Food for thought... Are we as geocachers really taking care of the enviroment?

[Snakecatcher]

Here is a little food for thought. as we as geocachers move from doing cache to cache in an area, then we more on to the next area and so on. As some cachers place there cache containers out in areas in grasslands, woods, forrest, hills, vally rivers etc... Everyday more and more people are taking up this great outdoors activity. It makes me think, how much of an Enviromental impact are we creating. A fellow cacher in Victoria Australia has just pulled in a series of 8 mystery cache's because they were in state park area. Park Vic are saying that there are leaving an eviromental inpact to the area. Yet there are walking tracks that have been cut throw the heaths that have been there long before geocaching even start. Mind you there is a large open cut mine near one of the cache location (not to close thou)An area has been blocked off due to recent rains and part of the colaspsed. This seems to be having more impact in my eyes.

Then a thought came to me the other day. How much impact do we really have on out enviroment. As a Scout Leader, I've been always one of the mind set of treading lightly when out in the bush and leaving an area better than I had found it. Anyway, after doing a few Mystery/Puzzle cache's up north from home and sitting down to rest where we were camping near a lake, pulling out the grass seeds for my socks to dispose of them into the bin instead of dropping them on the ground. Are we walk through grassy areas we collect burrs and grass seeds in our socks and shoes, then we more on to another area, sometimes it may be an area well away for where we were caching. We may be introducing new weeds to an area. Not only weeds but the possible chance of disease from plants. Eg Cinamon fungus. This played on my mind so I thought that I would post something on the Forums. What are you views on this? Do you do your part in caring for out surroundings and enviroment?

Thanks, SNAKECATCHER. Will also post this on the Australian site.

[+Viajero Perdido]

Plants thrive on the C02 we exhale.

 

I water the plants sometimes as I go by.

[knowschad]

I hear you. Some would think that we should not even breath, much less crush a blade of grass as we walk. Living on this planet without destroying it is a delicate balance. Geocaching does take its toll, as do just about every other outdoor activity. Unfortunately, ours is sometimes more visible to those that look for such things. Because we walk the same general path over and over, we tend to trample brush and compact soil in ways that many other groups don't do. (on the other hand, just look for the path and the erosion along any trout stream!).

 

We all know that the real environmental damage to this planet is not caused by geocachers or by any other activities like it. A trail to a cache will soon be grown back once the cache is gone.

 

The true damage is done on a much larger scale, but geocaching is an easy scapegoat. The problems are real, and we do need to minimize them as much as we can, but those that see us as the problem should probably be looking at a bigger target if they really want to make a difference.

 

We may be introducing new weeds to an area. Not only weeds but the possible chance of disease from plants.

Such is life. The deer and the rabbits are doing the same. Try your best to avoid it, by all means, but you can't stop living.

Edited January 10, 2011 by knowschad

[GOF and Bacall]

I like to think that every time I go walking in the woods I very well may be stepping on an invasive plant. Well, maybe not. But I can dream can't I?

[+Sol seaker]

I just went out caching in the woods today.

I found one more cache (a letterbox this time) that had bad coords (off bet 45 and 65 feet according to two different GPSr's) and placed in an area where the coords jump really badly. The cache had no hint. (and no letterbox instructions, even on letterbox websites)

 

The whole area was really trashed.

 

I've seen this before. Some say, well it will grow back in a year. A year from when? That cache has been there since 2006. It may be there another five years before it is archived. Perhaps longer. So we're got a cache that is creating an area to get increasingly trashed every year for at least ten years.

 

Yes, others are doing more damage to the environment than we are. So do we not recycle because we are only a small part of the problem? Is it OK to go out and trash the woods because somewhere someone is strip mining?

 

If so, how many forests are OK to do this in? I can't count how many areas I've seen trashed by geocaching.

 

We save small pieces of forest so we can have forest to go to and enjoy.

How do we feel when we go to somewhere that is trashed by off road vehicles (yes I know some geocachers use these, and will reply their damage means nothing, just as the people creating the strip mines say their damage means nothing too).

 

On the other hand, I have seen geocache owners immediately archive their caches to let the area heal when they find out the area is trashed because of their caches.

 

Helps make up for the ones who really don't care that other people want to enjoy these woods besides geocachers.

There will always be selfish people who don't care how they leave places. Just check out the trash in local parks. Many don't care as if no one uses the area but them.

[+johnsingleton1974]

Fact:

 

Nerds do not belong in the woods.

 

Fact:

 

I always see boyscouts in the woods, but where are the girlscouts? Oh yeah, selling cookies they didnt make to strangers.

 

Fact:

 

When I was addicted to geocaching, and boosting my finds count, the environment didnt matter, all that mattered was the next smiley, I barely even hunt caches anymore, and I only plant caches in places I want cachers to visit to notice their impact on nature. Sometimes they do, sometimes they dont, but I feel like it's my community service for all the trashing I did in such a small period of time.

 

Fact:

Killer whales have killed more people than sharks.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Are "WE" taking care of the environment?

 

Please don't include me in your WE. The question should be "Am I taking care of the environment?". Are you? Or do you fall into the preservationist category that thinks people are bad for the earth and should not get out and enjoy nature.

 

I am a conservationist, meaning to use but not over use a natural resource.

 

It gets tiresome reading how bad the trail to the cache in the woods is, when so often it is a natural trail created by animals that live in the area or by natural conditions (such as water runoff).

 

What will the earth look like in 500,000 years when mankind is no longer here?

 

John

[+Panther&Pine]

Fact:

 

I always see boyscouts in the woods, but where are the girlscouts? Oh yeah, selling cookies they didnt make to strangers.

 

I take offence to that. Boy Scouts don't make the candy they sell or grow the popcorn.

 

You don't see the Girl Scouts because they don't hike in uniform.

[+bflentje]

I too am a conservationist and I deplore you including me in the "WE" clause of your post. I hate to be the bearer of bad news here, but humans are God's creation too. If you're worried about hurting the flora and the fauna, then go back to your wooden home with your leather shoes and be an activist away from the woods. In the mean time, I'll be following the DEER TRAIL out to the next cache. And just to spite you, I stepped onto a few Buckthorn saplings along the way.

[knowschad]

Fact:

 

I always see boyscouts in the woods, but where are the girlscouts? Oh yeah, selling cookies they didnt make to strangers.

 

I take offence to that. Boy Scouts don't make the candy they sell or grow the popcorn.

 

You don't see the Girl Scouts because they don't hike in uniform.

You are doing better than me. I took exception to that entire post, with the possible exception of the final "fact".

[+Panther&Pine]

Fact:

 

I always see boyscouts in the woods, but where are the girlscouts? Oh yeah, selling cookies they didnt make to strangers.

 

I take offence to that. Boy Scouts don't make the candy they sell or grow the popcorn.

 

You don't see the Girl Scouts because they don't hike in uniform.

You are doing better than me. I took exception to that entire post, with the possible exception of the final "fact".

I just picked the one that tweaked me the most.

[+bflentje]

Fact:

 

I always see boyscouts in the woods, but where are the girlscouts? Oh yeah, selling cookies they didnt make to strangers.

 

I take offence to that. Boy Scouts don't make the candy they sell or grow the popcorn.

 

You don't see the Girl Scouts because they don't hike in uniform.

You are doing better than me. I took exception to that entire post, with the possible exception of the final "fact".

 

I heard in these parts that the 4th grade girlscouts found and logged a cache that scared the be-jesus out of a bunch of 15 year old orienteering boys. My three girlscouts can do ANYTHING your wimpy boys can do.

[+Panther&Pine]

I heard in these parts that the 4th grade girlscouts found and logged a cache that scared the be-jesus out of a bunch of 15 year old orienteering boys. My three girlscouts can do ANYTHING your wimpy boys can do.

I see your (generic your) Eagle Award and I raise you a Gold Award.

[+johnsingleton1974]

I take offense to the offensiveness of the offended.

[+bflentje]

I heard in these parts that the 4th grade girlscouts found and logged a cache that scared the be-jesus out of a bunch of 15 year old orienteering boys. My three girlscouts can do ANYTHING your wimpy boys can do.

I see your (generic your) Eagle Award and I raise you a Gold Award.

 

Actually, I'd rather this one stayed on topic because of the fact that the original post is so apalling to me. Perhaps some other time.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

Take it easy, folks. Please discuss the topic without the insults and attacks and off-topic comments.

 

Otherwise, kindly refrain from posting. Thanks.

[+Panther&Pine]

Okay, for an on topic response to the OP.

While there are negative and positive impacts to every single activity overall I feel that GCing is a positive.

It is getting people out into the world, getting them moving and maybe getting them involved.

 

You might try taking part in a CITO to see how much of a positive impact caching can be, or at the very least have your Scouts pick up a bag of trash while they cache. A CITO could be a great Eagle Award (no idea if Boy Scouts in Austrialia have the Eagle award by that name but I'll bet they've got something like it).

 

I think you might be a bit overboard in trashing the burs, but I don't know much about invasive species in Australia.

[+briansnat]

I think that generally speaking, geocachers have more of a regard for the environment than the average person. That's because many of us take up the sport in part to enjoy what nature has to offer and we know the importance of being good stewards of the land.

 

As far as our impact, I've found it to be negligible. In well over a thousand cache hunts and maintenance visits I've seen little visible evidence of damage and in the few instances where there was, it amounted to no more than a few bent blades of grass, broken sticks and maybe a rotting stump that was pulled apart.

 

The worst damage I ever saw was an area where many boulders were overturned and some rotting logs were pulled apart. It looked very much akin to what a bear does when rooting around for grubs. Heck it may have even been a bear, but the close proximity to a cache made me suspect a geocacher. Anyway, within months all evidence of the damage (if you could call it that) was gone.

 

I've heard much about geotrails and I don't doubt their existence. I've in fact encountered a handful of them myself. In every instance they were at caches that were very close to a road, parking lot or trail. Hardly what you'd call an environmentally sensitive area. I've also known geocachers to use existing game trails and social paths to hide their caches along. These existing trail provide easy access for cache hiders. I know because I've used them myself. To the casual observer the cache is the reason for the trail, when in reality the trail is why the cache is there.

 

Some years ago NY's Department of Environmental Conservation had a geocaching ban on all lands they managed, which included state forests and and their constitutionally protected forest preserves in the Adirondacks and Catskills. Then they did a study, sending naturalists out to geocache sites throughout the state to examine the impact. Their verdict? The impact was negligible and the ban was unwarranted. Not only that, they lifted it in the forest preserves which we geocachers never dreamed would happen.

 

I don't doubt that somewhere real environmental damage has occurred, but I bet that these cases are a minuscule percentage of all of the caches out there.

 

Of course as long as this recent power trail craze is allowed to continue unabated, all bets are off.

Edited January 10, 2011 by briansnat

[+PokerLuck]

How much impact does your house have on the environment? I'll bet it's enormous. Yet we don't stop people from living in houses. That's because there are places set aside for houses.

 

We use a balanced approach to allocating environmental resources. Some areas are designated as wilderness and are inappropriate for caches. For other areas, the impact of geocaching isn't any worse than other activities that are deemed appropriate.

[+bflentje]

How much impact does your house have on the environment? I'll bet it's enormous. Yet we don't stop people from living in houses. That's because there are places set aside for houses.

 

We use a balanced approach to allocating environmental resources. Some areas are designated as wilderness and are inappropriate for caches. For other areas, the impact of geocaching isn't any worse than other activities that are deemed appropriate.

 

I am not suggesting that we should allow caches out in designated wildernesses such as the BWCAW but I HIGHLY disagree that geocaching would add anymore impact to the land than the existing camping that is allowed. Besides, the deer don't practice Leave No Trace..

[+edscott]

I think that generally speaking, geocachers have more of a regard for the environment than the average person. That's because many of us take up the sport in part to enjoy what nature has to offer and we know the importance of being good stewards of the land.

 

As far as our impact, I've found it to be negligible. In well over a thousand cache hunts and maintenance visits I've seen little visible evidence of damage and in the few instances where there was, it amounted to no more than a few bent blades of grass, broken sticks and maybe a rotting stump that was pulled apart.

 

The worst damage I ever saw was an area where many boulders were overturned and some rotting logs were pulled apart. It looked very much akin to what a bear does when rooting around for grubs. Heck it may have even been a bear, but the close proximity to a cache made me suspect a geocacher. Anyway, within months all evidence of the damage (if you could call it that) was gone.

 

I've heard much about geotrails and I don't doubt their existence. I've in fact encountered a handful of them myself. In every instance they were at caches that were very close to a road, parking lot or trail. Hardly what you'd call an environmentally sensitive area. I've also known geocachers to use existing game trails and social paths to hide their caches along. These existing trail provide easy access for cache hiders. I know because I've used them myself. To the casual observer the cache is the reason for the trail, when in reality the trail is why the cache is there.

 

Some years ago NY's Department of Environmental Conservation had a geocaching ban on all lands they managed, which included state forests and and their constitutionally protected forest preserves in the Adirondacks and Catskills. Then they did a study, sending naturalists out to geocache sites throughout the state to examine the impact. Their verdict? The impact was negligible and the ban was unwarranted. Not only that, they lifted it in the forest preserves which we geocachers never dreamed would happen.

 

I don't doubt that somewhere real environmental damage has occurred, but I bet that these cases are a minuscule percentage of all of the caches out there.

 

Of course as long as this recent power trail craze is allowed to continue unabated, all bets are off.

 

worth reading again +1

[+Ecylram]

My preference when caching is to minimize my impact when geocaching. I've actually left GZ's and not logged a find when I though I'd be doing too much 'tromping' to the flora & fauna.

 

Having said that...

 

Our family owns timber land and I've witnessed how a road that was created to thin trees would not be findable a couple of years later. In a typical scenario, a cache getting one or two visits a week is going to have minimal impact on the environment.

 

Speaking of 'tromping'...

 

One of the biggest reasons I advocate accurate coordinates is to minimize unnecessary damage to the area around a cache.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Fact:

 

I always see boyscouts in the woods, but where are the girlscouts? Oh yeah, selling cookies they didnt make to strangers.

 

I take offence to that. Boy Scouts don't make the candy they sell or grow the popcorn.

 

You don't see the Girl Scouts because they don't hike in uniform.

I think they'd be noticed if they stripped off their uniforms to go hiking. I always get strange looks when I do that.

[+StarBrand]

True long lasting damage that adversely impacts an area from Geocaching is very rare in my opinion. Broken grass and branches, vegitation trails and a few displaced rocks are temporary changes at worst. Looks a bit bad at the moment maybe but won't have any profound effects within a few short years.