Jump to content

Is Geocaching anti-conservation?


Fianccetto

Recommended Posts

I received this email today regarding a cache placement:

 

"I am sorry but we will not give permission for geocaches to be placed on our reserve.

 

This is an extract from our policy on non-wildlife related activities on Nature Reserves:

 

'Given the unique function of nature reserves there is a general presumption against any other activity taking place on nature reserves which is not linked to the overarching objectives of conservation, education, research and quiet enjoyment of the countryside. The Trust has decided, therefore, that activities not in accordance with the purpose of reserves will not normally be permitted.'

 

I have checked this with one of our Directors who has agreed that we will not allow this."

 

While I completely accept the right of a landowner or land manager to disallow cache placements for whatever reason (they don't even have to give a reason, frankly) reading this made me feel bad. I'm pro conservation and the 'quiet enjoyment of the countryside' for all. I wouldn't put a cache anywhere which would harm a rare plant or animal, or that would take people bushwhacking through a nature reserve. I do accept that geocaches can tend to wear down the area of the cache site, and if and when mine start to show signs of this, I will/have archive(d) them. But to not allow any geocaches in certain bits of countryside because geocaching is considered to be an activity which is somehow against the above policy seems a bit much to swallow.

 

So is geocaching anti conservation? what do you think, and do you care?

Edited by Fianccetto
Link to comment

No its not. But some Nature preserves and national forests have had bad dealings with caches in the past. With people not following the rules and burring a cache.

 

When asking permission did you break down how you would hide it where you would hide it and explain how the cache would highlight the area and talk about when its such a great area. How it could help to bring attention to the the area and nature conservation.

Link to comment

No its not. But some Nature preserves and national forests have had bad dealings with caches in the past. With people not following the rules and burring a cache.

 

I do think that there are way more problems than cachers hiding buried caches. The searching approach of many cachers can be referred to as anti-conservation. That's sad, but is a fact one has to live with. Some years ago my answer to the question of the OP would have been no, now I would answer with "unfortunately yes in many situation, of course not all". Geocaching meanwhile attracts lot of people who are not used to go out to the nature and many of them neither know what needs to be taken care of nor do they care that much.

 

The general philosophy of geocaching is not anti conservation, but what many geocachers make out of it is anti conservation from my point of view.

 

As a side note: Maybe the management of the area might be more positive about a virtual cache? I do hope that the challenge system will be improved such that it can be reasonably used for situations like this one and not mainly for crazy actions, provocations and some type of tourist Waymarking at world famous sights that anyone knows anyway.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I think that they do not really understand what geocaching is nor who does it.

 

You can believe me, however, that I understand geocaching and know what it does, and nevertheless I cannot full-heartily state that geocaching in 2011 is not anti conservation.

 

I can point to dozens of educational geocaches.

 

I can do the same. The issue is rather how the cachers there behave.

 

The Natural Science Museum that I work in used geocaching as part of a youth program a few years back.

 

Were these geocaches hidden somewhere out in the wilderness and did people visit it without guides?

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

It isn't just natural areas that can be mistreated by cachers. I had to archive one of my caches that brought people to a replica of a 1743 fort. The cache listing had background on the fort and a link to their webpage. Here is the log I wrote when I archived the cache.

 

This cache has been active for 4.5 years and had 175 visits. Many of the cachers who came to cache also visited the fort and enjoyed the rich history of the area. Apparently some cachers disregard speed limits and respect for this historic site and I got an email from the Director a few minutes ago saying this has caused the Board of Trustees to ask the cache be removed. I'm sorry to see it go but I apologize for the behavior of those people who have caused the problems-causing problems wasn't my intent when I placed this cache.
Link to comment

I wonder if they think a cache will have all sorts of people rushing out to find it - I picture a FTF race of 20 cachers :)

 

When I contacted a land conservancy about putting out a couple of caches, not only did they welcome them, they asked us to put out more on another property they own. They want people to visit the trails.

 

I have been a little disappointed in the number of finds on either trail. It has been a very hot summer so I hope as it cools down more will visit.

 

That makes me think you could mention to your group that hikes or long walks are not what a lot of cachers go for (hikers/walkers seem to populate the forums more than others)

Link to comment

So is geocaching anti conservation? what do you think, and do you care?

 

By and large, I don't find the Community of Geocachers that I've met to be "anti conservation", but quite the contrary....and yes, I care :)

 

I suspect that it may take a bit of work to convince the Trust otherwise, but not an impossible task. Just one that takes a bit of patience, and finding mutual ground that is acceptable to the Land Managers and still within the spirit of the Guidelines.

 

Best of luck!

Link to comment

I would guess that "they" are not willing to take the risk of "us" jeopardizing these fragile, sensitive, historic, etc areas. "We" can try to assure them all we want but it can take as few as one visit to do damage. I hate to say it but I would venture to say there are plenty of placements out there that cause damage. A very hard to find micro located at ground zero of an old stone building for one example. At some point, perhaps at arrival, one might decide this is not a good idea or perhaps one might search determined to find at any cost.

GT Pipeline Putters

Link to comment

I think theoretically Geocaching is a pretty environmentally friendly hobby - the fact it takes you out and about in the great outdoors, gets people out rather than sitting at home and especially with initiatives like CITO all promote a good attitude.

 

Having said that, geocaching can cause damage - caches in the wilderness can have people bushwhacking to get to them, wandering through areas of plant and vegetation and causing erosion to areas that would have otherwise been unspoilt.

 

I guess the best solution is to talk to the people involved, and work out a plan with them - as mentioned above, some places are happy to have caches on their land as an extra incentive for visitors, but the prospect can be a bit scary to an area of special scientific interest where they won't want people straying off trails or causing a mess - it may be worth asking if they would allow something sticking to man made structures or on the trail itself to prevent any problems, and hopefully bring a few more people to see the area and highlight its problems.

Link to comment

No its not. But some Nature preserves and national forests have had bad dealings with caches in the past. With people not following the rules and burring a cache.

 

When asking permission did you break down how you would hide it where you would hide it and explain how the cache would highlight the area and talk about when its such a great area. How it could help to bring attention to the the area and nature conservation.

 

I appreciate this has happened and affects the reputation of geocaching. I didn't ask permission to place a cache (it's complicated and I don't want to get into the finer details here) and it is not over one specific cache, but the general principle. The email I sent was about a specific cache, but I tried to word my email to start a discussion about geocaching and ask them what they thought about it, and ask if we could discuss ways in which geocaching could highlight footpaths and so on. Their reply seems to imply a blanket ban which would affect many areas where I suspect there are caches placed. (I am not going to go and look them all up though.)

 

No its not. But some Nature preserves and national forests have had bad dealings with caches in the past. With people not following the rules and burring a cache.

 

I do think that there are way more problems than cachers hiding buried caches. The searching approach of many cachers can be referred to as anti-conservation. That's sad, but is a fact one has to live with. Some years ago my answer to the question of the OP would have been no, now I would answer with "unfortunately yes in many situation, of course not all". Geocaching meanwhile attracts lot of people who are not used to go out to the nature and many of them neither know what needs to be taken care of nor do they care that much.

 

The general philosophy of geocaching is not anti conservation, but what many geocachers make out of it is anti conservation from my point of view.

 

As a side note: Maybe the management of the area might be more positive about a virtual cache? I do hope that the challenge system will be improved such that it can be reasonably used for situations like this one and not mainly for crazy actions, provocations and some type of tourist Waymarking at world famous sights that anyone knows anyway.

 

Cezanne

 

I do tend to agree with you, and that is why I am careful not to place geocaches where damage could be done to wildlife. This is also why I was rather surprised at their reply. Just because some geocachers are careless doesn't mean all are and it does not mean that all geocaches must be harming the environment in any way. I did reply with the idea of highlighting a route/path and using the information to place a cache somewhere else. I suppose, now I think of it, I don't need permission for this, and I probably won't get a reply.

 

In general Geocaching is not anti conservation, however many "Nature" preserves are anti people!

 

If nature reserves (like the one referred to in the OP) didn't have human intervention, they would by now be impenetrable swathes of brambles and ivy.

 

I think it would be good to send them an email, including pretty much what you wrote above.

 

 

Thanks. :) I did email back. I might phone them on Monday too.

Link to comment

The problem with geocaching is that people do it. And people tend to destory and mess things up. Not all people, but there is always that one guy. We have all seen him, or his aftermath.

 

This is why it's important to place caches carefully and with this in mind, so 'that guy' (or gal) isn't going to harm anything by looking.

 

 

The manmade structures option sounds like it could work if you approched them with that.

 

We'll see.

 

Exactly what MisterEFQ said. I've seen plenty of trampled plants while caching. We try to be very, very careful when we're out.

 

Same here, but encouraging people to get out into the reserves and using the paths is a good thing. Using the plants and other surroundings as clues to the cache coordinates is educational and could promote research in a variety of ways.

 

I think that they do not really understand what geocaching is nor who does it.

I can point to dozens of educational geocaches. The Natural Science Museum that I work in used geocaching as part of a youth program a few years back. Feel free to PM me for details.

 

You're probably right about them not understanding geocaching. They take a lot of school trips to various reserves for pond dipping and other educational ventures, and there is a desire to get people visiting the reserves.

 

It isn't just natural areas that can be mistreated by cachers. I had to archive one of my caches that brought people to a replica of a 1743 fort.

 

Good for you, the trustees made the right decision there I think. Glad there wasn't any lasting damage. I don't mind that they said 'no' to a specific cache. It is the implication that geocaching is against a conservationist policy I am struggling with.

 

 

When I contacted a land conservancy about putting out a couple of caches, not only did they welcome them, they asked us to put out more on another property they own. They want people to visit the trails.

 

 

I did mention highlighting the footpaths, but this is quite a small reserve and so there are no long trails. It's a popular place for dog walkers and people do keep to the paths.

Link to comment

Without knowing the area or location, I think it is possible to force cachers to use a certain path (multi-cache), and also ways to prevent damage from cachers searching for the cache (dead giveaway hint/clue).

 

That being said, I have seen what can happen when cachers look for a cache. In 2-3 years, nobody would know the difference, but at the time it wasn't encouraging.

 

Perhaps a second try with a definite plan addressing how you are going to prevent damage, and stating you will monitor the site regularly, and the cache will be archived/removed if there IS any damage.

 

It does sound like they have made their decision, though. :(

Link to comment

Without knowing the area or location, I think it is possible to force cachers to use a certain path (multi-cache), and also ways to prevent damage from cachers searching for the cache (dead giveaway hint/clue).

 

That being said, I have seen what can happen when cachers look for a cache. In 2-3 years, nobody would know the difference, but at the time it wasn't encouraging.

 

Perhaps a second try with a definite plan addressing how you are going to prevent damage, and stating you will monitor the site regularly, and the cache will be archived/removed if there IS any damage.

 

It does sound like they have made their decision, though. :(

 

Just want to reply quickly to this before heading off to get some sleep.

 

I'm not particularly wanting to place a cache there....If it were that simple, or if they had just said 'no...just no!' to the one cache, I would be happy. I am not sure I want to go to the trouble of a multicache series in this particular place, either, but would like to show that it is possible to place caches sensibly and without risk to the natural environment. It is just the implication that geocaching per se is harmful to wildlife that I found hard to take. Yes, there have been times when caches have been badly placed, and I wouldn't want to place a cache where people might be damaging wildlife in search of the cache.

 

I suppose I need to talk to these people. Not about placing a cache, but about them implying that I am harming wildlife by being a geocacher. It is quite a shock that they think that. There must be a lot of overlap between their membership and the membership here (us for a start - we pay them over double what we pay here!) the two areas of interest are not mutually exclusive as they seem to be suggesting.

Link to comment

Without knowing the area or location, I think it is possible to force cachers to use a certain path (multi-cache), and also ways to prevent damage from cachers searching for the cache (dead giveaway hint/clue).

 

That being said, I have seen what can happen when cachers look for a cache. In 2-3 years, nobody would know the difference, but at the time it wasn't encouraging.

 

Perhaps a second try with a definite plan addressing how you are going to prevent damage, and stating you will monitor the site regularly, and the cache will be archived/removed if there IS any damage.

 

It does sound like they have made their decision, though. :(

 

I think you are reading to much into their reply. The bit you quote doesn't say that caching is anti-conservation or harmful to wildlife.

 

Just want to reply quickly to this before heading off to get some sleep.

 

I'm not particularly wanting to place a cache there....If it were that simple, or if they had just said 'no...just no!' to the one cache, I would be happy. I am not sure I want to go to the trouble of a multicache series in this particular place, either, but would like to show that it is possible to place caches sensibly and without risk to the natural environment. It is just the implication that geocaching per se is harmful to wildlife that I found hard to take. Yes, there have been times when caches have been badly placed, and I wouldn't want to place a cache where people might be damaging wildlife in search of the cache.

 

I suppose I need to talk to these people. Not about placing a cache, but about them implying that I am harming wildlife by being a geocacher. It is quite a shock that they think that. There must be a lot of overlap between their membership and the membership here (us for a start - we pay them over double what we pay here!) the two areas of interest are not mutually exclusive as they seem to be suggesting.

Link to comment

This was an interesting read after a discussion recently about some of our state parks not wanting caches in them. Our discussion centered on the fact that if you place a cache a little ways off an established trail it doesn't take too long before a trail begins to form to the cache site. I don't know how many caches I found this summer had a pretty obvious sign of people walking around in the grass leading me right to GZ. I agree that we all need to be more sensitive to this kind of thing when choosing cache placement sites. Unfortunately there are still going to be those who don't understand the activity and are against for whatever reason.

Link to comment

It's a very short sighted attitude on the part of the preserve. Geocaching is decidedly pro-conservation. For most of human history there was no conservation movement. The earth was a resource to be used. Nature was something to be tamed. It wasn't until people who felt a connection to our natural areas realized that they were threatened and fought back.

 

Without people who are connected to these areas there is nobody to speak up for them. Unfortunately with each generation we're losing our connection with nature. Kids today on the whole do not grow up hunting, fishing, and wandering the woods. They grow up in front of a television set, get their entertainment from a Playstation and go from one adult supervised activity to another.

 

If things continue on their present course we will have a society that has no connection with, or appreciation of the natural world.

 

It's only through exposure to natural areas that people will come to appreciate them. Geocaching gets kids (and their parents) outdoors and into nature and can help create a new generation of advocates for our natural areas.

Link to comment
... them implying that I am harming wildlife by being a geocacher ...

I don't think the Trust is implying that. It looks like they want to keep the reserve just-so. They seem to want only the most reverential or passive of visitors and not (for example) people who have turned up with the aim of scrabbling around looking for a hidden box.

 

If my aim was to preserve some scene in aspic then I wouldn't want geocachers on site either.

 

Fortunately, other landowners in Gloucestershire are not so rabid in their preservational tendencies. Just pick a different location; don't try to get the Trust to change their philosophy.

Link to comment

It's a very short sighted attitude on the part of the preserve. Geocaching is decidedly pro-conservation.

 

The ideal is pro conservation, the reality very often is not.

 

 

It's only through exposure to natural areas that people will come to appreciate them. Geocaching gets kids (and their parents) outdoors and into nature and can help create a new generation of advocates for our natural areas.

 

I agree, but in order to avoid damages caused very thoughtful cache placements are required.

Many cachers I am encountering in natural areas are not thoughtful at all and very few cachers care about that.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

It's a very short sighted attitude on the part of the preserve. Geocaching is decidedly pro-conservation.

 

The ideal is pro conservation, the reality very often is not.

 

It's only through exposure to natural areas that people will come to appreciate them. Geocaching gets kids (and their parents) outdoors and into nature and can help create a new generation of advocates for our natural areas.

 

I agree, but in order to avoid damages caused very thoughtful cache placements are required.

Many cachers I am encountering in natural areas are not thoughtful at all and very few cachers care about that.

 

Cezanne

 

I personally have encountered very little of that. I think it's largely the numbers hounds who use scorched earth tactics when hunting caches. Those people tend to stick to guardrails, parking lots and quick dashes into urban and suburban parks. They aren't the type to make regular forays into natural areas. The sort who do tend to be more respectful of them.

 

It was more of a problem, at least around here, years ago when most of the caches were in natural areas and the numbers hounds had little choice but to hunt them. Now they happily ply their trade in urban and suburban areas where they confine their damage to ripping apart sprinkler heads and electrical outlets.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

I agree, but in order to avoid damages caused very thoughtful cache placements are required.

Many cachers I am encountering in natural areas are not thoughtful at all and very few cachers care about that.

 

I personally have encountered very little of that. I think it's largely the numbers hounds who use scorched earth tactics when hunting caches. Those people tend to stick to guardrails, parking lots and quick dashes into urban and suburban parks. They aren't the type to make regular forays into natural areas. The sort who do tend to be more respectful of them.

 

It was more of a problem, at least around here, years ago when most of the caches were in natural areas and the numbers hounds had little choice but to hunt them. Now they happily ply their trade in urban and suburban areas where they confine their damage to ripping apart sprinkler heads and electrical outlets.

 

Around here the situation appears to be different. Creative hides are very popular and many of them are located in natural areas around the cities. If 50 cachers search e.g. for a film cannister which is inserted in a fake tree branch or in a small fake rock, they trample around and inspect all objects around. Some of these caches are only findable by very trial and error search approaches that touch a lot of objects. What adds to the problem is that many cachers are not very knowledgeable about flora and fauna and do not even realize when they do harm to some species. The situation is certainly better in very remote areas in the mountains where hikes of several hours are needed to get there and where the cache density is not that high anyway.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

I got a "no" once when asking to hide a cache. I finally had to show them a map of other caches in similar areas. I also ende dup making the cache premium and told them it would reduce the traffic a bit.

 

Sometimes people need education. Other times people just don't want to have to think/mess with something.

 

Making sure we educate and follow their descision is the most important to the sport.

 

Good luck!

Link to comment

I would try to work with the nature reserve to see if they would allow a geocache that would not be harmful to their area. It could be a good spot for a micro on a sign with good hints so people could find it easily. It would be a great way to show that geocaching and nature reserves can co-exist.

 

We had someone from a local nature reserve attend one of our monthly geocaching meetings. You could tell he was geared up for a big fight. We were going around the room making introductions, and when we got to him he told us he wasn't a geocacher but was here with a complaint. He was immediately given the floor to express his concerns. He was very surprised by the reception he received. We all said it was no problem - the cache he was concerned about would be removed. One of our local reviewers was at the meeting and assured him that she would personally look after archiving the listing. She also met with them afterwards to determine the extents of the nature reserve so they could ensure future caches were not placed there.

 

Part of the problem was that geocachers were being blamed for every bad thing that happened in that reserve. Someone tried to back their truck in there and got stuck - must have been a geocacher. People were building bonfires - must be geocachers. They have a hard time keeping people from going off the trails, and geocaching was blamed for all the damages. After meeting with us, I think they found out we weren't so bad, but it's still one small part of the problem which they could control.

 

Best thing we can do is to work with the land managers to show that geocaching is not as bad as they think it is. We should also be careful about where we place our caches and how we search for others. If a cache appears to be damaging an area, we can let the cache owner know and hopefully they will remove it.

Link to comment

Did you explain to the organization that God (or god) created humans too and that there was a time in the past where we too lived in the forest?

 

Have a closer look at what the organization wrote

 

'Given the unique function of nature reserves there is a general presumption against any other activity taking place on nature reserves which is not linked to the overarching objectives of conservation, education, research and quiet enjoyment of the countryside. The Trust has decided, therefore, that activities not in accordance with the purpose of reserves will not normally be permitted.'

 

The issue rather would be to convince them that geocaching can also be about education and quietly enjoing the countryside and is not only about having fun, playing a game, being selfish etc

 

While I am convinced that when working together with such organizations caches can be set up that are accordance with the conservation idea, many caches that I am aware of definitely do not fit to any of the areas mentioned by the organization above.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

Did you explain to the organization that God (or god) created humans too and that there was a time in the past where we too lived in the forest?

 

Have a closer look at what the organization wrote

 

'Given the unique function of nature reserves there is a general presumption against any other activity taking place on nature reserves which is not linked to the overarching objectives of conservation, education, research and quiet enjoyment of the countryside. The Trust has decided, therefore, that activities not in accordance with the purpose of reserves will not normally be permitted.'

 

The issue rather would be to convince them that geocaching can also be about education and quietly enjoing the countryside and is not only about having fun, playing a game, being selfish etc

 

While I am convinced that when working together with such organizations caches can be set up that are accordance with the conservation idea, many caches that I am aware of definitely do not fit to any of the areas mentioned by the organization above.

 

Cezanne

 

That's great but my post was sarcasm. :laughing:

Link to comment

Did you explain to the organization that God (or god) created humans too and that there was a time in the past where we too lived in the forest?

 

They are doing their job, it is their responsibility to take care of these patches of land and the flora & fauna there. If it comes to that, they could quote the Bible at me regarding stewardship of the land! :rolleyes:

Link to comment

Why must there be a cache to find in order to enjoy nature? Parks and preserves that have a goal of conservation, education, research, and quiet enjoyment of the countryside might find it quite resonable to ban a game that encourages traipsing around looking for hidden containers. They might similarly ban bicycles, ATVs, dogs, treasure hunting with metal detectors, or golf.

 

In some cases, land managers are tasked with providing recreational opportunities as well. These lands are probably a better choice for placing a geocache.

 

While you could make an argument that geocaching brings more visitors who will be educated about the natural areas in the preserve and perhaps that the geocache itself can have a educational component, that may be a struggle. Either the park has no reason to increase the number of visitors (in order to preserve the quiet enjoyment of the countryside), or they may question just how looking for hidden boxes is educational.

Link to comment

Did you explain to the organization that God (or god) created humans too and that there was a time in the past where we too lived in the forest?

 

They are doing their job, it is their responsibility to take care of these patches of land and the flora & fauna there. If it comes to that, they could quote the Bible at me regarding stewardship of the land! :rolleyes:

 

I don't believe the Bible's take on good stewardship of the land meant that mankind should never enter an area because some environmentalist nutbag thinks somebody might leave a footprint in the dirt.

Link to comment

Did you explain to the organization that God (or god) created humans too and that there was a time in the past where we too lived in the forest?

 

They are doing their job, it is their responsibility to take care of these patches of land and the flora & fauna there. If it comes to that, they could quote the Bible at me regarding stewardship of the land! :rolleyes:

 

I don't believe the Bible's take on good stewardship of the land meant that mankind should never enter an area because some environmentalist nutbag thinks somebody might leave a footprint in the dirt.

 

No, neither do I, neither do they and neither does anyone else here. We'll leave religion out of it then, shall we?

Link to comment

Did you explain to the organization that God (or god) created humans too and that there was a time in the past where we too lived in the forest?

 

They are doing their job, it is their responsibility to take care of these patches of land and the flora & fauna there. If it comes to that, they could quote the Bible at me regarding stewardship of the land! :rolleyes:

 

I don't believe the Bible's take on good stewardship of the land meant that mankind should never enter an area because some environmentalist nutbag thinks somebody might leave a footprint in the dirt.

 

No, neither do I, neither do they and neither does anyone else here. We'll leave religion out of it then, shall we?

 

Nice.. you mentioned Bible. I only mentioned the fact that God (or god) not only created mother earth but created humans as well. I was referring to the creator, whether that's an omnipotent one or pure astronomical accident. Bottom line is, humans belong to the planet too and to outlaw geocaching is a nutbag's bad attempt at "managing" and "preserving" land.

Link to comment

I have seen woods really trashed by cachers.

 

I have actually seen CACHERS in the act of trashing the woods. 2 teenagers were looking for a cache and rather than just reading the cache page which gave implicit instructions on exactly how to find the cache, they were beating all the plants in the area with sticks, leaving an area void of vegetation.

 

Most often when an area is trashed it's when there are bad coordinates and or bad clues when it's a cache in the woods.

In the woods reception is always sketchy, so it's good to have good clues. Not all caches do.

 

Many sites of caches need to be moved to give the area a while to "rest" and heal up from the traffic.

 

 

Overall, if you look at the damage we do, say compared to what off-road vehicles do, it's not bad.

 

It's all relative.

 

We are getting people out into the woods and getting more people to appreciate nature, which leads to more conservation efforts.

Link to comment

...and indeed a horde of locusts might suddenly descend on the area and remove every leaf from every shrub. The only difference is that humans do a lot of things that do not relate to their ultimate survival...as a species, or as individuals. Furthermore, we are one of only a few which are cognizant of the repercussions of our actions (in most cases).

 

The wishes of the caretakers of the 'preserve' area must certainly be respected, but they are foolish if they think their area will be the same as it is now 10 years from today.

Link to comment

To the OP: What was it about the area that prompted you to want to place the cache?

 

Well, this is not a cache I placed. I adopted it because it was needing some attention. The CO was a little out of town and maybe doesn't have as much time for caching as before, it was a nice ammo can cache (not many of those about these days) which needed some repair and a new log book. I adopted it, and as the new CO contacted the land manager to check about permission and asking for who to contact about geocaching.

This particular cache is archived now (which it might have been anyway, as the cache had been there for 7 years and the slope around the tree was getting pretty worn down from geocachers scrabbling around on it). My heart isn't in trying to push for placing another cache there now, I'll take the local advice and leave it at that with this one. There are other good caches not too far away.

 

However there's a lot of good advice in this thread overall which might come in useful for other caches (not just mine, but I am waiting for permission to place some in a different reserve, with different management).

 

While it's encouraging that a lot of people here do care about conservation and understand the issue, it's actions of the few who demonstrably don't care or understand that get geocaching a bad name and can then lead to a ban. Finding ways to minimise the damage around the cache site is probably the most important part of cache placement and essential to our lasting enjoyment of the game.

Link to comment

Did you explain to the organization that God (or god) created humans too and that there was a time in the past where we too lived in the forest?

 

They are doing their job, it is their responsibility to take care of these patches of land and the flora & fauna there. If it comes to that, they could quote the Bible at me regarding stewardship of the land! :rolleyes:

 

I don't believe the Bible's take on good stewardship of the land meant that mankind should never enter an area because some environmentalist nutbag thinks somebody might leave a footprint in the dirt.

 

No, neither do I, neither do they and neither does anyone else here. We'll leave religion out of it then, shall we?

 

Nice.. you mentioned Bible. I only mentioned the fact that God (or god) not only created mother earth but created humans as well. I was referring to the creator, whether that's an omnipotent one or pure astronomical accident. Bottom line is, humans belong to the planet too and to outlaw geocaching is a nutbag's bad attempt at "managing" and "preserving" land.

 

Well, perhaps when your powers of argument have evolved beyond trolling you would be kind enough to contribute something useful to the discussion. I could have said 'can we keep religion out of it' in response to your first sarcastic comment. Insulting land managers is not going to get you anywhere with gaining permission from them. They have not 'outlawed' anything, and they haven't stopped anyone from entering the area. They manage the area (which is a huge job and isn't limited to pruning a few brambles) and they maintain footpaths so the public can enjoy it. There are public rights of way through some of their reserves (which are legally protected by this country's laws) but the right of way is for 'passage' - to walk through it, keeping to the path. There is no right to leave something or hide something, or search for something. The bottom line is I don't own the land and the law is on their side when it comes to anything beyond walking.

 

I deliberately chose the word 'conservation' over 'preservation' as it's not possible to preserve an area of living, growing, dying, decaying, self-renewing woodland and any land management organisation is fully aware of that.

Link to comment

I don't believe the Bible's take on good stewardship of the land meant that mankind should never enter an area because some environmentalist nutbag thinks somebody might leave a footprint in the dirt.

 

I am sorry, but I still not understand of your point of view which you have referred to as sarcastic above.

I still do not feel that what the organization wrote in response to the inquiry about geocaching can be compared to not wanting somebody leave a footprint in the dirt.

 

Very recently I came across an article about legal aspects of geocaching (unfortunately it is in German, but nevertheless here is the link http://www.springerlink.com/content/k6lq3v46v0630g71/ ). One of the examples mentioned there is a cache in a reed area which has been found over 600 times in about one year and which is apparently hard to find. (The cache owner refers to it as cache for mad people and asks you can find such a small cache in these overgrown area. The majority of visitors do not seem to care.)I am sure that without geocaching certainly not more than 1000 people (taking into account that many cachers do not come alone) would have trampled through this specific reed area.

 

Caches of that type are no exceptions and many of them do exist.) The article is not authored by fanatic environmentalists. While caches like the example above certainly do not follow the leave no traces ethics, numerous of those exist around the world. Do you really think that we as cachers can wholeheartedly state that geocaching is not anti conservation?

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

I have seen woods really trashed by cachers.

 

I have actually seen CACHERS in the act of trashing the woods. 2 teenagers were looking for a cache and rather than just reading the cache page which gave implicit instructions on exactly how to find the cache, they were beating all the plants in the area with sticks, leaving an area void of vegetation.

 

Most often when an area is trashed it's when there are bad coordinates and or bad clues when it's a cache in the woods.

In the woods reception is always sketchy, so it's good to have good clues. Not all caches do.

 

Many sites of caches need to be moved to give the area a while to "rest" and heal up from the traffic.

 

 

Overall, if you look at the damage we do, say compared to what off-road vehicles do, it's not bad.

 

It's all relative.

 

We are getting people out into the woods and getting more people to appreciate nature, which leads to more conservation efforts.

 

I'm awake now. You just generalized two groups. So are we to take it all teenagers are wood trashing cachers. And all offroad vehicle operators cause damage.

What you should have said is that some cachers were trashing the woods. By pointing out that they were teenagers you tend to imply that all teenage cachers might be bad.

As far as the offroad crowd, like any other group there are bad apples. If an off road vehichle stays on the legal and established trails then they do no damage to the forest. It would be the, let's be nice and call them "uneducated" offroaders that cause damage. Don't forget that many geocachers are also offroaders and that is their method of transportation to get to some of the cache areas.

You could have just generalized and said "Geocachers trash the forest and cause damage".

By the way the offroad remark is the one that "woke me up" I'm not quite a teenager any more.

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