Jump to content

ET series


Corp Of  Discovery
Followers 17

Recommended Posts

I will bet that you haven't cached out that way yet. ;)

You would be right. However, that's not the wager we're discussing.

Lil Devil said she would "bet serious money that those arguing against driving in the desert, have never been to the desert"

You stated you would double whatever amount she stated.

I'm still waiting to see how much $$$ Lil Devil considers "serious".

I am by no means wealthy, so "serious" could be as little as four figures.

 

Like in the .0000 figures. ;)

 

But on a serious note, if you do and I hope you do, get out to the desert to cache you will see that it is hard to hurt that place. You will find so much junk out there just dumped everywhere so it isn't always a clean place. Either way, I enjoy it enough that I got back there at least once if not twice a year. Coming from a midwest boy that has grown up around greenery, I thought I would never be hooked by the desert but I am.

Link to comment

Without input from the agency as to why they are removing geocaches, it is simple a matter of opinion whether you see replacing the cache as bad behavior or not.

 

In my area, when some people working for a land agency concluded that caching must be prohibited if it is not expressly permitted (and removed several caches), local cachers took the time to find out why caches were being removed and worked things out with the agency. The last I heard, the CO for the ET series intended to contact local officials to find a solution that would meet everyone's concerns. I hope this happens and that things can be similarly resolved. But in the meantime, logs like this make me wonder:

 

During lunch on the first day, 2-3-11, at the Little Ale Inn we were advised by one of the employees that they had been told by one of the road crew workers for Nye county that effective 2-2-11, all of the series in Nye county was being removed by the road crew due to driver's negligence of some of the overzealous cachers working the trail in the past. Apparently they have caused two accidents and numerous near misses. Based on this information we stocked up on containers (about 75-100) to head out on 2-4 to do as much of the trail as we could.

 

Stocking up on replacements after being told that a county crew removed caches strikes me as irresponsible regardless of whether the crew was right or wrong. If I learned that hundreds of caches had been removed, I would have given this information to the CO so that the matter could be resolved. And if I were the CO, I would disable the affected caches in Nye County, contact local officials, resolve matters, and then worry about replacement.

Edited by mulvaney
Link to comment
Irrelevant.

Quite relevant, actually. That segment of this thread was discussing "bad behavior".

As I see it, in that particular context, "bad behavior" is rather subjective.

We're not talking about behaviors that are universally condemned, such as kicking puppies or making fun of Rosie O'Donnell.

We're talking about behaviors that some see as bad, others see as insignificant and still others see as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Because the level of "bad" is entirely subjective, determining the particular level is strictly a matter of opinion.

I think driving in an area where you've been asked not to is "bad".

I think the Nevada desert is a sensitive ecosystem.

I think driving on it unnecessarily can damage said sensitive ecosystem.

I think damaging a sensitive ecosystem is "bad".

I think throw down caching is "bad".

I think claiming finds on caches you haven't hunted for is "bad".

I think replacing caches which you believe were removed by a government entity is "bad"

 

As I stated before, these are my opinions. These are only opinions, and should not be confused with statements of fact.

 

Since the context of that portion of the thread was dealing with opinions, mine are entirely relevant. <_<

Link to comment
Irrelevant.

Quite relevant, actually. That segment of this thread was discussing "bad behavior".

As I see it, in that particular context, "bad behavior" is rather subjective.

We're not talking about behaviors that are universally condemned, such as kicking puppies or making fun of Rosie O'Donnell.

We're talking about behaviors that some see as bad, others see as insignificant and still others see as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Because the level of "bad" is entirely subjective, determining the particular level is strictly a matter of opinion.

I think driving in an area where you've been asked not to is "bad".

I think the Nevada desert is a sensitive ecosystem.

I think driving on it unnecessarily can damage said sensitive ecosystem.

I think damaging a sensitive ecosystem is "bad".

I think throw down caching is "bad".

I think claiming finds on caches you haven't hunted for is "bad".

I think replacing caches which you believe were removed by a government entity is "bad"

 

As I stated before, these are my opinions. These are only opinions, and should not be confused with statements of fact.

 

Since the context of that portion of the thread was dealing with opinions, mine are entirely relevant. <_<

Poking fun at Rosie O'Donnell is bad?

 

I wonder if all who oppose this PT because of perceived or actual damage to the eco-system, environment, wildlife, vegetation, baseball players union or whatever are just as active in their personal lives. Do they recycle at every opportunity, conserve water, car pool, use solar energy??

Link to comment
I'm curious for Google Earth to update their satellite imagery to see if there's a big alien head of tracks visible now."

Looks like it...

5a7323e8-1a41-42f2-8f67-9806b8576652.jpg

 

I see a lady with flowing hair in a swim suit but no alien head

 

Probably because if Clan Riffster got that imagery from Google Earth (it looks identical to what I'm seeing in Google Earth Pro) you're looking at a photo taken in November 2006, three years before the trail existed.

 

If you go to Bing and pull up the Bird's Eye view (250' is the closest available) you'll see a lot of animal/social/other trails throughout that area.

Link to comment

But on a serious note, if you do and I hope you do, get out to the desert to cache you will see that it is hard to hurt that place.

I've been to the desert. More than once. And, more than one desert. I've just never cached there.

What I've seen is that it is fairly easy to go from an established root system, to sand dunes.

While I do love sections of desert that still retain root systems, I gotta tell you, I'm not all that fond of sand dunes.

I'm one of those environmental (emphasis on "mental") kooks who advocates limiting off trail driving in deserts.

I believe, (opinion time again), that driving in a desert ecosystem can damage established root structures, leading to erosion and sand dunes.

Link to comment

But on a serious note, if you do and I hope you do, get out to the desert to cache you will see that it is hard to hurt that place.

I've been to the desert. More than once. And, more than one desert. I've just never cached there.

What I've seen is that it is fairly easy to go from an established root system, to sand dunes.

While I do love sections of desert that still retain root systems, I gotta tell you, I'm not all that fond of sand dunes.

I'm one of those environmental (emphasis on "mental") kooks who advocates limiting off trail driving in deserts.

I believe, (opinion time again), that driving in a desert ecosystem can damage established root structures, leading to erosion and sand dunes.

 

The Government testing nuclear bombs out there never helped much either. ;)

Link to comment

During lunch on the first day, 2-3-11, at the Little Ale Inn we were advised by one of the employees that they had been told by one of the road crew workers for Nye county that effective 2-2-11, all of the series in Nye county was being removed by the road crew due to driver's negligence of some of the overzealous cachers working the trail in the past.
Apparently they have caused two accidents and numerous near misses.
Based on this information we stocked up on containers (about 75-100) to head out on 2-4 to do as much of the trail as we could.

Shenanigans. Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

The Government testing nuclear bombs out there never helped much either. ;)

True, but that was before my time. Being a closet hippie, had I been around, and had I known about it back then, I would certainly have protested that as well.

I think I'm just naturally drawn to lost causes. Heck, the guy I voted for for President only won 0.4% of the national vote. :lol:

Link to comment

During lunch on the first day, 2-3-11, at the Little Ale Inn we were advised by one of the employees that they had been told by one of the road crew workers for Nye county that effective 2-2-11, all of the series in Nye county was being removed by the road crew due to driver's negligence of some of the overzealous cachers working the trail in the past.
Apparently they have caused two accidents and numerous near misses.
Based on this information we stocked up on containers (about 75-100) to head out on 2-4 to do as much of the trail as we could.

Shenanigans.

 

Agreed. As posted earlier, that long stretch of road only gets about 200 cars a day combined. Cachers have reported only seeing a half dozen cars in several hours of driving. I've been through the logs and have seen no references to accidents with other vehicles.

 

Who would have thunk that you could get incorrect information at a store in the Nevada Desert that is devoted to aliens?

Link to comment
I'm curious for Google Earth to update their satellite imagery to see if there's a big alien head of tracks visible now."

Looks like it...

5a7323e8-1a41-42f2-8f67-9806b8576652.jpg

 

I see a lady with flowing hair in a swim suit but no alien head

 

Probably because if Clan Riffster got that imagery from Google Earth (it looks identical to what I'm seeing in Google Earth Pro) you're looking at a photo taken in November 2006, three years before the trail existed.

 

If you go to Bing and pull up the Bird's Eye view (250' is the closest available) you'll see a lot of animal/social/other trails throughout that area.

Yeah, we really got to do something about those cows.

Link to comment

I think driving in an area where you've been asked not to is "bad".

I think the Nevada desert is a sensitive ecosystem.

I think driving on it unnecessarily can damage said sensitive ecosystem.

I think damaging a sensitive ecosystem is "bad".

I think throw down caching is "bad".

I think claiming finds on caches you haven't hunted for is "bad".

I think replacing caches which you believe were removed by a government entity is "bad"

 

I'll add one...

 

I think hiding caches on private property before getting permission is "bad".

Link to comment

During lunch on the first day, 2-3-11, at the Little Ale Inn we were advised by one of the employees that they had been told by one of the road crew workers for Nye county that effective 2-2-11, all of the series in Nye county was being removed by the road crew due to driver's negligence of some of the overzealous cachers working the trail in the past.
Apparently they have caused two accidents and numerous near misses.
Based on this information we stocked up on containers (about 75-100) to head out on 2-4 to do as much of the trail as we could.

Shenanigans.

 

Agreed. As posted earlier, that long stretch of road only gets about 200 cars a day combined. Cachers have reported only seeing a half dozen cars in several hours of driving. I've been through the logs and have seen no references to accidents with other vehicles.

 

Who would have thunk that you could get incorrect information at a store in the Nevada Desert that is devoted to aliens?

 

A store that many pro ET power trail posters have included in part of their argument FOR the power trail. Stating that the store loves it and the business it brings. Why would they lie?

Link to comment

Agreed. As posted earlier, that long stretch of road only gets about 200 cars a day combined. Cachers have reported only seeing a half dozen cars in several hours of driving. I've been through the logs and have seen no references to accidents with other vehicles.

 

Who would have thunk that you could get incorrect information at a store in the Nevada Desert that is devoted to aliens?

 

A store that many pro ET power trail posters have included in part of their argument FOR the power trail. Stating that the store loves it and the business it brings. Why would they lie?

 

Who said 'lie'? A lot of ways 2nd & 3rd hand information can get wrong without the teller being a liar.

Link to comment

It's funny. Many, many times I've agreed with CR. Feels kind of weird to be opposing him on this subject.

 

OTOH, who woulda thought I'd ever have joranda on my side? :blink:

 

Edit to add I'm just poking fun. I'm just not getting worked up in either way. But I am enjoying the discussion. Carry on.

Edited by Lil Devil
Link to comment

Agreed. As posted earlier, that long stretch of road only gets about 200 cars a day combined. Cachers have reported only seeing a half dozen cars in several hours of driving. I've been through the logs and have seen no references to accidents with other vehicles.

 

Who would have thunk that you could get incorrect information at a store in the Nevada Desert that is devoted to aliens?

 

A store that many pro ET power trail posters have included in part of their argument FOR the power trail. Stating that the store loves it and the business it brings. Why would they lie?

 

Who said 'lie'? A lot of ways 2nd & 3rd hand information can get wrong without the teller being a liar.

 

Shennanigans, incorrect information or a lie. It would not help them a bit to pass it on the cachers. I think they know way more than posters on here. And Mulvaney is correct in calling out the cachers replacing caches after hearing that info. Not sure how anyone on here can be behind that behavior. Pro or Con, when evidence of Land Manager/Government involvement is heard, to place new containers is wrong. Even if they didn't believe them, I think most semi-intelligent people would add a little credence to the rumor when the caches are missing. Even if it was disgruntled anti power trail cachers or muggles, they should have let them be, until it is worked out. Just another shameful side-effect of this type of caching.

Link to comment
I'm curious for Google Earth to update their satellite imagery to see if there's a big alien head of tracks visible now."

Looks like it...

5a7323e8-1a41-42f2-8f67-9806b8576652.jpg

 

I see a lady with flowing hair in a swim suit but no alien head

 

Probably because if Clan Riffster got that imagery from Google Earth (it looks identical to what I'm seeing in Google Earth Pro) you're looking at a photo taken in November 2006, three years before the trail existed.

 

If you go to Bing and pull up the Bird's Eye view (250' is the closest available) you'll see a lot of animal/social/other trails throughout that area.

 

As far as I can tell, the Bing maps are no more recent than the Google Earth imagery. All these amps are uselees without a view of the area before the trail existed and imagery that definitively identified as photos recently taken (preferably within the past few months.

 

Without the definitive photographic evidence I look to accounts from eye witnesses. Both Briansnat and I posted portions of numerous geocache logs from geocachers recently visited the area. These are not account from a small group of vigilantes that have never been to the desert and are fabricating arguments in an attempt to get the trail banned. They're coming from geocachers that have been on the ground where the trail is located and many of them specifically used the word "damage" to describe the impact of driving the Alien Head portion of the trail.

 

Everyone is going to form their own opinion as to whether damage is being done to the environment as a result of the actions of more than a few geocachers doing the trail, but from what I've seen the evidence is compelling and enough to convince *me* that something should be done about it. I'm not offering any specific solutions but it's only a matter of time before someone gets fed up enough and posts NA logs on all or a large portion of those caches and forces the local reviewer and groundspeaks hand. Before anyone points any fingers at me, I would never post a NA log on a cache if I hadn't visited ground zero personally.

Link to comment

I would bet serious money that those arguing against driving in the desert, have never been to the desert.

 

no.

 

i live in the desert. i see what we call geo-trails all the time on the themed caches out here. where people did not want to drive on perfectly good dirt roads and then walk to the caches so drove across the desert. on the last cache of the smiley series outside of victorville, a couple of quads came roaring right up to the cache, jumped off and found the cache when they could have just as easily parked the quads and walked the few hundred feet.

 

on the yermo trail, there are tracks that go off the road into the desert to save walking a few feet!

 

i archived a cache that required people to walk .25 mile over some really interesting landscape - but some fools decided to drive out to save the extra .13 mile - then there was a track and so more folks decided it was a road and continued to drive. i was dismayed. this cache had existed for a long time before orvs decided to drive across the desert. those tracks will last a long long time.

 

the desert is a fragile environment protected by biotic crust. driving on it destroys the micro-organisms that make up the crust. everything is connected. driving across the desert, because it looks empty except for some grasses and small shrubs is bad. period. but to those cachers who don't care, then nothing any of us say that actually live out here, will make any difference.

 

if this was happening in a scenic woodland, i think more people would squawk.

Link to comment

I've lost track of the thread a bit.

So the problem is environmental damage, then. I thought it was to do with safety concerns. I stand corrected!

Is Nye the only county worried about the damage to the roadside? Do you have a copy of the actual letter?

 

At this point we don't know what Nye's concerns are/might be. They have not formally contacted anybody or written any formal letters (that phrase came from a log and is a bit confusing). The CO is searching out the involved parties in an attempt to get the whole story and develop a solution that makes everybody happy. That's all we know at this point.

Link to comment

Seems a hell of a big discussion if that's the only basis!

 

Just another battleground for Pro and Anti Power trail caching. Groundspeak won't make a definitive stand and threw the feedback idea back into the forums for more discussion. The feedback suggestion was in the old system and then in the new system "under review" for over 4 months, then Jeremy decided that wasn't the place for it. Not sure how it could be under review for that long to determine that, but it was. So, here we are, until a decision is made, and then we can argue the decision to eternity.

Link to comment
Agreed. As posted earlier, that long stretch of road only gets about 200 cars a day combined. Cachers have reported only seeing a half dozen cars in several hours of driving. I've been through the logs and have seen no references to accidents with other vehicles.

 

Just wanted to make a minor point with this info:

 

I don't recall seeing anyone dispute the 200 cars a day figure so I did a little math: Dividing that by 24 hours gives us 8.33 cars/hour. Multiply that by 13 (that's how long group from my area said it took them IIRC) and you get @108. That's roughly 1 car passing by every 10 caches or 7 minutes. While not rush hour traffic by any means, it's not insubstantial either- especially considering the remoteness of the area.

Link to comment

It's funny. Many, many times I've agreed with CR. Feels kind of weird to be opposing him on this subject.

 

OTOH, who woulda thought I'd ever have joranda on my side? :blink:

 

Edit to add I'm just poking fun. I'm just not getting worked up in either way. But I am enjoying the discussion. Carry on.

 

Hey that is ok, I am all about the caching and the fun I get from it. I just want to thank the guys for taking the time to place the caches for us to find.

Link to comment
Agreed. As posted earlier, that long stretch of road only gets about 200 cars a day combined. Cachers have reported only seeing a half dozen cars in several hours of driving. I've been through the logs and have seen no references to accidents with other vehicles.

 

Just wanted to make a minor point with this info:

 

I don't recall seeing anyone dispute the 200 cars a day figure so I did a little math: Dividing that by 24 hours gives us 8.33 cars/hour. Multiply that by 13 (that's how long group from my area said it took them IIRC) and you get @108. That's roughly 1 car passing by every 10 caches or 7 minutes. While not rush hour traffic by any means, it's not insubstantial either- especially considering the remoteness of the area.

 

Just to complicate things, that was for driving on any portion of the highway. Not driving the entire length.

Link to comment

I'm still pretty new to this but alot of this stuff like the throw downs and jumpers and pre stamped log containers is nothing i've seen in the faq pages on this site or at least I don't remember them if they were.

 

I was under the impression that if you don't find a cache you logged a DNF, right? So when they don't find the cache why aren't they doing this?

 

I carry duct tape in my pack in case I need to fix up a cache but I thought the practice would be to either to try to fix the cache and then let the CO know of this or replace the "BROKEN" containter and then also contact the CO to let them know you did this.

 

How could you tell in a desert where the cache was to replace a cache? I could see if there was a pile of rocks for each and ever geocache to know where to replace the geocaches but thought i'd read that you should log a dnf if you can't find it and if you want to help them out and replace it that you had to contact the CO and get permission "Before" you replaced it which would still be tricky if you didn't know 100% where it was to begin with.

 

Is not being able to find 100 or more caches normal? Wouldn't that in it's self send up some kind of flag saying I'd better contact the CO and notify him that something is going on with his caches? Wouldn't that be common sense?

 

I would think that if you were at that resteraunt and were told that someone official had removed those caches wouldn't you just be looking for trouble by putting them back when it sounds like it was done on purpose. Wouldn't that be yet another flag saying you need to contact the CO and let him know something is going on with the caches?

 

Sounds like either they are stirring things up for the heck of it or to be mean or they don't want to miss out on those numbers cause i'd think if they were just out for fun and scenery then missing out on a 100 wouldn't be a big deal since it's just about having fun, Right?

 

There are a few fairly small geocache series around here and I would think that if I went to the first one and took the whole cache and signed it in the car on the way to the second cache and then left the first cache there and took the second one with me and signed it in the car on the way to the 3rd one and put the second cache in the third cache spot and so on and so on i'd probaby have CO that would be pretty annoyed with me. This isn't good practice, right? So i'm wondering why they were doing this and then telling on themselves and posting it in their log?

 

I'm probably not the only newer person to be reading this and hoping they are not learning bad practices and wondering what is the right way and what is the wrong way to geocache.

 

Please go easy on me as i'm still pretty new.

 

Edited for my rotten gramer and changed a few things that didn't make much sense they way I had it...lol

Cindy, you have said in one post what some of us have been trying to say in pages. I hope you don't take this wrong, but "out of the mouth of babes".

 

That said, I will say that what is being discussed here is a specialized genre (aka "mutation") of geocaching, so please don't apply anything you see here to your day-to-day neighborhood geocaching.

 

No offense taken and thought maybe a fresh eye on this would make a difference but for some I see it's usless and people will never get it? Guess they were not taught the leave no trace in cub scouts...hehehe

 

That even if the ranchers drive their trucks and atv's is fine for them CAUSE IT'S THEIR PROPERTY it is NOT our property to abuse even if the owners do it.

 

It's obvious in some of those pic that there are marks on the side of the road from people driving. There probably were plants growing there at one time but are gone now because of people driving on the shoulder. Can't figure out why people don't get that either.

 

Sounds like when people say it's hard to hurt the desert are doing their best to see how much it does take to hurt the dessert.

 

Just because there is junk out there all over the place doesn't mean it's ok to add to it just cause someone else did it doesn't make it right!

 

Even if NDOT removing containers is a rumor it's possible that it's not a rumor as well and for those not airing on the side of caution and not contacting the CO as should be done are the ones that i'd love to see an NDOT guy out there driving around and decide to call the police on them.

 

And if that place said that NDOT removed a bunch of the caches and weren't being truthfull jut to get business why ould the risk being in trouble with NDOT. You don't think when being question a chacher would tell NDOT what they said? Which would lead right back to them.

 

Sounds like these power trails need to go back to the basics a bit more and do things by the guidelines otherwise what are they there for?

 

I've read every post to this thread and I think that if I were the co and people state their bad practices in their logs like driving where they are not supposed to and such should have their logs deleted and those smileys taken away.

 

lol

 

Take care everyone!

 

edited my grammer

Edited by Cindyj2
Link to comment

But on a serious note, if you do and I hope you do, get out to the desert to cache you will see that it is hard to hurt that place. You will find so much junk out there just dumped everywhere so it isn't always a clean place. Either way, I enjoy it enough that I got back there at least once if not twice a year. Coming from a midwest boy that has grown up around greenery, I thought I would never be hooked by the desert but I am.

 

Spoken like a true Earthcache Master. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

I'm still pretty new to this but alot of this stuff like the throw downs and jumpers and pre stamped log containers is nothing i've seen in the faq pages on this site or at least I don't remember them if they were.

 

I was under the impression that if you don't find a cache you logged a DNF, right? So when they don't find the cache why aren't they doing this?

 

I carry duct tape in my pack in case I need to fix up a cache but I thought the practice would be to either to try to fix the cache and then let the CO know of this or replace the "BROKEN" containter and then also contact the CO to let them know you did this.

 

How could you tell in a desert where the cache was to replace a cache? I could see if there was a pile of rocks for each and ever geocache to know where to replace the geocaches but thought i'd read that you should log a dnf if you can't find it and if you want to help them out and replace it that you had to contact the CO and get permission "Before" you replaced it which would still be tricky if you didn't know 100% where it was to begin with.

 

Is not being able to find 100 or more caches normal? Wouldn't that in it's self send up some kind of flag saying I'd better contact the CO and notify him that something is going on with his caches? Wouldn't that be common sense?

 

I would think that if you were at that resteraunt and were told that someone official had removed those caches wouldn't you just be looking for trouble by putting them back when it sounds like it was done on purpose. Wouldn't that be yet another flag saying you need to contact the CO and let him know something is going on with the caches?

 

Sounds like either they are stirring things up for the heck of it or to be mean or they don't want to miss out on those numbers cause i'd think if they were just out for fun and scenery then missing out on a 100 wouldn't be a big deal since it's just about having fun, Right?

 

There are a few fairly small geocache series around here and I would think that if I went to the first one and took the whole cache and signed it in the car on the way to the second cache and then left the first cache there and took the second one with me and signed it in the car on the way to the 3rd one and put the second cache in the third cache spot and so on and so on i'd probaby have CO that would be pretty annoyed with me. This isn't good practice, right? So i'm wondering why they were doing this and then telling on themselves and posting it in their log?

 

I'm probably not the only newer person to be reading this and hoping they are not learning bad practices and wondering what is the right way and what is the wrong way to geocache.

 

Please go easy on me as i'm still pretty new.

 

Edited for my rotten gramer and changed a few things that didn't make much sense they way I had it...lol

Cindy, you have said in one post what some of us have been trying to say in pages. I hope you don't take this wrong, but "out of the mouth of babes".

 

That said, I will say that what is being discussed here is a specialized genre (aka "mutation") of geocaching, so please don't apply anything you see here to your day-to-day neighborhood geocaching.

 

No offense taken and thought maybe a fresh eye on this would make a difference but for some I see it's usless and people will never get it? Guess they were not taught the leave no trace in cub scouts...hehehe

 

That even if the ranchers drive their trucks and atv's is fine for them CAUSE IT'S THEIR PROPERTY it is NOT our property to abuse even if the owners do it.

 

It's obvious in some of those pic that there are marks on the side of the road from people driving. There probably were plants growing there at one time but are gone now because of people driving on the shoulder. Can't figure out why people don't get that either.

 

Sounds like when people say it's hard to hurt the desert are doing their best to see how much it does take to hurt the dessert.

 

Just because there is junk out there all over the place doesn't mean it's ok to add to it just cause someone else did it doesn't make it right!

 

Even if NDOT removing containers is a rumor it's possible that it's not a rumor as well and for those not airing on the side of caution and not contacting the CO as should be done are the ones that i'd love to see an NDOT guy out there driving around and decide to call the police on them.

 

And if that place said that NDOT removed a bunch of the caches and weren't being truthfull jut to get business why ould the risk being in trouble with NDOT. You don't think when being question a chacher would tell NDOT what they said? Which would lead right back to them.

 

Sounds like these power trails need to go back to the basics a bit more and do things by the guidelines otherwise what are they there for?

 

I've read every post to this thread and I think that if I were the co and people state their bad practices in their logs like driving where they are not supposed to and such should have their logs deleted and those smileys taken away.

 

lol

 

Take care everyone!

 

edited my grammer

 

A couple points.

 

1. This is open range land. This means there are organic lawn mowers running around. They tend to eat the tasty plants along the side of the road and just about every where else.

 

2. This is the Western US. A lot of the open range land is BLM land. The ranchers pay a fee to graze cattle. Its not their land but our land.

 

3. People other than cachers pull off the road. Looky Loos pull off the side of the road to take pictures of the wild cows. Some pull off the side of the road to help water the plants.

 

4. If it was a conscious decision of NDOT to remove the containers they would have also removed the containers in Lincoln county, not just Nye county. I'm not convinced NDOT was the deciding authority.

Link to comment

I hope they get to fix up the power trail for those who already have spent money to reserve their visit to the area.

 

At the last event I attended I heard a couple of different groups that were planning their vacations/hotel/airplane reservations so that they would complete the E.T. highway. A lot of money is spent in that area by cachers.

 

But if the shoulder of the road is being damaged by cachers driving on it... well, I doubt that the money spent by cachers is generating enough tax revenue to cover those repairs.

We've seen plenty of pics of these shoulders. Where's the damage?

I haven't seen any pics of these shoulders, I'm going by what is quoted in the thread. It has been said that the dirt tracks along the side of the road are visible in satellite pictures. It was mentioned in a previous post that cachers are driving on the shoulder instead of pulling back onto the road.

 

Driving on the shoulder kills the vegetation. The vegetation prevents erosion. Ergo driving on the shoulder will cause damage.

 

Your statement is totally bogus. Had you even taken the time to review a satellite image you would know this. I did and I concentrated on both the Alien Head and the caches placed near road posts as well as the caches placed along the straight section of the highway where the caches are well out of harms way and ample shoulder is provided. Guess what, no damage is visible from space.

 

Second, vegetation does not grow on the shoulder, the shoulder is groomed and graded gravel. In most cases there is plenty of room to pull completely off the road without causing damage to the shoulder or risk hanging out on the road. In the cases there is not there is room within a car length or two of the cache. In rare occasion I had to park farther away and walk back to a cache but never did I have to risk myself, my car or the precious environment. <_<

 

Please get your facts right and if you can't because you haven't been there then don't bother spewing lies.

Link to comment

This has been an educational thread. I've learned that cow tracks, people tracks, and Jeep tracks caused by people competing to find as many caches spread along the desert every 510 or so feet are exactly the same and cause exactly the same damage to the soil.

 

Awesome.

Why does it have to be JEEP tracks :anibad: . The first person to drive the alien head wasn't in a JEEP :laughing: .

Link to comment

I hope they get to fix up the power trail for those who already have spent money to reserve their visit to the area.

 

At the last event I attended I heard a couple of different groups that were planning their vacations/hotel/airplane reservations so that they would complete the E.T. highway. A lot of money is spent in that area by cachers.

 

But if the shoulder of the road is being damaged by cachers driving on it... well, I doubt that the money spent by cachers is generating enough tax revenue to cover those repairs.

We've seen plenty of pics of these shoulders. Where's the damage?

I haven't seen any pics of these shoulders, I'm going by what is quoted in the thread. It has been said that the dirt tracks along the side of the road are visible in satellite pictures. It was mentioned in a previous post that cachers are driving on the shoulder instead of pulling back onto the road.

 

Driving on the shoulder kills the vegetation. The vegetation prevents erosion. Ergo driving on the shoulder will cause damage.

 

Your statement is totally bogus. Had you even taken the time to review a satellite image you would know this. I did and I concentrated on both the Alien Head and the caches placed near road posts as well as the caches placed along the straight section of the highway where the caches are well out of harms way and ample shoulder is provided. Guess what, no damage is visible from space.

 

Second, vegetation does not grow on the shoulder, the shoulder is groomed and graded gravel. In most cases there is plenty of room to pull completely off the road without causing damage to the shoulder or risk hanging out on the road. In the cases there is not there is room within a car length or two of the cache. In rare occasion I had to park farther away and walk back to a cache but never did I have to risk myself, my car or the precious environment. <_<

 

Please get your facts right and if you can't because you haven't been there then don't bother spewing lies.

Psssst. Those Sat images are from 2006

Link to comment

That's great that you pull over only where it was safe to do so and didn't harm the fragile desert environment. But even if 1% of the people who look for these caches are less careful, drive unsafely, and go off the road, then we must put a stop to this. And the 1% is definitely a conservative figure, because the people who are attracted to repetitive power trail caching don't care about anything but the numbers. Just the fact that they will admit to moving caches in order to increase their rate of finds per hour is proof they are evil. They care only about a big number and will disregard their own safety, the safety of others, and the precious environment. If Groundspeak does not immediately archive all power trails and put in place a rule to stop this practice, it will attract more evil reckless, selfish, anti-environment types to geocaching. Geocachers will then get a reputation for destroying the environment and terrorizing the public. There will be a backlash in state legislatures throughout the country, and all geocaching will be banned.

 

How dare you say that this a lie. It is my opinion, we're still allowed to have opinions aren't we? :unsure:

 

:mmraspberry:

Link to comment

But on a serious note, if you do and I hope you do, get out to the desert to cache you will see that it is hard to hurt that place. You will find so much junk out there just dumped everywhere so it isn't always a clean place. Either way, I enjoy it enough that I got back there at least once if not twice a year. Coming from a midwest boy that has grown up around greenery, I thought I would never be hooked by the desert but I am.

 

Spoken like a true Earthcache Master. :rolleyes:

 

Sorry, you must have me mixed up with a guy called Cav Scout. ;)

Link to comment

But on a serious note, if you do and I hope you do, get out to the desert to cache you will see that it is hard to hurt that place.

I've been to the desert. More than once. And, more than one desert. I've just never cached there.

What I've seen is that it is fairly easy to go from an established root system, to sand dunes.

While I do love sections of desert that still retain root systems, I gotta tell you, I'm not all that fond of sand dunes.

I'm one of those environmental (emphasis on "mental") kooks who advocates limiting off trail driving in deserts.

I believe, (opinion time again), that driving in a desert ecosystem can damage established root structures, leading to erosion and sand dunes.

 

sand dunes are quite wonderful and support a variety of wildlife and plants in a unique ecosystem. that said i have to agree with you on the rest. the desert is so much more fragile than people realize, contrary to what another poster said.

Link to comment

But on a serious note, if you do and I hope you do, get out to the desert to cache you will see that it is hard to hurt that place. You will find so much junk out there just dumped everywhere so it isn't always a clean place. Either way, I enjoy it enough that I got back there at least once if not twice a year. Coming from a midwest boy that has grown up around greenery, I thought I would never be hooked by the desert but I am.

 

junk is dumped out here because people think the desert is empty and think it is hard to hurt the place. you are SO wrong on that point. it is easy to hurt the desert and the wildlife that call it home. that's why we don't allow off-road vehicles to just go tearing about. and that means geocachers shouldn't be doing it either just to get to a cache.

Link to comment

That even if the ranchers drive their trucks and atv's is fine for them CAUSE IT'S THEIR PROPERTY it is NOT our property to abuse even if the owners do it.

 

This sentence led to an interesting detour on the information highway. Much of which is off-topic here. Suffice it to say that the BLM has been clashing with Nevada ranchers. Back on topic...

 

The land that the Alien Head resides on is BLM land. It is owned by US, not ranchers.It is available for lease to ranchers for grazing purposes (Duckwater allotment, I believe). The grazing lease does not remove the rights of citizens to use the land. From the BLM website:

 

Can someone who is leasing BLM lands for the purpose of grazing, recreational outfitting or for mining claims deny the general public access to, or use of BLM leased lands? Can they charge the general public for use of BLM leased lands?

BLM leased lands are open for use to the general public the same as non-leased BLM lands. BLM permit holders cannot charge the general public for access to, or for use of BLM leased lands. There are BLM recreational permittees who charge their clients for their services, however, they are not allowed to charge the general public for use of those same BLM public lands they use for their services.

 

4x4 & ATV usage is allowed on these lands, let alone hiking, walking and geocaching. Speaking of geocaching, the BLM has specifically authorized Geocaching on BLM lands;

 

Policy/Action: A special recreation permit (SRP) is not required if the geocaching activity complies with casual use conditions. The following conditions apply to casual use: the activity is not a commercial endeavor, the activity complies with land use decisions and designations, (i.e., special area designations and wilderness interim management policy), and it does not award cash prizes, is not publicly advertised, poses minimal risk for damage to public land or related water resource values, and generally requires no monitoring.

 

The CO of the Alien Head placed these caches on a parcel of land that is publicly owned, has adequate permission, and has chosen a location which allows activities with higher impacts than geocaching (4x4, ATV, Grazing). Even though driving to the caches is permitted by the BLM, the CO is asking that people walk it instead.

 

The Alien Head caches meet the requirements for Groundspeak and the land manager.

 

EDITED FOR BAD TYPING

Edited by Ecylram
Link to comment

 

I haven't seen any pics of these shoulders, I'm going by what is quoted in the thread. It has been said that the dirt tracks along the side of the road are visible in satellite pictures. It was mentioned in a previous post that cachers are driving on the shoulder instead of pulling back onto the road.

 

Driving on the shoulder kills the vegetation. The vegetation prevents erosion. Ergo driving on the shoulder will cause damage.

 

Your statement is totally bogus. Had you even taken the time to review a satellite image you would know this. I did and I concentrated on both the Alien Head and the caches placed near road posts as well as the caches placed along the straight section of the highway where the caches are well out of harms way and ample shoulder is provided. Guess what, no damage is visible from space.

 

Second, vegetation does not grow on the shoulder, the shoulder is groomed and graded gravel. In most cases there is plenty of room to pull completely off the road without causing damage to the shoulder or risk hanging out on the road. In the cases there is not there is room within a car length or two of the cache. In rare occasion I had to park farther away and walk back to a cache but never did I have to risk myself, my car or the precious environment. <_<

 

Please get your facts right and if you can't because you haven't been there then don't bother spewing lies.

While I agree with you about the shoulders of the road (they are graded continually by the road crews, I'm sure), I sure don't care for that tone. I'm not a mod, so I can't tell you to tone it down, but as a fellow member, I can sure ask you to. Please? Thank you.

 

Not everybody here is talking about pulling over on the shoulders, though. The conversation is also about driving across open desert. I don't buy the excuses, "everybody does it", and "you should see the all junk out there", etc. Those are immature excuses that we as adults need to rise above. If its true that everybody does it, then perhaps that's all the more reason that we should not.

Link to comment

But on a serious note, if you do and I hope you do, get out to the desert to cache you will see that it is hard to hurt that place. You will find so much junk out there just dumped everywhere so it isn't always a clean place. Either way, I enjoy it enough that I got back there at least once if not twice a year. Coming from a midwest boy that has grown up around greenery, I thought I would never be hooked by the desert but I am.

 

junk is dumped out here because people think the desert is empty and think it is hard to hurt the place. you are SO wrong on that point. it is easy to hurt the desert and the wildlife that call it home. that's why we don't allow off-road vehicles to just go tearing about. and that means geocachers shouldn't be doing it either just to get to a cache.

People dump junk anywhere they think they can get away with it. The desert is no different than the forest. People don't dump junk in the desert because they think it is hard to hurt the place.

Link to comment

But on a serious note, if you do and I hope you do, get out to the desert to cache you will see that it is hard to hurt that place. You will find so much junk out there just dumped everywhere so it isn't always a clean place. Either way, I enjoy it enough that I got back there at least once if not twice a year. Coming from a midwest boy that has grown up around greenery, I thought I would never be hooked by the desert but I am.

 

junk is dumped out here because people think the desert is empty and think it is hard to hurt the place. you are SO wrong on that point. it is easy to hurt the desert and the wildlife that call it home. that's why we don't allow off-road vehicles to just go tearing about. and that means geocachers shouldn't be doing it either just to get to a cache.

People dump junk anywhere they think they can get away with it. The desert is no different than the forest. People don't dump junk in the desert because they think it is hard to hurt the place.

 

Unfortunately, WRASTRO, you are correct. That's one of my biggest pet peeves, but I've seen it happen onto my family's land, sides of roads, abandoned lots, forests, etc. People don't want to pay the dump fees.

Link to comment

4x4 & ATV usage is allowed on these lands, let alone hiking, walking and geocaching. Speaking of geocaching,

 

. . . . .

 

The CO of the Alien Head placed these caches on a parcel of land that is publicly owned, has adequate permission, and has chosen a location which allows activities with higher impacts than geocaching (4x4, ATV, Grazing). Even though driving to the caches is permitted by the BLM, the CO is asking that people walk it instead.

 

The Nevada BLM land management guidelines generally "encourage OHV use on existing or designated roads and trails;" "promote/expand/disseminate materials from programs such as, but not limited to, `Tread Lightly!`;" and "avoiding the promotion of products, behaviors and services that are inconsistent with existing regulations and land use plans."

 

The Deputy Director of the BLM stated:

 

In December 2007, the BLM sent guidance to its field offices to further clarify travel management decisions in the planning process. Specifically, the guidance affirmed that continued designation of large areas that remain open to unregulated “cross-country travel” is not a practical management strategy. Instead, field offices are directed to focus OHV travel on designated roads and trails.

 

The deputy director also pointed to programs such as "Stay the Trail" as an example of how it seeks to reduce irresponsible use, thus minimizing resource damage.

 

I certainly have not done enough research to know if the local BLM office has determined that the area around Alien Head is a "designated open area, where unrestricted OHV play is permissible" or if is a road or trail that has been designated for such use. I am not sure that you have either. The CO is closer to the situation and has asked people not to drive. I assume this is good advice and have no problem if people do that. It's too bad so many have ignored it.

 

But I am hesitant to accept a blanket statement about off road vehicle use on BLM land without further information or documentation.

Edited by mulvaney
Link to comment
...

People dump junk anywhere they think they can get away with it. The desert is no different than the forest. People don't dump junk in the desert because they think it is hard to hurt the place.

 

yeh, i think you many be right on that. it probably not part of the reasoning that goes on in the mind of the dumper. we just see so much of it. contractors' trash, huge used tire dumps. not stuff that is being thrown out of somebody's house, although there is enough of that too.

 

that said, it is easy to damage the desert. just because it looks harsh, does not make it strong.

Link to comment

But on a serious note, if you do and I hope you do, get out to the desert to cache you will see that it is hard to hurt that place. You will find so much junk out there just dumped everywhere so it isn't always a clean place. Either way, I enjoy it enough that I got back there at least once if not twice a year. Coming from a midwest boy that has grown up around greenery, I thought I would never be hooked by the desert but I am.

 

Spoken like a true Earthcache Master. :rolleyes:

 

Sorry, you must have me mixed up with a guy called Cav Scout. ;)

 

Careful, you'll cross the streams and get us all banned.

 

Also, from your profile: 3c7e38d2-f4d2-4ab5-91f6-0bf8039133f9.jpg

Link to comment
...

 

4x4 & ATV usage is allowed on these lands, let alone hiking, walking and geocaching. Speaking of geocaching, the BLM has specifically authorized Geocaching on BLM lands;...

holy cow, that is how things get messed up!

 

unrestricted 4x4 and ATV on BLM land is not allowed. even out here where there is a lot BLM land you have to stay on designated routes that are signed open. if a route is not signed open it is considered closed. something that has had people up in arms about for years.

 

there are giant swaths of land that ARE ohv areas where the rules are much more lenient. there are these kiosks on the main roads into these areas that outline what is and what isn't allowed.

 

some hills of blm land in afton canyon has been fenced off because of ohv damage in the past. those scars will never heal.

 

you certainly need to know the rules and regs of where you are and don't make blanket statements about what is allowed and where.

 

and ranchers have a certain amount of control of what goes on on their leased land. you cannot just drive willy nilly over the prairie or desert rangeland because it is blm controlled property leased by a rancher.

 

in the desert, so much of the land is owned by private parties, not necessarily individuals but corporations like catellus (part of the old santa fe/southern pacific rail corporations), old or current mining claims and prospects. there are no visible boundaries, but the ownership can change from one quadrant to the next.

 

so back to the ET series. how many of the land owners were contacted before the caches were placed or replaced or thrown?

Edited by RedShoesGirl
Link to comment

I don't usually post much on the forums since I know the types of responses that posting personal opinions can generate. However, as someone who just did a portion of the E.T. Highway series and the Alien Head 2 weeks ago, I figured that my observations and thoughts might be relevant to the current discussion.

 

A brief background....jo.b and I (both from New Jersey) specifically planned a vacation out to the southwest to do several caching series, including the Kokopelli Man and Star in Utah, a part of the ET Highway, and the Alien Head in Nevada. The E.T. Highway wasn't the main focus of our visit , but we thought that we would give it a shot starting at ET 001 and log them as far as the Alien Head (ended up doing out to #421). On Jan 28, we started out at E.T. 001 shortly after 6:00 am and arrived at the Alien Head at around 12:30 pm.

 

Some general observations and thoughts on the E.T. Highway:

 

As others have mentioned in previous posts, traffic on this road is virtually non-existent. I think in the 6.5 hrs that we were actively caching the highway, we were passed by maybe 10 - 15 cars. As I mentioned in my log, jo.b and I took turns driving and hopping out of the car to log the caches. I drove for the first 150 while she logged, and then we traded places for the next 150. As I also mentioned in my log, we were able to leave the car parked right on the road for most of the trek since traffic was not a problem. On most parts of the section that we did, you could see for literally miles both in front and behind you. What is especially important to note, however, is that at all times someone was behind the wheel of the car, watching/listening for other cars and ready to move off to the side if necessary. I'm not sure if that is how everyone does it, but it would seem to me to be common sense to not just stop the car on the road with no one behind the wheel. I don't want to imply that I considered all parts of the highway good places for caches, because that is definitely not the case. There were several areas where the road turned and went around blind curves. Why not simply pull off to the side you might ask? The answer is, we did where we could. However, there were some locations where there was really no safe place available to pull completely off of the road. Some shoulders were fairly narrow with a rather steep drop off if you happened to pull off a little too far. In those cases, we quite literally had to rely on our ears to listen for any traffic that might be coming down the road. Needless to say, I was quite happy to get that part of the highway behind us. Of the 421 caches that we found, I believe that only 2 were truly missing. Of the ones we couldn't initially find, if we just did a general scan of the area, we actually were able to find the wayward cache had moved maybe 10 ft down the road...most likely by the wind, but perhaps it was an alien. haha :-p In the cases where the cache was missing, it was quite obvious where it should have been, so we did replace them with "extra" E.T. caches that we found at one location. I will say that it is definitely a very pretty area, but I'm not sure how much I really got to enjoy it with all of the stopping and jumping in and out of the car. The drive back at the end of the day was actually better because we didn't have to stop every 528 ft. :-) Having done the portion that I did, I can honestly say that I am glad that I did it ... if for no other reason than to just experience that type of caching for myself. That being said, would I actively seek out to go back and finish the remaining 600 that I didn't do (assuming they aren't archived)? I'm not sure that I would. I guess for me it was a "been there, done that, let's move on" type of experience. Do I begrudge those who like this kind of caching? No. Am I going to actively petition for their removal? No. Will I be upset if they eventually are all archived? Probably not.

 

Some general observations and thoughts on the Alien Head:

 

Doing this series was the actual reason that jo.b and I headed out the E.T. Highway in the first place. I love the concept of these desert art cache series and really wish we had a place large enough in New Jersey (that wasn't already full of caches) where someone could do something like this. Let me tell you, after driving 6.5 hrs with constant stopping, it was a welcome break to get out of the car and actually hike around for a while. After doing the entire Kokopelli Man and Star series over in Utah a few days before, I was really looking forward to some more desert hiking. While I really enjoyed doing the series itself, I will also say that I was quite disappointed to see the well-worn road that basically went around to all of the caches. While the road is not visible yet online, I suspect that is only the case because the currently available imagery was taken in 2006. Both the images on Google Earth and Bing are old, with the most current GIS data available online for Lincoln County, NV being from 2006. I have a friend here in NJ who is a photogrammetist, and he is going to check to see if more recent images are available. However, after looking online himself, he seriously doubts it. The road that I saw leading around to all of the caches will most definitely be visible (and quite clearly so) in any new aerial images of the location. The entire hike around the head took jo.b and I roughly 3 hours. I guess what puzzled me the most is why is it that everyone was in such a darn hurry to log them that they couldn't spend 3 hours out of their day to hike it? This is an especially relevant question since the CO of the Alien Head series specifically asks on each and every cache page (third paragraph, first sentence) that no one drive to the caches. I can honestly say that the presence of the roads did detract from my enjoyment of the area ... mainly because I was constantly thinking to myself, "Why would people be so inconsiderate as to drive their cars out here and rip up the landscape?" And whether you wish to agree with me or not, ripping up the landscape is exactly what has been done. Plantlife doesn't rebound as quickly in the desert because there is only a very short window where water is available for growth to occur. These roads will most likely take years, if not decades, to completely fade away...and I can assure you, they will be visible on aerial imagery when the state of Nevada gets around to updating them. If I had been the CO of this series and had gone out to see what has been done to the area, I personally would have archived and removed them all on the spot. There are many people out there that I'm sure are thankful that I am not the CO. haha :-) A shame really, because it is obvious that the owner made great efforts to make this an enjoyable series in an otherwise beautiful desert area. If I had to make recommendations of caches to do for others planning to visit the area, my honest opinion would be to skip the Alien Head and do the Kokopelli Man instead. For me, that was a much more rewarding experience in an area that has been better cared for.

 

For what it's worth, those are my thoughts and observations of the E.T. Highway and Alien Head, though I'm sure there will be plenty that disagree with me.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 17
×
×
  • Create New...