times there isn't a trail. And I know animals make their own trails - why are we so different, if we don't leave garbage behind? Not trying to start a flame war - just don't understand why we're allowed into natural areas, but restricted in where we go in them.

[+northernpenguin]

Maybe its just me, and maybe it's just in my area, but this "stay on the trail" thing I see all over the place here isn't something I ever seem to run into in the areas of northern PA and western NY. What is the problem with going into a set of woods, like our gamelands, and walking around "off trail"? Many times there isn't a trail. And I know animals make their own trails - why are we so different, if we don't leave garbage behind? Not trying to start a flame war - just don't understand why we're allowed into natural areas, but restricted in where we go in them.

 

Not all natural areas are restricted here either. Many of the crown lands in Central Ontario for example, have no trails to stay on. The ones near Toronto, Canada's largest urban area need the trail restriction though, as there are just too many people for the environment to stand a chance otherwise.

[+Team Cotati]

And how often have you encountered a compacted treadway more than say 100 feet from a parking lot?

There's actually LOTS of these trails along the Niagara Escarpment which is what most Halton Conservation Areas feature. Not only do the trails compact, but water tends to flow down these shortcuts and contributes to soil erosion and habitat damages far beyond the initial cache hunt.

 

Social trails are a BIG threat to the Escarpment (World Biosphere Preserve) and it's been an issue for Bruce Trail hikers since before geocaching started. Geocaches placed on the Escarpment can increase the problem and if the land owner (Conservation Halton) identifies and closes one of these trails - then we need to respect that.

It has been an issue since before geocahing started you say . Then perhaps it should be shut off to all visitors

Yup. I was a trout fisherman for years before I started to geocache. The holy grail of trout fishermen is to find a trout stream that hasn't got a fisherman's trail along the banks. Very few are that fortunate, and they are in extremely remote places.

Especially when the grizzly shows up for the salmon runs!

 

More people = more trails. Whatchagonnado? Close off nature?

 

If that is what it takes, yes.

[+geodarts]

In my area it's not just cachers who ignore signs or branches that have been put down to close a shortcut. Mountain bikers building illegal trails have gotten more attention than geotrails. But at the same time cachers have ignored park requests to stay on the trails in certain areas to limit the spread of sudden oak death (by placing caches off trail in groves of Bays that act as carriers of SOD). And other park officials have privately linked caching to certain problems with land use and used that to justify bans on caching.

 

Our state parks adopted guidelines for caching that require caches to be placed within three feet of designated trails, but almost every new cache I have seen in the system ignores that. We don't always follow the rules. But when those rules are relatively generous, as the ones cited by the OP, I hope they can find a way to make things work in his area.

Edited June 17, 2010 by mulvaney

[+J the Goat]

I'm still maintaining that if you're going to throw a fit about people staying on trail, it needs to be well posted. This area clearly was not for some time. The signs that were placed should have been left alone, but maybe if it were better marked, you'd have less problems.

[+mchaos]

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.

 

I think dorgie is right. I too have found my self, Loading and running without reading descriptions. My unit supports paperless so I have like 800 or so caches on my unit right now. I am getting better at remembering to check the description before I start heading down a trail.

 

I wouldn't go so far as to go right to blame geocachers, because they may just be heading for a blip on a screen.

 

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

 

Great idea, This is what I would do. I don't think you need to archive. Excellent excuse to do a multi. make the first stage have a note explaining not to go off trail.

 

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.

 

Drats, beat me too it....

[+geodarts]

I'm still maintaining that if you're going to throw a fit about people staying on trail, it needs to be well posted. This area clearly was not for some time. The signs that were placed should have been left alone, but maybe if it were better marked, you'd have less problems.

 

At least in my area, putting down branches to block a shortcut that has already been created is the standard way used by all agencies to tell hikers to stay on the trail, and most people respect it and do not use the shortcut. But once something opens up it can be hard to close because a few will ignore signs or branches. I would like to think that cachers did not remove the signs - even assuming that the cache contributed to the "unauthorized trail" forming.

Edited June 17, 2010 by mulvaney

[+J the Goat]

I'm still maintaining that if you're going to throw a fit about people staying on trail, it needs to be well posted. This area clearly was not for some time. The signs that were placed should have been left alone, but maybe if it were better marked, you'd have less problems.

 

At least in my area, putting down branches to block a shortcut is the standard way used by all agencies to tell hikers to stay on the trail, and most people respect it. But once something opens up it can be harder to close and others will follow. I would like to think that cachers did not remove the signs - even assuming that the cache contributed to the "unauthorized trail" forming.

 

Yes, but it sounds as if the branches and signage were put up (and unfortunately taken down) well after the formation of the off-trail trail.

 

I'm just getting really tired of people spouting things like "it's your fault, nobody does what they're supposed to, everyone else is doing stuff wrong...."

 

Take a little responsibility for the situation. Quit throwing a fit about how everyone else is pissing in your cheerios.

[+TheSapaFamily]

Maybe its just me, and maybe it's just in my area, but this "stay on the trail" thing I see all over the place here isn't something I ever seem to run into in the areas of northern PA and western NY. What is the problem with going into a set of woods, like our gamelands, and walking around "off trail"? Many times there isn't a trail. And I know animals make their own trails - why are we so different, if we don't leave garbage behind? Not trying to start a flame war - just don't understand why we're allowed into natural areas, but restricted in where we go in them.

 

I'm with you. I haven't come across any restricted areas in Missouri. After reading all the posts, I think the issue is the OP's area has endangered animals, plants, etc that get damaged by people ignoring the signs. If that is the case then I would say a cache should not be placed there. I'm sure there are plenty of other places in the area to place caches that aren't going to result in the environment getting destroyed.

[+Avernar]

I know animals make their own trails - why are we so different

Then maybe we should be treated the same. If we catch you damaging the environment or being a nuisance we won't ask nicely that you leave. Instead we will shoot you with a tranquilizer gun, attach a large tag with a serial number to you earlobe, place a gps/radio tracker somewhere where you can't get at it and release you 500 km north in the middle of nowhere.

 

Or would you like to behave like a respectful and considerate human being and be treated like one back?

[+Avernar]

Take a little responsibility for the situation.

You mean like banning geocaching in all the wooded areas in the county? Um, no thanks.

 

Personally I'd rather have caches in a nice wooded area than in a mall parking lot any day. Unfortunately, too many people with your attitude are ruining it for the rest of us that know how to hike through a forest without tromping all over it.

[+Avernar]

After reading all the posts, I think the issue is the OP's area has endangered animals, plants, etc that get

damaged by people ignoring the signs. If that is the case then I would say a cache should not be placed there.

Only some of the areas are sensitive. And with that philosophy, we'll have nowhere left to place caches. We're still trying to undo the damage caused by a few bad individuals around here. We're trying to get caches allowed in Provincial Parks again but it's not easy.

 

I'm sure there are plenty of other places in the area to place caches that aren't going to result in the environment getting destroyed.

Like urban micros? Because that's all that's going to be left.

[4wheelin_fool]

You would need to filter out those people that do not read the cache page. There are plenty of people that just download the coords and the hint. Make it a very simple puzzle. Write the important information on the page and sprinkle in the coords in red letters, using the first 9 letter of the alphabet and write the solution on the page somewhere. If is a sensitive area, it would also reduce traffic.

[+tozainamboku]

Maybe its just me, and maybe it's just in my area, but this "stay on the trail" thing I see all over the place here isn't something I ever seem to run into in the areas of northern PA and western NY. What is the problem with going into a set of woods, like our gamelands, and walking around "off trail"? Many times there isn't a trail. And I know animals make their own trails - why are we so different, if we don't leave garbage behind? Not trying to start a flame war - just don't understand why we're allowed into natural areas, but restricted in where we go in them.

 

I'm with you. I haven't come across any restricted areas in Missouri. After reading all the posts, I think the issue is the OP's area has endangered animals, plants, etc that get damaged by people ignoring the signs. If that is the case then I would say a cache should not be placed there. I'm sure there are plenty of other places in the area to place caches that aren't going to result in the environment getting destroyed.

There are a variety of reason that a park may have a stay-on-the-trail policy. One is in ecologically sensitive areas. Keeping to the trail protects the habitat used by endangered species and the prevents the spread of invasive species. Another is terrain. Cutting switchbacks on steep slopes often lead to erosion. The rains come and flow quikly down the paths that have formed where hikers have shortcut the trail, leading to landslides and damage to the trail itself. This can result in cost to the park to maintain and/or reroute the trail. Visitor safety is also a concern - either due to damaged trails or from the terrain itself.

 

I can see where a park would allow geocaches to be placed off trail in area that are not sensitive and expect geocachers to avoid leaving the trail in the sensitive areas - particularly if there is signage put up in the sensitive areas. It sounds like this was the case in the OPs park. The geocachers chose to "follow the arrow" and leave the trail in an area where the terrain was steep, creating an erosion problem. It could be they were following a short-cut already begun by other hikers. If they had followed the trail down to the bottom before leaving the trail there would not have been an issue.

[+northernpenguin]

 

There are a variety of reason that a park may have a stay-on-the-trail policy. One is in ecologically sensitive areas. Keeping to the trail protects the habitat used by endangered species and the prevents the spread of invasive species. Another is terrain. Cutting switchbacks on steep slopes often lead to erosion. The rains come and flow quikly down the paths that have formed where hikers have shortcut the trail, leading to landslides and damage to the trail itself. This can result in cost to the park to maintain and/or reroute the trail. Visitor safety is also a concern - either due to damaged trails or from the terrain itself.

 

I can see where a park would allow geocaches to be placed off trail in area that are not sensitive and expect geocachers to avoid leaving the trail in the sensitive areas - particularly if there is signage put up in the sensitive areas. It sounds like this was the case in the OPs park. The geocachers chose to "follow the arrow" and leave the trail in an area where the terrain was steep, creating an erosion problem. It could be they were following a short-cut already begun by other hikers. If they had followed the trail down to the bottom before leaving the trail there would not have been an issue.

 

Bingo

[+Avernar]

There are a variety of reason that a park may have a stay-on-the-trail policy. One is in ecologically sensitive areas. Keeping to the trail protects the habitat used by endangered species and the prevents the spread of invasive species. Another is terrain. Cutting switchbacks on steep slopes often lead to erosion. The rains come and flow quikly down the paths that have formed where hikers have shortcut the trail, leading to landslides and damage to the trail itself. This can result in cost to the park to maintain and/or reroute the trail. Visitor safety is also a concern - either due to damaged trails or from the terrain itself.

 

I can see where a park would allow geocaches to be placed off trail in area that are not sensitive and expect geocachers to avoid leaving the trail in the sensitive areas - particularly if there is signage put up in the sensitive areas. It sounds like this was the case in the OPs park. The geocachers chose to "follow the arrow" and leave the trail in an area where the terrain was steep, creating an erosion problem. It could be they were following a short-cut already begun by other hikers. If they had followed the trail down to the bottom before leaving the trail there would not have been an issue.

Well said. I can never write my thoughts as eloquently as that.

[+J the Goat]

Take a little responsibility for the situation.

You mean like banning geocaching in all the wooded areas in the county? Um, no thanks.

 

Personally I'd rather have caches in a nice wooded area than in a mall parking lot any day. Unfortunately, too many people with your attitude are ruining it for the rest of us that know how to hike through a forest without tromping all over it.

 

I am removing myself from this thread, as there seem to be several of you who read only what is convenient to your point and not everything stated. I'm actually stressed about this discussion, and that's not why I'm here.

 

Go ahead and continue not paying attention to what's actually said and only reading the scattered parts that "help" you with your argument.

[+thedeadpirate]

I'm actually stressed about this discussion, and that's not why I'm here.

 

Ok, ok. You can stay on the lawn if it makes you feel less stressed. But I don't want to be seeing any of your hippie friends camping out front!

[+northernpenguin]

I'm actually stressed about this discussion, and that's not why I'm here.

 

Ok, ok. You can stay on the lawn if it makes you feel less stressed. But I don't want to be seeing any of your hippie friends camping out front!

 

Did anyone tell Avernar?

 

[+Avernar]

Ok, ok. You can stay on the lawn if it makes you feel less stressed. But I don't want to be seeing any of your hippie friends camping out front!

 

Did anyone tell Avernar?

If you look closely, I'm actually not on the lawn...

[+thedeadpirate]

Ok, ok. You can stay on the lawn if it makes you feel less stressed. But I don't want to be seeing any of your hippie friends camping out front!

 

Did anyone tell Avernar?

If you look closely, I'm actually not on the lawn...

 

Looks like you're in the alley. As long as you're off the lawn there'll be no blood shed.

Edited June 18, 2010 by GeoBain

[+FireRef]

I guess I just don't see why these parks should restrict us, when they don't restrict the wildlife that is in there. Obviously, we can do more damage when in large groups (well, maybe not - look at like a herd of anything moving through an area - lol), but it just seems silly to say "come enjoy nature, but only the way we want you to." I understand protecting sensitive species, but we also seem to forget the whole concept of evolution, which involves extinction. We probably do more damage than most animals, but some invasive species have done far more damage than humans ever could.

 

When will people realize we are a part of nature, not apart from it? I always laugh when I see all of the people who say if you use the bathrom (#2) in the woods, you're supposed to bury it, or carry it out with you. When has an animal ever done this?

 

Protect nature? Yes - somewhat. Live in the world? Well, yeah - we have to. Fighting against evolution and natural extinction processes is ...well, a little silly sometimes. Nature will do what it wants - we often can just sit back and watch, or often make fools of ourselves when we try to stop/change things, and see how nature reacts.

 

Maybe this is why I was a biology major, but never went into environmental stuff... nature takes care of itself, except where we screw up bad (like the oil spill currently happening) - but even then, nature will eventually recover, with some damage, and life on the planet will go on.

[+brslk]

I guess I just don't see why these parks should restrict us, when they don't restrict the wildlife that is in there. Obviously, we can do more damage when in large groups (well, maybe not - look at like a herd of anything moving through an area - lol), but it just seems silly to say "come enjoy nature, but only the way we want you to." I understand protecting sensitive species, but we also seem to forget the whole concept of evolution, which involves extinction. We probably do more damage than most animals, but some invasive species have done far more damage than humans ever could.

 

While I agree or try to agree with most of what you said here, a lot of it is wrong.

If parks did not restrict us there would be no nature for us to enjoy.

 

When will people realize we are a part of nature, not apart from it? I always laugh when I see all of the people who say if you use the bathrom (#2) in the woods, you're supposed to bury it, or carry it out with you. When has an animal ever done this?

 

Human feces contains all sorts of horrible... umm.. stuff. Herbivores (plant eating animals don't). You may not want to but you could theoretically eat deer poop and be OK

 

Protect nature? Yes - somewhat. Live in the world? Well, yeah - we have to. Fighting against evolution and natural extinction processes is ...well, a little silly sometimes. Nature will do what it wants - we often can just sit back and watch, or often make fools of ourselves when we try to stop/change things, and see how nature reacts.

 

Again, if we didn't try to protect nature there would be only paved streets with a few small trees planted here and there. I would rather try to keep nature natural than just let humans take over evolution Besides... Humans being ecological is part of evolution or it wouldn't be exist.

 

I suppose we could just let animals eat us if we venture into the woods... that's natural selection...

Or perhaps we should be OK with wildlife like bears entering populated areas? and not kill them?

Natural selection.

 

Maybe this is why I was a biology major, but never went into environmental stuff... nature takes care of itself, except where we screw up bad (like the oil spill currently happening) - but even then, nature will eventually recover, with some damage, and life on the planet will go on.

[+ConsHaltonCache]

I'm glad it seems like the majority of responders got the point of the rant. Very sad to see that even education fails in some cases. *sigh* Just something to keep in mind from now on. Just hope our grandchildren can also enjoy wild areas we visit, preferably in their full glory...but ... *sighshrug*

 

The thread has been discussed enough so moderates can feel free to close it if they wish.

 

I never expected quite this much response. Still not sure if its a good or bad thing.