Why are caches in the ground not allowed?

[+Coldgears]

I can understand why you would not allow a cache that has to be dug up with a shovel to be published. But if a cache owner digs a hole, puts the cache in the hole and people can get to the cache without ever needing to dig again what's the problem? People aren't digging random holes so it causes no issues really. This frustrated me because my local reviewer archives a lot of local caches for this reason. I just don't understand.

[+John in Valley Forge]

I can understand why you would not allow a cache that has to be dug up with a shovel to be published. But if a cache owner digs a hole, puts the cache in the hole and people can get to the cache without ever needing to dig again what's the problem? People aren't digging random holes so it causes no issues really. This frustrated me because my local reviewer archives a lot of local caches for this reason. I just don't understand.

 

I didn't realize that there were that many caches being archived because they were buried. I wonder how they got published in the first place. I thought "O" was pretty thorough in his reviews.

Perhaps you could list some. Maybe I just have not noticed them.

 

I might also suggest you read through the forums to the several times that buried caches been discussed already.

[Keystone]

In another thread you started, you asked why the National Parks geocaching policy was so strict.

 

The reason why geocaches were banned altogether for many years on lands managed by NPS is because of a buried cache discovered by park rangers. The incident was featured prominently in a report on geocaching that circulated to every NPS office nationwide.

 

The buried caches guideline followed from that and similar incidents.

 

Have you ever talked with a land manager who is hearing an explanation about geocaching for the first time? If not, guess what one of their first three questions is: "Are these caches buried?" It helps very much to be able to say that such caches are prohibited under our guidelines. Otherwise you'd be starting other threads asking why the such-and-such park system's policy had to be so strict.

 

So, your two threads are interrelated!

[+BlueDeuce]

I can understand why you would not allow a cache that has to be dug up with a shovel to be published. But if a cache owner digs a hole, puts the cache in the hole and people can get to the cache without ever needing to dig again what's the problem? People aren't digging random holes so it causes no issues really. This frustrated me because my local reviewer archives a lot of local caches for this reason. I just don't understand.

 

The first time I ever heard about geocaching I was hooked. The counter argument in the article was about people digging holes in protected historical Indian grounds to hide caches.

 

Now I'm not saying that you can't dig a hole to hide a cache, I'm just saying people are digging random holes.

Edited December 3, 2010 by BlueDeuce

[Keystone]

I can understand why you would not allow a cache that has to be dug up with a shovel to be published. But if a cache owner digs a hole, puts the cache in the hole and people can get to the cache without ever needing to dig again what's the problem? People aren't digging random holes so it causes no issues really. This frustrated me because my local reviewer archives a lot of local caches for this reason. I just don't understand.

 

I didn't realize that there were that many caches being archived because they were buried. I wonder how they got published in the first place. I thought "O" was pretty thorough in his reviews.

Perhaps you could list some. Maybe I just have not noticed them.

 

I might also suggest you read through the forums to the several times that buried caches been discussed already.

Keep in mind that reviewers are not able to physically verify cache locations prior to publication. There is no way of knowing a cache is buried unless something on the cache page suggests this. Often it's something in the encrypted hint, like "dig deep" or "below ground" or "under your feet." OReviewer, like all other reviewers*, will question the caches where there is an obvious reason to do so. The ones that get through will be reported by helpful geocachers, and archived after publication.

 

*Many reviewers are dogs. OReviewer is not. It can be speculated that dogs are superior at sniffing out buried caches.

[Keystone]

Here is the original source material supporting my initial reply:

Geocaching - There is a new web-based activity called geocaching that has affected several National Park Service areas. The Ranger Activities Division asked Olympic NP SA Mike Butler to investigate. Here's his report: Geocaching is an activity in which participants hide a cache and take a position at the location using a GPS receiver. The position is then published on the group's web site with an invitation to search for the "treasure." Caches often contain a notebook or log book and something the finder may take. The finder is asked to put another item in the cache for others to discover and will often report the find on the web site. Several caches have been found in National Park Service areas. The webmaster for the site has been contacted. He was very surprised that geocaching is illegal in NPS areas, and understood NPS concerns about the damage geocaching has and can cause to historic, archeological and natural sites. He agreed to work with the Service to discourage further geocaching activities in parks.

 

Two related activities were also discovered. Letterboxing is a phenomenon similar to geocaching in that a player takes directions from a web site and uses those directions to find a hidden object. In letterboxing, the directions come in the form of a riddle and the hidden object is a stamp which the finder can use to stamp a piece of paper to prove that he has visited the site. The web site showed the location of at least two letterboxes in parks. The parks have been notified, but the Service has not yet contacted the webmaster or game managers. The Degree Confluence Project is another web-based activity where people try to visit various latitude and longitude integer degree intersections and report their findings on the web site. In this case, however, no objects are placed in the ground, and there are no apparent regulatory violations in areas where cross-country travel is allowed or where the confluence is not on a protected site. There has been no attempt to contact the project organizers.

 

Additional comments referring to sections of the Code of Federal Regulations: The depositing of the cache, be it a bucket or other type of container, could be in violation of a few regulations like digging up plants if it was being buried. Additionally, it is against regulations to leave property unattended for more than 24 hours without it being subject to impoundment. If people are "hunting" for something, it could certainly take more than 24 hours to find. Lastly, some areas are closed to off-trail hiking which could prohibit someone from going off trail to place or retrieve a cache.

[+Cardinal Red]

I can understand why you would not allow a cache that has to be dug up with a shovel to be published. But if a cache owner digs a hole, puts the cache in the hole and people can get to the cache without ever needing to dig again what's the problem? People aren't digging random holes so it causes no issues really. This frustrated me because my local reviewer archives a lot of local caches for this reason. I just don't understand.

 

I didn't realize that there were that many caches being archived because they were buried. I wonder how they got published in the first place. I thought "O" was pretty thorough in his reviews.

Perhaps you could list some. Maybe I just have not noticed them.

 

I might also suggest you read through the forums to the several times that buried caches been discussed already.

I too am interested to see this extensive list of caches archived by "O" because they were buried. I wonder exactly how many caches are "a lot".

[knowschad]

Here is the original source material supporting my initial reply:

Geocaching - There is a new web-based activity called geocaching that has affected several National Park Service areas. The Ranger Activities Division asked Olympic NP SA Mike Butler to investigate. Here's his report: Geocaching is an activity in which participants hide a cache and take a position at the location using a GPS receiver. The position is then published on the group's web site with an invitation to search for the "treasure." Caches often contain a notebook or log book and something the finder may take. The finder is asked to put another item in the cache for others to discover and will often report the find on the web site. Several caches have been found in National Park Service areas. The webmaster for the site has been contacted. He was very surprised that geocaching is illegal in NPS areas, and understood NPS concerns about the damage geocaching has and can cause to historic, archeological and natural sites. He agreed to work with the Service to discourage further geocaching activities in parks.

 

Two related activities were also discovered. Letterboxing is a phenomenon similar to geocaching in that a player takes directions from a web site and uses those directions to find a hidden object. In letterboxing, the directions come in the form of a riddle and the hidden object is a stamp which the finder can use to stamp a piece of paper to prove that he has visited the site. The web site showed the location of at least two letterboxes in parks. The parks have been notified, but the Service has not yet contacted the webmaster or game managers. The Degree Confluence Project is another web-based activity where people try to visit various latitude and longitude integer degree intersections and report their findings on the web site. In this case, however, no objects are placed in the ground, and there are no apparent regulatory violations in areas where cross-country travel is allowed or where the confluence is not on a protected site. There has been no attempt to contact the project organizers.

 

Additional comments referring to sections of the Code of Federal Regulations: The depositing of the cache, be it a bucket or other type of container, could be in violation of a few regulations like digging up plants if it was being buried. Additionally, it is against regulations to leave property unattended for more than 24 hours without it being subject to impoundment. If people are "hunting" for something, it could certainly take more than 24 hours to find. Lastly, some areas are closed to off-trail hiking which could prohibit someone from going off trail to place or retrieve a cache.

 

I don't question your memory of the event in the least, nor the explanation of why buried caches are not allowed, but I could not help but notice that the only reference in that post to a cache being buried is

 

Additional comments referring to sections of the Code of Federal Regulations: The depositing of the cache, be it a bucket or other type of container, could be in violation of a few regulations like digging up plants if it was being buried.

(sections bolded and underlined by me)

[+BlueDeuce]

The story I heard on May 13th 2003.

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1246751

 

Warning: The interviewed cacher left a golf-ball in trade.

Edited December 3, 2010 by BlueDeuce

[+John in Valley Forge]

Here are some links I found with a quick forum search.

 

1

 

2

 

3

 

4

[Keystone]

I don't question your memory of the event in the least, nor the explanation of why buried caches are not allowed, but I could not help but notice that the only reference in that post to a cache being buried is

 

Additional comments referring to sections of the Code of Federal Regulations: The depositing of the cache, be it a bucket or other type of container, could be in violation of a few regulations like digging up plants if it was being buried.

(sections bolded and underlined by me)

To appreciate the quote in the larger context of things, it might help you to know that the buried cache incident occurred in Olympic National Park and Mike Butler was the ranger who investigated that incident.

[+t4e]

while it may sound like fun to have a cache hidden in a hole dug up in the ground i can see why such practice is not allowed...people do dig randomly and some may do so in sensitive areas

 

if digging a hole in the ground will be allowed, next thing we know someone will blast a mountain to make their personal cave to hide a cache, i'm sure there's people out there with the capabilities

[+BlueDeuce]

To appreciate the quote in the larger context of things, it might help you to know that the buried cache incident occurred in Olympic National Park and Mike Butler was the ranger who investigated that incident.

 

Apparently according to the Chief Park Ranger Scott Lopez in the Bad Lands National Park South Dakota it happened there as well.

[+John in Valley Forge]

I can understand why you would not allow a cache that has to be dug up with a shovel to be published. But if a cache owner digs a hole, puts the cache in the hole and people can get to the cache without ever needing to dig again what's the problem? People aren't digging random holes so it causes no issues really. This frustrated me because my local reviewer archives a lot of local caches for this reason. I just don't understand.

 

I didn't realize that there were that many caches being archived because they were buried. I wonder how they got published in the first place. I thought "O" was pretty thorough in his reviews.

Perhaps you could list some. Maybe I just have not noticed them.

 

I might also suggest you read through the forums to the several times that buried caches been discussed already.

I too am interested to see this extensive list of caches archived by "O" because they were buried. I wonder exactly how many caches are "a lot".

 

I guess we won't be hearing about them tonight.

How ironic?

[+briansnat]

I can understand why you would not allow a cache that has to be dug up with a shovel to be published. But if a cache owner digs a hole, puts the cache in the hole and people can get to the cache without ever needing to dig again what's the problem? People aren't digging random holes so it causes no issues really. This frustrated me because my local reviewer archives a lot of local caches for this reason. I just don't understand.

 

Simple answer - most land managers don't want people digging holes in their parks. It's why metal detecting is banned in so many places. If you want to know what the reasoning is, perhaps you should go to a forum frequented by land managers.

 

The reason your local reviewer is archiving a lot of local caches is because a lot of your local cachers apparently either do not read, or purposefully ignore the guideline.

[+palmetto]

Early in geocaching, some caches were buried.

 

This resulted in logs like this one, "dug at the foot of every hardwood in the hammock". A DNF on an early cache in the Everglades National Park (which still hasn't allowed any physical caches, although some locals working hard on it with staff - their first experience of geocaching could hardly have been worse, no surprise they're not eager to embrace it)

 

It's the first question from every land manager, "are they buried?". The answer has to be NO.

[+addisonbr]

It's the first question from every land manager, "are they buried?". The answer has to be NO.

It also needs to be the answer to any question asked by not just land managers, but by players new to the game.

 

Not burying caches needs to be so ingrained in the rules and guidelines and culture of geocaching that a new cacher needs to never think for a *moment* that digging in a city park (or anywhere else that geocaching actually is allowed) is a possible way to find any cache.

 

I want it in the beginning of the FAQ, I want it at the end of the FAQ, and I want it sprinkled a few times in the middle for good measure.

[+briansnat]

It's the first question from every land manager, "are they buried?". The answer has to be NO.

It also needs to be the answer to any question asked by not just land managers, but by players new to the game.

 

Not burying caches needs to be so ingrained in the rules and guidelines and culture of geocaching that a new cacher needs to never think for a *moment* that digging in a city park (or anywhere else that geocaching actually is allowed) is a possible way to find any cache.

 

I want it in the beginning of the FAQ, I want it at the end of the FAQ, and I want it sprinkled a few times in the middle for good measure.

 

Exactly. As Palmetto indicated, it is often the first question that land managers ask when discussions about allowing geocaches are in progress. The perception that caches are buried is something we've been fighting since nearly the beginning. Newspaper articles and TV news pieces are often detrimental to this cause because they love to latch onto the romantic idea of "buried treasure". I cringe whenever I read an article or see a news report that mentions buried treasure.

 

In the end, it is much more reassuring to the land manager when you are able to tell them that caches are not buried, rather than having to say "Well they usually aren't buried except when ____ and ____ or maybe _____ and sometimes ______ or ______, oh and occasionally _____" .

[+larryc43230]

But if a cache owner digs a hole, puts the cache in the hole and people can get to the cache without ever needing to dig again what's the problem?

A whole lot of other posts have responded to the general notion of burying caches, but I wanted to briefly address the specific question asked in the OP.

 

Land managers don't want any holes dug on the lands they're responsible for, even one hole dug by the cache owner. It's really that simple.

 

--Larry

[+Tatooed Lady]

I get the whole "NEVER dig a hole" thing...what if there's an existing hole? Is it allowed to use it since it's already there?

[+The Caching Coulters]

I get the whole "NEVER dig a hole" thing...what if there's an existing hole? Is it allowed to use it since it's already there?

 

Yes, you may use existing holes.

[+escomag]

I don't question your memory of the event in the least, nor the explanation of why buried caches are not allowed, but I could not help but notice that the only reference in that post to a cache being buried is

 

Additional comments referring to sections of the Code of Federal Regulations: The depositing of the cache, be it a bucket or other type of container, could be in violation of a few regulations like digging up plants if it was being buried.

(sections bolded and underlined by me)

To appreciate the quote in the larger context of things, it might help you to know that the buried cache incident occurred in Olympic National Park and Mike Butler was the ranger who investigated that incident.

 

This has made me currious. I recently found a cache that was a one gallon glass jar, filled with marbles, that was buried in a hole, with only the top exposed. I was both surprised that a CO would use glass as a container, and also equally surprised that the cache was buried.

Should this be a 'not allowed' cache?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I get the whole "NEVER dig a hole" thing...what if there's an existing hole? Is it allowed to use it since it's already there?

 

Yes, you may use existing holes.

 

Yes, you *may* use an existing hole to hide a cache according to the guidelines. That doesn't necessarily mean you *should* bury a cache in an existing hole. If you consider that a reason for the "no buried caches" is an attempt to dispel the pervasive myth that geocaching is about buried treasure (after all, the original stash was buried) then it still might not be a good idea to use an existing hole, unless that hole was naturally created. If a land manager finds a cache in a hole that "somebody" dug, they're not going know that it wasn't a geocacher that created it.

[+Castle Mischief]

This has made me currious. I recently found a cache that was a one gallon glass jar, filled with marbles, that was buried in a hole, with only the top exposed. I was both surprised that a CO would use glass as a container, and also equally surprised that the cache was buried.

Should this be a 'not allowed' cache?

 

There's nothing in the guidelines and some folks will tell you all about how glass is just fine a dandy to use in the "right" conditions.

 

My opinion is that the "right" conditions are a narrow band of scenarios and it's not worth the potential injury and mess so I don't use it.

 

 

As for it being buried, either they got special permission or never mentioned it to the reviewer. If you want to bring it to the attention of the reviewer I'd advise that you do so privately and avoid the drama, however having already posted that you found such a cache there's a chance that the drama is unavoidable. Your call.

[+briansnat]

I don't question your memory of the event in the least, nor the explanation of why buried caches are not allowed, but I could not help but notice that the only reference in that post to a cache being buried is

 

Additional comments referring to sections of the Code of Federal Regulations: The depositing of the cache, be it a bucket or other type of container, could be in violation of a few regulations like digging up plants if it was being buried.

(sections bolded and underlined by me)

To appreciate the quote in the larger context of things, it might help you to know that the buried cache incident occurred in Olympic National Park and Mike Butler was the ranger who investigated that incident.

 

This has made me currious. I recently found a cache that was a one gallon glass jar, filled with marbles, that was buried in a hole, with only the top exposed. I was both surprised that a CO would use glass as a container, and also equally surprised that the cache was buried.

Should this be a 'not allowed' cache?

 

That would not be allowed if the hider dug the hole to hide the cache. Glass containers are a bad idea, but not a guideline violation.

[+John in Valley Forge]

I get the whole "NEVER dig a hole" thing...what if there's an existing hole? Is it allowed to use it since it's already there?

 

Yes, you may use existing holes.

 

The downside to that is that others, who may not have read the guidelines closely may look at that "existing hole" cache and decide it is a good idea to dig their own hole.

[Dinoprophet]

Ironically, the only ones I've found like this were hidden by the land managers.

[+kissguy&frannyfru]

One of the best caches ive found was buried. It was on private property with permission and was done in a way that you did not have to do any digging to retrieve it. You just had to open a hinged lid. i didnt see a thing wrong with the way this was done. Just my opinion if you use common sense they can be fine.

[+Sol seaker]

One of the best caches ive found was buried. It was on private property with permission and was done in a way that you did not have to do any digging to retrieve it. You just had to open a hinged lid. i didnt see a thing wrong with the way this was done. Just my opinion if you use common sense they can be fine.

 

Sure. Now you are going to tell all the land managers that the only holes that are dug are those using common sense?

 

So people are already trying to stretch the limits now, using "existing" holes. Then people will stretch the limits of common sense. "Oh yeah, this one makes sense to ME." And then we're not only kicked out of state and national parks, but out of local parks as well.

[+wimseyguy]

One of the best caches ive found was buried. It was on private property with permission and was done in a way that you did not have to do any digging to retrieve it. You just had to open a hinged lid. i didnt see a thing wrong with the way this was done. Just my opinion if you use common sense they can be fine.

 

Sadly, Common Sense is not as common as one would think.

[+JohnnyVegas]

I can understand why you would not allow a cache that has to be dug up with a shovel to be published. But if a cache owner digs a hole, puts the cache in the hole and people can get to the cache without ever needing to dig again what's the problem? People aren't digging random holes so it causes no issues really. This frustrated me because my local reviewer archives a lot of local caches for this reason. I just don't understand.

Because other caches will see these types of hides and copy then. The next thing you know some land managers will be going after ground speak becasue the land is bieing vandalized.

 

I found a cahe just two ot three weeks ago that was hidden this way. Of course when I post the SBA log the owner will claim that they just happened to find a hole the exact same size as a 30Cal. Ammo box.

Edited December 4, 2010 by JohnnyVegas

[+JohnnyVegas]

One of the best caches ive found was buried. It was on private property with permission and was done in a way that you did not have to do any digging to retrieve it. You just had to open a hinged lid. i didnt see a thing wrong with the way this was done. Just my opinion if you use common sense they can be fine.

Having to dig to find the cache is not the issue. Making a hole to place the cache is the problem.

[+FireRef]

But both would appear to be a big problem.

 

I think we need to consider, on the other side of things, that in many cases, these land managers are managing "our" land. They are paid by our taxes, and are keeping this land in good shape for... um, last time I checked, our use. Problem is we, as a country (and I'm referrring to the US since that's the area I live in) have allowed these land management agencies to consider certain areas off limits, place limits on the areas we can use (to the point of not even allowing hiking "off-trail" in some places), and so forth.

 

I also find it interesting that the website has worked so hard to get physical caches in these places, and that they haven't allowed virtuals (which are supposedly coming back sometime here... ) to be placed because it is, according to the website, an easy excuse to not allowing a container to be placed.

 

We can "bury" a cache in a pile of sticks (pretty temporary in the grand scheme of things) or a pile of rocks (more permanent in the grand scheme of things), but not in a small amount of earth. I disagree with this.

 

Saying that this rule is simply because land managers don't like it is not appropriate. We have a game. We make our rules. We follow our rules... sorry, guidelines... oh, and we don't follow them that well.

 

As has been said in this thread, some of the best caches people have found were buried in some way. Not in such a way that people needed to dig for them - only that an appropriate space to place a cache was hollowed out. Did the person disturb the earth? Yes. Did they possibly disturb a plant or two? Possibly. Do we do this every time we go out and geocache? Yes - in some way or other... walk across grass? Step on a plant? Yes. Do animals do this ALL THE TIME? Absolutely. Since when has it been a major problem for a dog to dig a hole to bury something?

 

We need to stop putting ourselves above the animals that inhabit the Earth with us.

 

Maybe some of my arguments aren't as solid as others, but there really is no legitimate reason, in my opinion, to have a general rule like this because some land managers just don't like it.

[Keystone]

FireRef, I take exception to your labeling my explanation of the buried caches rule as "not appropriate." I provided accurate answers based on documented facts.

 

Perhaps you should go start BuriedCaches.com and make your own guidelines.

[+Jumpin' Jack Cache]

Since when has it been a major problem for a dog to dig a hole to bury something?

 

Maybe some of my arguments aren't as solid as others, but there really is no legitimate reason, in my opinion, to have a general rule like this because some land managers just don't like it.

 

If your dog starts digging holes in my yard to bury something, I'm gonna shoot it. I'll start with a BB gun but if he persists...

[+FireRef]

FireRef, I take exception to your labeling my explanation of the buried caches rule as "not appropriate." I provided accurate answers based on documented facts.

 

Perhaps you should go start BuriedCaches.com and make your own guidelines.

 

This was not intended as a personal attack. It is a response by me to the fact that a decision was made to try to make some people happy - not the people who play the game, but a very few who "control" lands we as the public own.

 

It really seems silly to me for someone to say "Here's this really big area of public land...but you can't go there. You can't do anything with it. You can't even walk through it if you want."

 

Our PA Gamelands are a prime example. We can't go in them for a month unless we are hunting. I do feel it would be stupid to wander around in there with a bunch of people looking for something to shoot, but to legislate that we can't, that just doesn't make sense to me.

 

Of course, we live in a state with a basically unenforceable seatbelt law, but allow motorcyclists to ride around without a helmet. Makes perfect sense when you put them together.

 

I just don't think it makes sense to make a rule to make a few people happy. Especially when it really hasn't changed their willingness to put caches in these lands in a major way.

 

I apologise if I offended you - that was not my intent. I take exception to the rule, not to your explanation. I don't agree that the explanation justifies the decision - that's all. In what I do, you don't make a rule to deal with several people or several problems - you deal with those on a case by case basis. You make rules and guidelines to cover large numbers of people who would violate it. Upsetting a few land managers doesn't really seem to be enough to make a general rule. To me, anyway.

[+briansnat]

But both would appear to be a big problem.

 

I think we need to consider, on the other side of things, that in many cases, these land managers are managing "our" land. They are paid by our taxes, and are keeping this land in good shape for... um, last time I checked, our use. Problem is we, as a country (and I'm referrring to the US since that's the area I live in) have allowed these land management agencies to consider certain areas off limits, place limits on the areas we can use (to the point of not even allowing hiking "off-trail" in some places), and so forth.

 

I also find it interesting that the website has worked so hard to get physical caches in these places, and that they haven't allowed virtuals (which are supposedly coming back sometime here... ) to be placed because it is, according to the website, an easy excuse to not allowing a container to be placed.

 

We can "bury" a cache in a pile of sticks (pretty temporary in the grand scheme of things) or a pile of rocks (more permanent in the grand scheme of things), but not in a small amount of earth. I disagree with this.

 

Saying that this rule is simply because land managers don't like it is not appropriate. We have a game. We make our rules. We follow our rules... sorry, guidelines... oh, and we don't follow them that well.

 

As has been said in this thread, some of the best caches people have found were buried in some way. Not in such a way that people needed to dig for them - only that an appropriate space to place a cache was hollowed out. Did the person disturb the earth? Yes. Did they possibly disturb a plant or two? Possibly. Do we do this every time we go out and geocache? Yes - in some way or other... walk across grass? Step on a plant? Yes. Do animals do this ALL THE TIME? Absolutely. Since when has it been a major problem for a dog to dig a hole to bury something?

 

We need to stop putting ourselves above the animals that inhabit the Earth with us.

 

Maybe some of my arguments aren't as solid as others, but there really is no legitimate reason, in my opinion, to have a general rule like this because some land managers just don't like it.

 

An incredibly short sighted view of things. Like it or not we are allowed to practice our sport through the good graces of land managers.

 

Dig away and see how long geocaching is welcome in our parks.

[+Touchstone]

I think we need to consider....

 

Your sense of anarchy is very refreshing, but I'm afraid it's not very realistic

[+Markwell]

Step on a plant? Yes. Do animals do this ALL THE TIME? Absolutely. Since when has it been a major problem for a dog to dig a hole to bury something?

 

We need to stop putting ourselves above the animals that inhabit the Earth with us.

 

Hunger is a something we have in common with animals. A bear will smash a car window to steal food. I like the think the reason humans don't is because we can control our instincts - something that for the most part, untrained animals do not.

 

Reproduction, violence, aggression, etc are all things that we as humans can control, something that I hope makes us better than the animals that inhabit the Earth with us.

 

I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus.

 

The fact is that we as humans are the dominant species on this earth and we have the ability to ravage this planet without consideration of the consequences. By this sole fact alone, I believe we are also entrusted with the protection of this planet's resources to ensure that there ARE going to be resources available for future generations. To not do so is an incredibly selfish and short-sighted line of thinking.

 

I believe indeed, we ARE called to be more than the animals that inhabit the Earth with us.

 

I'm embarrassed to be part of a race that has so many people that cannot see that point of view.

[+Michaelcycle]

 

I think we need to consider, on the other side of things, that in many cases, these land managers are managing "our" land. They are paid by our taxes, and are keeping this land in good shape for... um, last time I checked, our use. Problem is we, as a country (and I'm referrring to the US since that's the area I live in) have allowed these land management agencies to consider certain areas off limits, place limits on the areas we can use (to the point of not even allowing hiking "off-trail" in some places), and so forth.

 

 

Yes, it is "our" land. But is not "your" land or "my" land. Your taxes did not buy the vast majority of it and although I've been paying income taxes for 47 years now, mine didn't either. We, as a people, have decided that we want these lands protected. One of the reasons we wanted it protected was so that future generations can experience them. If that means limiting our experiences (no cutting down trees for campfires, no motorbike riding through forest or desert, no digging holes) to maximize the natural aspects of some of protected land, so be it . That's what we, the people, decided. And we pay our taxes to buy the services of professionals (the land managers) to keep it that way. You don't like it? Make an appointment to talk to staffers of the senators and congresspersons that sit on the committees that oversee the Department of the Interior. Think that won't work? Well, if you've got enough people that think like you do, it will. Just ask the NRA. Rightly or wrongly, you can now carry loaded weapons in most National Parks. A policy that the supers are very much opposed to.

[+DragonsWest]

When I am like Lord British and have sufficient wealth to build my own elaborate Unknown/Multi cache where the final could be in a tomb not unlike King Tut's I very well could, Jeremy would hop up and down in unbridled glee and it would be the toast of the caching world.

 

When I am on public lands I will respect them and the wishes of their custodians and do nothing to harm the good reputation of Geocaching and Geocachers.

[+John in Valley Forge]

The fact is that we as humans are the dominant species on this earth

 

I thought most reviewers were dogs.

[+TerraViators]

In another thread you started, you asked why the National Parks geocaching policy was so strict.

 

The reason why geocaches were banned altogether for many years on lands managed by NPS is because of a buried cache discovered by park rangers. The incident was featured prominently in a report on geocaching that circulated to every NPS office nationwide.

 

The buried caches guideline followed from that and similar incidents.

 

Have you ever talked with a land manager who is hearing an explanation about geocaching for the first time? If not, guess what one of their first three questions is: "Are these caches buried?" It helps very much to be able to say that such caches are prohibited under our guidelines. Otherwise you'd be starting other threads asking why the such-and-such park system's policy had to be so strict.

 

So, your two threads are interrelated!

fake sprinkler heads are partially buried.

[+John in Valley Forge]

In another thread you started, you asked why the National Parks geocaching policy was so strict.

 

The reason why geocaches were banned altogether for many years on lands managed by NPS is because of a buried cache discovered by park rangers. The incident was featured prominently in a report on geocaching that circulated to every NPS office nationwide.

 

The buried caches guideline followed from that and similar incidents.

 

Have you ever talked with a land manager who is hearing an explanation about geocaching for the first time? If not, guess what one of their first three questions is: "Are these caches buried?" It helps very much to be able to say that such caches are prohibited under our guidelines. Otherwise you'd be starting other threads asking why the such-and-such park system's policy had to be so strict.

 

So, your two threads are interrelated!

fake sprinkler heads are partially buried.

 

Whether the hole you dig is one inch or one foot deep, it is still buried.

[jholly]

The fact is that we as humans are the dominant species on this earth

 

I thought most reviewers were dogs.

Just some. We did have a reviewer that was a doorknob.

[+Coldgears]

FireRef, I take exception to your labeling my explanation of the buried caches rule as "not appropriate." I provided accurate answers based on documented facts.

 

Perhaps you should go start BuriedCaches.com and make your own guidelines.

 

You make it seem as though the guidelines are not open to debate or change?

[+BuckeyeClan]

FireRef, I take exception to your labeling my explanation of the buried caches rule as "not appropriate." I provided accurate answers based on documented facts.

 

Perhaps you should go start BuriedCaches.com and make your own guidelines.

 

You make it seem as though the guidelines are not open to debate or change?

 

I strongly suspect that the guideline against buried caches will never be changed. But I suppose you can debate it if you really want to.

[+J the Goat]

FireRef, I take exception to your labeling my explanation of the buried caches rule as "not appropriate." I provided accurate answers based on documented facts.

 

Perhaps you should go start BuriedCaches.com and make your own guidelines.

 

You make it seem as though the guidelines are not open to debate or change?

 

I get the feeling that you are provoking this argument strictly to provoke an argument, as seems to be your norm. That being said:

 

Caches should not be buried. Fake sprinkler heads are buried. Existing hole or not, they should not be there.

 

GS has made this rule pretty clear. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. It's their sandbox, we have to follow their rules to play in it. That's how most things go.

 

As far as "our land" goes, I do agree with you on some level Mr. fuzzy sports official. The problem I have with they whole "why can't we use it as we see fit" idea is that what some may see fit, others may see as wrong. If it's all of our land, and we can't all agree on what's okay and what's not, we need to have management agencies/personnel who do set the rules for everyone. While I don't necessarily agree with all of them, they're in the best interest of the land (mostly) to preserve it for us to use in the future.

[+JohnnyVegas]

I have been geocaohing for quite a few years now and I just find it hard to beleive how many times this topic comes up. Anyone reading this can look it up in the guidlines for hidding a cache. It is quite clear that you can not dig a hole to hide a cache. It is also quite cleard the in the eyes of ground speak the term buried cache does not only apply to caches that are cover with dirt. All anyone has to do is read the guidlines. They are not that long. Of course there are those that will make the argument that they are guidlines not rules and guidlines are ment to be fluid and not etched in stone. Well maybe it is time to make the guidline re what is buried a rule so that it will be etched in stone. Then maybe this tired old argument can be put to rest.

Edited December 4, 2010 by JohnnyVegas

[+Lovejoy and Tinker]

There seems to be a lot of emphasis (correctly) on the damage that can be done by digging a hole to bury a cache. And an argument seems to be that one hole, dug to hide a cache, does not do very much damage in the great scheme of things.

 

But what is often overlooked is this. If it becomes generally accepted that caches can or may be hidden in a hole in the ground then what happens when after 5 minutes at GZ cachers can't find the cache?

They will assume it could be "one of them there buried caches we've heard about" and will start digging wherever the ground looks a little unnatural or disturbed.

 

Then you have lots of holes all around GZ. That's the real problem.

 

I think we have a responsibility to consider the damage that is going to be done by cachers seeking our hides, not just the damage that may be caused by placing the cache in the first place.

 

That's why in the UK you can't put a cache in a dry stone wall. Popping a small pot in an existing crevice in a wall does no damage whatsoever. But no one else knows which crevice it is in, or even exactly which section of the wall it is in (assuming GPS innacuracy). So some will start picking away at the wall wherever they see a loose bit that may be the hiding place. Before you know it the wall is badly damaged.

Edited December 4, 2010 by Lovejoy and Tinker