Jump to content

We can finally see Alien Head from space!


addisonbr

Recommended Posts

Just as a side note, there is a underground nuclear test detonation site that you can get to just about 100 miles from the Alien Head site. You can drive right up to it and find three nearby geocaches. The fragileness of the desert in this area has "left the building". Also in this very area they filmed ID4 a few years ago. Can't tell now can you?

Link to comment
My concern is what the land managers worldwide might make of this development.

If asked, I don't think 'What about the Great Wall of China?'(or some goofy lines in central China) is going to be an effective defense.

 

OK there's the third who gets it. We've spent 10+ years trying to sell geocaching to land managers as a low impact activity, and it usually is. This kind of shoots the whole low impact thing out of the water.

 

Do you actually think that the land managers there don't know about it? Seriously? After all the flap over the nearby powertrail?

 

I walked the thing, in the dark. Wasn't that freakin' easy to follow no tire tracks around the whole thing, and I've spent some time following tire tracks in my time.

 

I guess Brian can speak quite well for himself, but I think that he was probably seeing a bigger picture than you, and referring to land managers in general, not these particular land managers. Yes, these population and tourist-income starved people will put up with a lot... they are hungry. But move the scenario to another place and it becomes a brand new game.

 

Move the scenario to another place & it's a brand new place, now ain't it?

 

Have you or Brian been there? Have you seen more than vague GE screen captures with suggestive dots?

 

Ever seen a mountaintop removal job?

 

I have lived in, worked in, and loved the desert, if that is any qualification. And you?

 

I think that Briansnat was indeed referring to the bigger picture, and not just this one place.

 

No. What has that got to do with this?

 

Not as much I guess, I just walked the cache series & a bit more.

 

Brian's point seemed to be that land managers would object. I suggested that these particular land managers might just be aware and not particularly worried. I'm pretty sure there are more cattle than humans making trails there, they just aren't so organized. Doesn't take much to leave a trail, though.

 

You can most definitely see a mountaintop removal job from space.

 

These particular land managers may or may not care. We haven't established that one way or another yet. But perhaps 1,000 miles away the president of a local geocaching organization may go into a meeting with the superintendent of a park system to discuss geocaching. The superintendent might, like many do, object to the the perceived impact of geocaching, where the geocacher will counter that we're really low impact. How does he answer "Yeah, right I saw the mess you guys made in the Nevada desert"?

 

With "Oh, it's only desert"? "What about the Great Wall of China"? "Farms are visible from space too"?

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

Just as a side note, there is a underground nuclear test detonation site that you can get to just about 100 miles from the Alien Head site. You can drive right up to it and find three nearby geocaches. The fragileness of the desert in this area has "left the building". Also in this very area they filmed ID4 a few years ago. Can't tell now can you?

 

We carved a megalopolis of 15 some million people out of the forest around here. 100 miles away is the Catskill Forest preserve. Because we already destroyed one forest does that mean all nearby forests are fair game?

Link to comment

#1 Are vehicles allowed off road?

------------Yes they are. There are dirt roads, and new dirt trails made in the area all the time

#2 Are any vehicles specifically banned? (Usually motorcycles w/out spark arresters are banned is a common boilerplate for desert areas.)

------------Nope. There are all types of trucks, suv's, Atv (horses too) that run this area. It's one of the few things the locals have to do for fun.

#3 Is the area habitat to a protected species? (I.E. Desert Tortoise) If yes, who/what agency manages the protected species in that vacinity?

------------No this area is open range for cattle. Local ranchers pay a fee to the BLM to let there cattle range for about 150 miles in (almost)any direction from Rachel,NV. Cattle is regularly creamed on the hwy (Paved rd) totalling cars.

 

Just what I know from living in the Southern NV area, before moving to Ohio in Nov 2010. I did the Alien head the night it was published. Great night hiking.

 

 

Thanks. You are confirming what I already pretty much knew. It would be interesting to me if someone could dig deeper and prove this information wrong.

 

It would also be more interesting if that person was local.

 

If I had the money, I'd cover long odds against that happening.

 

And then there's this...

I wouldn't even have been able to make out the markings if the dots hadn't been superimposed. I'm not sure what the big deal is.

For reference here is a pic of the area without the reference dots

4e82acd3-df2a-42bb-b56a-dd6c5d2b4fb5.jpg?rnd=0.3567032

 

Haaaaa! I love it. Somewhere there is a teapot brewing a tempest.

 

What I love best about this thread is that there is soooo freakin' much of this blessed desert, ummm not too many miles from this spot, that is used for regular munitions testing, radioactive nuclear test sites, WW2 era unstable munitions storage bunkers, etc. And a buncha geocachers are worried about trails forming. Lawd Lawd. This is sooo freakin' rich. :laughing::laughing::laughing: You'd think geocachers were playing whack-a-mole with endangered PNW burrowing owls out there. LOL. :rolleyes:

 

I saw somebody step on a scorpion, does that count? (It was accidental & the scorpion move after the foot lifted).

I guess the $64 question is.... Was it an endangered scorpion? :unsure:

Link to comment

The cavalier attitude towards the desert that I am seeing from some cachers here surprises me. To keep the ganme viable we need to do what we can to fight the perceptions of geocaching as a high impact activity. As stated, it might not be THESE land managers who care, it might not be THIS particular section of land that matters, but somewhere someone will take note of this for future reference.

 

I imagine this is the same attitude people had when they decided it was fine to dump garbage in the ocean. "Look at the size of this thing! It's a huge waste of space, let's use it since it is convenient."

 

I'm no environmental whacko, but the "We blew up nukes nearby 70 years ago." doesn't really hold water with me as an argument. Mistakes of the past don't make correct actions today.

Link to comment

This is assuming that there are some road restrictions out here. This is how problems arise. Many uses of the desert are put off because it is "the desert". At least in Utah they really look at road formation. If Sierra Club were to find out, they would go to the BLM. They would then require (or sue) BLM to make sure it does not happen again by creating rules governing geocaching.

 

Congrats .. after that now have regulation on geocaching that covers vast areas of the west. Because of one instance. That is how many forests set limits on it. One discussed the problems, and that forest banned it or made permits mandatory. Then others followed after.

 

I am not a power trail hater, if they are along roads and such. But like this? It will be a problem.

Link to comment

i am all for protecting our environment but some organizations seriously blow it out of proportion

 

Agreed. There are whackos out there. My concern is when a group, (or some of its members), which has in the past been associated with environmental respect, blows off concerns regarding environmental damage being caused by members of our group, it gives ammunition to those whackos. It brings to mind the South Carolina Cemetery Caching issue, where one well placed whacko, with an anti-Geocaching agenda, carefully selected a handful of comments and pictures, from cachers, to use against us. This mostly public forum is a great resource for those whackos, when gathering data.

 

I think we would all benefit, in the long run, from presenting a public image of environmental responsibility.

 

if an area is ecologically sensitive there should be appropriate signage and there shouldn't be caches there

I prefer a somewhat different outlook, probably closer to that of our esteemed bespectacled pooch colleague. Rather that ignore environmental impact because there are no signs specifically prohibiting habitat destruction, and/or no laws in place prohibiting it, I prefer a more proactive approach, promoting environmental awareness at all times. While there will always be locations on our planet that cannot be easily accessed on foot, the series of caches in question don't seem to fit that category. Judging by a few comments I've read in here, it appears that a person of average health would have little trouble hiking the whole thing.

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating breaking out the torches and pitchforks because someone drove the course rather than hiking it, as the owner suggested. I'm mearly suggesting that displaying a cavalier attitude toward damage like this, is probably not in our best interest.

 

Condemnation of the drivers is a bit extreme.

Apathy toward the problem is also a bit extreme.

 

And a buncha geocachers are worried about trails forming. Lawd Lawd. This is sooo freakin' rich. :laughing::laughing::laughing: You'd think geocachers were playing whack-a-mole with endangered PNW burrowing owls out there. LOL. :rolleyes:

Yeah, we get it. Your contempt is loud and clear.

I haven't seen anyone on here expressing the kind of sentiment that would lead to such hyperbole as you presented. There are no people up in arms. No one is calling for any type of sanctions. At best, there are a few people expressing their concerns, in a mostly polite and valid format. And there are a few folks politely rebutting those concerns. Sadly, there are also a few folks demonstrating utter contempt for those concerns.

 

I'm thinking this is not helpful, in the long run, for our image.

Link to comment

 

And a buncha geocachers are worried about trails forming. Lawd Lawd. This is sooo freakin' rich. :laughing::laughing::laughing: You'd think geocachers were playing whack-a-mole with endangered PNW burrowing owls out there. LOL. :rolleyes:

Yeah, we get it. Your contempt is loud and clear.

I haven't seen anyone on here expressing the kind of sentiment that would lead to such hyperbole as you presented. There are no people up in arms. No one is calling for any type of sanctions. At best, there are a few people expressing their concerns, in a mostly polite and valid format. And there are a few folks politely rebutting those concerns. Sadly, there are also a few folks demonstrating utter contempt for those concerns.

 

I'm thinking this is not helpful, in the long run, for our image.

 

Thank you. The entire post was well-put, but the quoted part was awesome!

Link to comment

Just as a side note, there is a underground nuclear test detonation site that you can get to just about 100 miles from the Alien Head site. You can drive right up to it and find three nearby geocaches. The fragileness of the desert in this area has "left the building". Also in this very area they filmed ID4 a few years ago. Can't tell now can you?

 

We carved a megalopolis of 15 some million people out of the forest around here. 100 miles away is the Catskill Forest preserve. Because we already destroyed one forest does that mean all nearby forests are fair game?

This is a sensitive issue in many western states, like Nevada. There is so much federally owned land that is protected as wilderness or national park, that people are more concerned that certain areas of the desert be left opened for open range cattle, prospecting, off-road driving, and geocaching. You'll get a lot of people riled up using your East Coast perceptions of what it means to preserve open space.

Link to comment

Time to BAN Geocaching, everywhere we leave a mark.

 

Hello parking lot caches. :laughing:

 

While we're at it, we should ban all roads and hiking trails. Don't want to leave a mark, eh?

Fine with me. I have a JEEP. :laughing:

 

I have a Jeep as well, that being said if the cache owner and the property owner ask me not to drive to the cache I will park and walk. I try very hard to minimize impact and not torque those that grant me access to go geocaching in the areas they are responsible for. This means I do an awful lot of parking, and walking.

 

I want to go out and do the alien head and the ET Highway, it would be sad to see parts of these growing traditions taken away because of something easily avoided.

 

I plan to do the Alien Head and I will be on foot. I am not in a race, I am out caching.

Link to comment

#1 Are vehicles allowed off road?

------------Yes they are. There are dirt roads, and new dirt trails made in the area all the time

 

The "new trails" part is debatable and would probably not include new trails made by cars traveling off road to pick up a group of geocaches.

 

The BLM encourages people to tread lightly and states that "visitors are requested to stay on existing roads and two-track routes, rather than driving cross-country." And the Field Office for Southern Nevada states "Off-highway vehicles may use existing roads, trails and dry washes outside of the closure areas and areas with designated roads." I am not sure whether the Alien Head area has "designated roads," for off-highway use, but in any event I suppose there was a reason why the CO requested people not to use cars on the Alien Head.

Edited by geodarts
Link to comment
My concern is when a group, (or some of its members), which has in the past been associated with environmental respect, blows off concerns regarding environmental damage being caused by members of our group, it gives ammunition to those whackos. It brings to mind the South Carolina Cemetery Caching issue... I think we would all benefit, in the long run, from presenting a public image of environmental responsibility...

 

Rather than ignore environmental impact because there are no signs specifically prohibiting habitat destruction, and/or no laws in place prohibiting it, I prefer a more proactive approach, promoting environmental awareness at all times... I'm merely suggesting that displaying a cavalier attitude toward damage like this, is probably not in our best interest...

 

I haven't seen anyone on here expressing the kind of sentiment that would lead to such hyperbole as you presented... Sadly, there are also a few folks demonstrating utter contempt for those concerns... I'm thinking this is not helpful, in the long run, for our image.

I think this was an excellent post.

Link to comment
And a buncha geocachers are worried about trails forming. Lawd Lawd. This is sooo freakin' rich. :laughing::laughing::laughing: You'd think geocachers were playing whack-a-mole with endangered PNW burrowing owls out there. LOL. :rolleyes:

Yeah, we get it. Your contempt is loud and clear.

I haven't seen anyone on here expressing the kind of sentiment that would lead to such hyperbole as you presented. There are no people up in arms. No one is calling for any type of sanctions. At best, there are a few people expressing their concerns, in a mostly polite and valid format. And there are a few folks politely rebutting those concerns. Sadly, there are also a few folks demonstrating utter contempt for those concerns.

 

I'm thinking this is not helpful, in the long run, for our image.

 

You can lable my realism as contempt if you like. You're entitled. I stand behind my words and my experience caching in Nevada.

 

In ten year's time that stretch of land will still support the same life it did before geocachers arrived on scene, or some developer could come in and put up a UFO themed casino, hotel, and roller coaster, and plaster the rest of the area with parking lot.

 

I agreed that the op has a respectable point after he toned down the sarcasm. I just don't agree with the grounds on which he belabored his point. You can imply I'm saying it's just desert, but you would be wrong.

 

I keep going back to my experience with desert caching near highways and with other cachers trying to find some of my own caches without figuratively and in some cases literally getting their feet wet.

 

On the desert caching experience side of it, I'm frankly not that concerned about that particular piece of land. I know land like that. A common use trail in the area created for whatever reason will be gone in a few years to a decade after the frequent visits stop. It certainly isn't going to make the land look any less aesthetically appealing or less habitable.

 

On the CO side, I wouldn't like this thread no matter how much folks agree that my wishes should be respected. I would have archived the series before it got to page 2. Why? Because every bit of percieved negative impact that occurs to the area, now that the op has made such a big sarcastic splash about it, is on the cache owner's head. Why shouldn't it be? The issue is out in the open forum, lines have been drawn, and sacred image is in question. There is a popular bad feeling toward the percieved negative impact of the series from a vocal minority who may or may not have any personal experience with these caches. If it were me, buh bye caches. Heck, it would be that many less to maintain and I'd laugh at the outcry in the other direction and direct everyone that emailed me about it to the op.

 

Show of hands.... How many local cachers are concerned about this common trail? (250 mile radius)

 

Does anyone remember whyyyy the E.T. highway V2 was allowed to be reposted?

 

How many people on the other side of the fence from me have logged these caches or even cached anywhere near that spot in Nevada?

 

Contempt? No. If this was a wildlife refuge or some other protected place (desert, swamp, forest, whatever) I could get on the bandwagon, but not here. Not this series of caches on that spit of land. If I was going to fight a battle, I'd do it on ground I can defend a little better than I've seen here.

 

A year from now those caches will still be there and I would venture a guess that the impact will be the same. Or they will be gone and those self same impact trails will be hard to follow except for the ones the local offroaders have adopted.

 

That's just me being realistic. Besides, prophecy exists that it will be me that destroys geocaching. Add one more nail in the coffin for failure to follow popular opinion on a forum thread. :laughing:

Edited by Snoogans
Link to comment
I agreed that the op has a respectable point after he toned down the sarcasm. I just don't agree with the grounds on which he belabored his point.

My grounds are mostly based on the perceptions of geocaching. I think CR's post is very effective on that issue. We pitch ourselves as low impact when we ask land managers to open up their game boards to us and some of those battles take years to win and moments to lose (SC cemeteries). I don't think that racing around in an area the CO has asked people not to drive in, and leaving very obvious evidence, helps our cause. hydnsek did a fantastic job getting North Cascades National Park reopened to geocachers last year. I suspect her efforts would have been tougher, if not impossible, if the land managers were aware of the attitudes many geocachers here seem to have about leaving their mark.

 

I'm actually receptive to the argument that this area may not be ecologically senstive or worthy of care. I may disagree, but I think it's a reasonable basis for discussion. I am less receptive to - and yes, have been more sarcastic in response to - arguments that anything not expressly illegal is fair game no matter what the situation or the CO's wishes, and that if the Great Wall of China can be viewed from space it doesn't matter what we do. I think those arguments, if ever used with a land manager, would set us back.

 

I'd laugh at the outcry in the other direction and direct everyone that emailed me about it to the op.

http://www.geocaching.com/email/?guid=d1194840-a7da-4a1b-a566-29de18a6094e

Link to comment

That's just me being realistic.

From one Dudest Priest to another, I'm OK with realism.

As I mentioned, those tire tracks cutting across the area are not the end of the world.

The greater issue, as I see it, is the attitudes displayed by some of the OP's detractors.

Ultimately, if this overall issue hurts us, I suspect it will be those attitudes, more than the tire tracks, that cause the most harm.

Many land managers see us, for the most part, as stewards of our natural resources. Whether this perception is accurate or not, we, as a group, benefit from it. If the tide should ever turn, and the average land manager perceives us as threats to the environment, our quirky little hobby would suffer.

 

In interaction, perception is always reality.

Often, we don't get to pick which reality we want to define us.

In cases like this thread, we do get to pick.

I'm thinking some of us have made poor choices. :unsure:

Besides, prophecy exists...

Stoopid prophecy... :lol:

Link to comment

On the desert caching experience side of it, I'm frankly not that concerned about that particular piece of land. I know land like that. A common use trail in the area created for whatever reason will be gone in a few years to a decade after the frequent visits stop. It certainly isn't going to make the land look any less aesthetically appealing or less habitable.

 

On the CO side, I wouldn't like this thread no matter how much folks agree that my wishes should be respected. I would have archived the series before it got to page 2. Why? Because every bit of percieved negative impact that occurs to the area, now that the op has made such a big sarcastic splash about it, is on the cache owner's head.

 

Although I, too, am not all that concerned about the particular piece of land, a common use trail may last much longer. At least the Old Spanish Trail can still be seen.

 

But to me it is a far simpler issue, and has nothing to do with the OP. The CO asked people not to drive the Alien Head series. The BLM did not want people creating new trails by driving across country. If my requests concerning a particular cache or a series of caches were regularly ignored, I would archive the listing -- whether it be cachers entering areas after hours or driving across country makes no difference.

 

How we conduct ourselves is important -- how many years has it taken to begin to break down the NPS perception that caching is about buried containers?

Link to comment

I'm actually receptive to the argument that this area may not be ecologically senstive or worthy of care.

 

Here is my argument with this thread in a nutshell. That area so close to the highway, BLM land or not, is potential commercial property and unworthy of hand wringing or gnashing of teeth. The archived KFC image that was nearby is proof positive of that. /nutshell

 

Feet on the ground, if it's like anywhere else I've cached near a highway in NV, it is a roadside dump of cast off trash, construction debris, and cow pies with the occasional animal carcas. The desert is really good at preserving this stuff too. A forest will take it under, but it just blows around a desert for miles and miles. Trails aside if even 2% of cachers practice cache in trash out in that area it is much better off. IMO.

 

I love the desert and desert caching and I believe in practicing care, but if there is a draw to any point on the earth, a trail will form. That's a fact. Geocaching causes trails. That's a fact. But when the draw fades, those trails become harder and harder to follow. That's also a fact.

 

The person I feel bad about for all of this is the CO. I would venture a guess that the CO would love to see this thread die because that's what I would want if it was me.

Link to comment
Has anyone checked too see if that area is approved for offroad vehicle use? Hmmm.?

I keep checking the cache pages, and they keep saying "Please don't drive to these caches," every time I load them up.

 

Thankfully, that rather weak request ("please"? who says "please" these days?) hasn't gotten in the way of some awesome geocaching artistry!

Have you spent much time caching in Nevada? :unsure:

:laughing::laughing::laughing:

Ok, and I know the tree huggers are going to start throwing stuff at me. :ph34r:

Seriously, if you've never cached in the Nevada desert, you don't understand. We have thousands upon thousands of sqare miles of untouched desert. As long as you leave no trace (no littering), who cares if it leaves a foot trail? If it's growing out there, you can't kill it. Trust me, the crap grows everywhere (Roundup doesn't even kill sagebrush). As far as wildlife, I believe the areas that the desert tortises are, are clearly marked.(I'm from the north, we don't have them up here, don't quote me on that) The rest of our wildlife is abundant. The BLM themselves are trying to eliminate our wild horse population...other than that, there really isn't much that can be hurt. You should see what 54,000 people do to the Black Rock Desert every summer!! (it's also BLM land)

Link to comment

Feet on the ground, if it's like anywhere else I've cached near a highway in NV, it is a roadside dump of cast off trash, construction debris, and cow pies with the occasional animal carcas. The desert is really good at preserving this stuff too. A forest will take it under, but it just blows around a desert for miles and miles. Trails aside if even 2% of cachers practice cache in trash out in that area it is much better off. IMO.

Well put!

Link to comment

Ultimately, if this overall issue hurts us, I suspect it will be those attitudes, more than the tire tracks, that cause the most harm.

 

I hafta disagree here.

 

The OP states:

I'm actually receptive to the argument that this area may not be ecologically senstive or worthy of care.

So why are we looking for a sword to fall on as a group? To appear more sensitive to the environment? Respectfully I don't buy it.

 

I sense the yippy god of political correctness lurking between the lines.

 

If the OP wanted people to fall on the sword of a real environmental issue and get people to open their eyes to the evel underbelly of geocaching then he/she should have taken the time to dig one up that was slam dunk.

 

You know what they say, if you can't spot the evel underbelly of geocaching in the first 3 pages of a thread.... It's you.

 

DOH!

 

b809a4db-0532-4179-93c8-704af8f11d51.jpg

 

Just call me Simpson for the rest of this thread. :anibad:

Edited by Snoogans
Link to comment

Just as a side note, there is a underground nuclear test detonation site that you can get to just about 100 miles from the Alien Head site. You can drive right up to it and find three nearby geocaches. The fragileness of the desert in this area has "left the building". Also in this very area they filmed ID4 a few years ago. Can't tell now can you?

 

We carved a megalopolis of 15 some million people out of the forest around here. 100 miles away is the Catskill Forest preserve. Because we already destroyed one forest does that mean all nearby forests are fair game?

 

Here in Coal Country we have strip mining and mountain top removal, plus underground mining. Used to a person had to fly over the area to view the damage, now we have google Earth. I have some listings on reclaimed mining land.

Link to comment
Has anyone checked too see if that area is approved for offroad vehicle use? Hmmm.?

I keep checking the cache pages, and they keep saying "Please don't drive to these caches," every time I load them up.

 

Thankfully, that rather weak request ("please"? who says "please" these days?) hasn't gotten in the way of some awesome geocaching artistry!

Have you spent much time caching in Nevada? :unsure:

:laughing::laughing::laughing:

Ok, and I know the tree huggers are going to start throwing stuff at me. :ph34r:

Seriously, if you've never cached in the Nevada desert, you don't understand. We have thousands upon thousands of sqare miles of untouched desert. As long as you leave no trace (no littering), who cares if it leaves a foot trail?

 

But we're not talking about a foot trail. We're talking about a trail which has at least partially been created by people driving where no previous trail existed despite the fact that the owner of the caches specifically asked geocachers not to do so.

 

I just had a look at the logs on a few of the caches no the Alien Head. I'm seeing a lot of logs (even one that is simply a TFTC) that have been edited. I remember reading some of the logs just after the trail was crated and seeing quite a few of them which mentioned that they drove from cache to cache on the Alien Head. Now I'm not seeing them. If I didn't know any better I might think that the CO has been asking finders which mention driving the Alien Head to remove an references to doing so.

 

I know that there are quite a few other examples of "geo art" out there and am curious if there is a visible trail for any of the other examples. This is just a speculation, but I have to wonder if the trail would be visible on the latest satellite imagery if this *was* just a foot trail.

Link to comment

Ultimately, if this overall issue hurts us, I suspect it will be those attitudes, more than the tire tracks, that cause the most harm.

I hafta disagree here.

 

The OP states: I'm actually receptive to the argument that this area may not be ecologically senstive or worthy of care.

 

So why are we looking for a sword to fall on as a group? To appear more sensitive to the environment? Respectfully I don't buy it.

I think I have been misunderstood.

 

Being receptive to an argument doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with it. Should the default be to treat any area with care? I think so. Could I be convinced otherwise? Sure, that's not impossible. I'm always open to reasonable discussion.

 

People who say they will do whatever they want as long as it's not against the law no matter what the ecological sensitivity and no matter what the CO requests, or people who say that because the Great Wall of China can be viewed from space we should be able to do whatever the heck we want - those arguments I think are silly on the face of it. It's unlikely that these would ever convince me, and furthermore I think they would hurt us with a land manager wrestling with the idea of allowing geocaching. I'm glad they were not on display during the North Cascades negotiations.

 

I thought the issue was that the CO requested that people hike, he was ignored, and the evidence is now apparent to any land manager with an Internet connection. The issue, as I'm coming to see it, is that many people here think that doesn't matter.

 

If the OP wanted people to fall on the sword of a real environmental issue and get people to open their eyes to the evel underbelly of geocaching then he/she should have taken the time to dig one up that was slam dunk.

Now I know I am being misunderstood. I suspect that I have far less in common with Forest Defenders than you may think. I believe that in general, geocaching is a low-impact activity and one that I don't hesitate to prosthelytize. I am bummed when land managers prohibit it on their lands.

 

I don't think the behavior in Rachel Nevada, the evidence that is now available with a mouse click by any skittish land managers, and the publicly posted attitudes of many in this thread, are very helpful.

Link to comment

I know that there are quite a few other examples of "geo art" out there and am curious if there is a visible trail for any of the other examples. This is just a speculation, but I have to wonder if the trail would be visible on the latest satellite imagery if this *was* just a foot trail.

 

I have no doubts people are driving it. Especially in the summer when it's 100+ out. I've never been on the ET highway (hoping to get to it in March), yet I've seen pretty much the rest of our state at one point or another. From what I hear, it's pretty much the same. Seriously, it's all dirt, sagebrush and Joshua Trees (in the south). There's nothing to damage. The radioactive mess left in the '60's and previous has left a footprint that will carry on way longer than us. A newly created Jeep trail really isn't that big of a deal here. Like Snoogan's mentioned, it's close to the highway, very little (if any) environmental impact will be made.

Link to comment

Here's my hypothesis.

 

It isn't that a geotrail can be seen in a photograph from space (if someone adds dots so you know where to look). What seems to be the issue is that cachers are not respecting the wishes of the cache owner to get out and walk this section. We know from other threads that disrespecting the wishes of cache owners is not in the "spirit of geocaching". I'm pretty much convinced that this is what concerns people, not the damage to an imagined fragile ecology.

 

Now they may have a point. If a land manager gave permission to place caches based on the assurance of a cache owner that geocachers would follow instructions and not drive cross-country from cache to cache and then were to see this example, would they likely give permission to place those caches? Cache owners should stop right now saying "Geocachers won't do X, because that is not in the spirit of geocaching." Geocachers will behave just like anyone else. Hopefully, we have a little more respect for the environment than some other groups, and we try to leave no trace (other than our caches) and will go beyond this and remove trash left by others (CITO). But don't go painting all geocachers as perfect. If a land manager feels that an area is too sensitive, don't go saying that owners can mitigate it by asking cachers not to drive or do something else. Either show that a geocache will cause no more damage than other activities that are allowed on the land or simply don't place a cache there in the first place. And remember that if a land manager sees a problem occurring with a particular cache or series of caches, they can always ask Groundspeak to archive these caches.

Link to comment

If a land manager feels that an area is too sensitive, don't go saying that owners can mitigate it by asking cachers not to drive or do something else. Either show that a geocache will cause no more damage than other activities that are allowed on the land or simply don't place a cache there in the first place.

 

Of course there are many areas where land managers allow caching but ask us not to engage in particular activities as part of our game. Here, the BLM has restricted off-highway driving to established routes, existing trails, and certain other locations. Accordingly, the CO rightfully asked cachers to not to drive the Alien Head -- a request that seems to be often ignored. This does not mean that caches should not have been placed here.

 

I doubt that the BLM will take that much of an interest in this particular piece of land unless there was something far more serious to bring it to their attention. And as we saw when the original ET trail was archived, the locals appreciate the business it brings. But at the same time I am not comfortable with the argument that we can simply ignore BLM policy because we decide that the area does not need the degree of protection that it provides. I don't believe that rationale is good for the game.

Edited by geodarts
Link to comment

Feet on the ground, if it's like anywhere else I've cached near a highway in NV, it is a roadside dump of cast off trash, construction debris, and cow pies with the occasional animal carcas.

Surely you aren't saying that just because others have trashed an area, that it is OK for us to have no respect for it? I seriously doubt that is your stance, but that is the perception you are giving, I think.

Link to comment
As long as you leave no trace...

If I drove across a natural habitat, following the same basic course, often enough that my tracks could be clearly seen from a gazillion miles up, would that not qualify as a "trace"? :unsure: I would think a responsible cacher would consider that "trace", at least as significant as a soda can carelessly tossed out a window.

Link to comment
A newly created Jeep trail really isn't that big of a deal here. Like Snoogan's mentioned, it's close to the highway, very little (if any) environmental impact will be made.

 

But but but.... I thought those jeep trails are changing the way the water runs off!!!!!1111oneoneone

Link to comment

Feet on the ground, if it's like anywhere else I've cached near a highway in NV, it is a roadside dump of cast off trash, construction debris, and cow pies with the occasional animal carcas.

Surely you aren't saying that just because others have trashed an area, that it is OK for us to have no respect for it? I seriously doubt that is your stance, but that is the perception you are giving, I think.

 

I believe the totality of my remarks on this thread clearly indicate my stance.

 

CO = Cat Herder.... The caches are there and the inevitable trail followed. Not all cachers read every word of a cache page. That's a fact. The CO's wishes are moot after that fact.

 

This impact trail is on potentially commercial property. Already commercial cattle grazing occuring on the site. Find a better whipping boy.

 

The issue of geocacher's using this impact trail to address an overall issue of the impact of geocaching.... Sorry, give a better example and I'll listen better.

Link to comment

Feet on the ground, if it's like anywhere else I've cached near a highway in NV, it is a roadside dump of cast off trash, construction debris, and cow pies with the occasional animal carcas.

Surely you aren't saying that just because others have trashed an area, that it is OK for us to have no respect for it? I seriously doubt that is your stance, but that is the perception you are giving, I think.

 

I believe the totality of my remarks on this thread clearly indicate my stance.

 

CO = Cat Herder.... The caches are there and the inevitable trail followed. Not all cachers read every word of a cache page. That's a fact. The CO's wishes are moot after that fact.

 

This impact trail is on potentially commercial property. Already commercial cattle grazing occuring on the site. Find a better whipping boy.

 

The issue of geocacher's using this impact trail to address an overall issue of the impact of geocaching.... Sorry, give a better example and I'll listen better.

 

I don't think you addressed what I was asking you. You stated, probably correctly based on my own desert experience, that "it is a roadside dump of cast off trash, construction debris, and cow pies with the occasional animal carcas." I am asking if you are implying that that is reason for geocachers to treat a place with less respect than they would had it been pristine?

Link to comment

Feet on the ground, if it's like anywhere else I've cached near a highway in NV, it is a roadside dump of cast off trash, construction debris, and cow pies with the occasional animal carcas.

Surely you aren't saying that just because others have trashed an area, that it is OK for us to have no respect for it? I seriously doubt that is your stance, but that is the perception you are giving, I think.

 

I believe the totality of my remarks on this thread clearly indicate my stance.

 

CO = Cat Herder.... The caches are there and the inevitable trail followed. Not all cachers read every word of a cache page. That's a fact. The CO's wishes are moot after that fact.

 

This impact trail is on potentially commercial property. Already commercial cattle grazing occuring on the site. Find a better whipping boy.

 

The issue of geocacher's using this impact trail to address an overall issue of the impact of geocaching.... Sorry, give a better example and I'll listen better.

 

Since there has already been two powertrails shut down out in the general area, obviously someone is watching and cares. The cat herding comment, while true, is a shame and is one of the problems with geocacing and it's growth. I should be able to hide a cache and not worry about the area gettng torn up, but that is not the case. I began this hobby with the thought that the participants were a more respectful class of outdoor/park users and actually used those statements when asking for permission when I started hiding caches. I think that the participants were not as respectful or community oriented as I originally thought back then, but it has only gotten worse. I don't think many of groundspeaks decisions/actions foster that mentality anymore. Many of the policies, rules/guidelines and software just keeps nicking away those concepts and is leaving a very bad taste for me and a couple land managers that I talk to. One of which that has been a very strong supporter since close to the beginning. The attitude in this thread of absolving the cache finders of any blame because you can't expect them to be responsible or read of cache page is part of the problem. I do not know if there is any environmental impact at all in the area, might be, might not be, but I doubt any of you know either and I would rather that fellow geocachers would err on the side of caution, not only for the environment, but also for the perception of land managers. I am realistic, and know things will not reverse, especially without the help from Groundspeak, but I can still not like it one bit and be disappointed in many geocachers and their flippant attitudes

Edited by M 5
Link to comment
... Add to that the fact that they are causing visible scars to an ecologically sensitive area, and it bothers me even more.
The bolded bit has not been shown to be true.
Just because its a power trail doesnt mean you have to get the most amount of caches in the least amount of time.
Isn't that the very definition of 'power trail'?
I have a Jeep as well, that being said if the cache owner and the property owner ask me not to drive to the cache I will park and walk.
Has the land manager asked us not to drive to these locations? There seems to be some disagreement on this. Those other trails on the sat image suggest that off-roaders regularly use this land.
But we're not talking about a foot trail. We're talking about a trail which has at least partially been created by people driving where no previous trail existed despite the fact that the owner of the caches specifically asked geocachers not to do so.
Are you sure? Jumpin’ Jack Cache visited these caches just a couple months ago and has reported that tire tracks are not an issue.
I walked the thing, in the dark. Wasn't that freakin' easy to follow no tire tracks around the whole thing, and I've spent some time following tire tracks in my time.

If I drove across a natural habitat, following the same basic course, often enough that my tracks could be clearly seen from a gazillion miles up, would that not qualify as a "trace"?

Again, it has not been shown that the trails seen in the OP’s image were made by vehicles.
Link to comment
... Add to that the fact that they are causing visible scars to an ecologically sensitive area, and it bothers me even more.
The bolded bit has not been shown to be true.
Just because its a power trail doesnt mean you have to get the most amount of caches in the least amount of time.
Isn't that the very definition of 'power trail'?
I have a Jeep as well, that being said if the cache owner and the property owner ask me not to drive to the cache I will park and walk.
Has the land manager asked us not to drive to these locations? There seems to be some disagreement on this. Those other trails on the sat image suggest that off-roaders regularly use this land.
But we're not talking about a foot trail. We're talking about a trail which has at least partially been created by people driving where no previous trail existed despite the fact that the owner of the caches specifically asked geocachers not to do so.
Are you sure? Jumpin’ Jack Cache visited these caches just a couple months ago and has reported that tire tracks are not an issue.
I walked the thing, in the dark. Wasn't that freakin' easy to follow no tire tracks around the whole thing, and I've spent some time following tire tracks in my time.

If I drove across a natural habitat, following the same basic course, often enough that my tracks could be clearly seen from a gazillion miles up, would that not qualify as a "trace"?

Again, it has not been shown that the trails seen in the OP’s image were made by vehicles.

 

Great summation of the points.

Link to comment
Again, it has not been shown that the trails seen in the OP’s image were made by vehicles.

Notwithstanding a poster in this thread reporting trouble following the tracks in the dark, a few other eyewitness accounts seem to suggest that the marks are indeed from vehicles and not human footprints or cattle.

 

"Definately is too bad too see fresh tire tracks through here again though after everyone says DO NOT DRIVE this. Ended up meeting a guy the next day who bragged about driving it all and getting it done so fast."

"All of the tire tracks made the hike much more comfortable, BUT it had been requested that no vehicles be out here in the pattern. I guess that it must be aliens and hopefully not other cachers. Right!"

"A quick sidenote: please do NOT drive your car out here! There are many car tracks and plants and stuff gets run over and destroyed. Not the way it is supposed to be.

"As I set off on foot for the first cache I noticed that I was following a very nice set of tire tracks. It is starting to evolve into quite a roadway from cache to cache now. On the plus side, I am pretty sure that anyone looking at it from above will probably start to see the faint outline of an alien's face in the desert."

"Although there were lots of tire tracks, we decided to walk it."

"Walked in everyone else's tire marks so it was easy to know which way to go and to spot the caches quickly, often from over 100 feet away. For part of it, we didn't use the GPS at all. I'm curious for Google Earth to update their satellite imagery to see if there's a big alien head of tracks visible now."

"I highly recommend that future cachers do this series as a walk in the dark. (Yes, I mean a walk. While we didn’t mind following the tire tracks at times, it is sad that cachers are not cooperating with the CO’s request to walk, not drive, to these caches.)"

"I wonder if google earth will pick up the tire tracks off all the cars that have driven the alien head, and if now the alien can be seen..."

"Walking in following tire tracks"

"PS DON'T DRIVE THIS, HIKE IT. THE DAMAGE PEOPLE HAVE CAUSED BY DRIVING WILL TAKE YEARS TO FIX."

"It was also interesting to find a vehicle trail to most of the caches. I guess those who continue to drive and those who drove will screw this series up for future cachers."

"Sad to see that some have chosen to drive on this sensitive land."

"Sure hate to see the "roads" out here but it did make it easier to run the route. Did find a couple of caches that the drivers ran over in their zeal to make the finds."

"It is an absolute shame that cachers continue to drive this group of hides when there were no roads and the owners asked that you not drive it. We noted 4 caches that had been driven over and 2 were broken."

"I only wish that so many people hadn't driven their cars through the area to create the well-worn road that now leads right to all of the caches."

"People have obviously driven this series in spite of the warnings. PLEASE, respect the landscape and take the time to enjoy the walk or we're going to loose this."

"I'm sad to report that quite a number of cachers have chosen to drive to the caches out here, in spite of directions from the CO NOT to do so. Please people, if you want to do this series please plan on doing it on foot. Otherwise this area may very well become closed to everyone. Also, people driving around the caches are inadvertently driving over the cache containers without realizing it!!"

"It is truly unfortunate that some cachers ARE NOT respecting the wishes of the cache owners by not driving this series of caches. Not only are the people that drive this series of caches disrespectful of the cache owners, they are disrespecting all the cachers that want to do this series in the future."

"Since so many have driven it, we decided to join the ranks and finished the route with the geoschuttle."

"The terrain is flat and the vegetation is low and in some cases obliterated by people who have driven out there."

"Took the walk out in the middle of the desert unlike the obviously driven terrain."

"We walked to each cache, but it looked like someone had driven to each of the alien head caches."

Link to comment

Since there has already been two powertrails shut down out in the general area, obviously someone is watching and cares. The cat herding comment, while true, is a shame and is one of the problems with geocacing and it's growth.

 

The latest ET Powertrail has been revived with NDOT's blessing (it even made local news). As much as I'm not really a fan of power trails, the trail has had a large economical impact on Rachel, NV. They didn't realize it until the first power trail was disabled. The original ET trail was a safety issue (caches being too close to the road, not enough room for snow removal equipment, etc.), not an environmental issue. I believe the other power trail you speak of was the one that was near power lines. I haven't as of yet been to either of these places. The one near the power lines was stupid, of course TPTB are going to question suspicious activity near a power grid that most likely supplies power to the majority of the southwestern US.

Link to comment

My question is this,

 

How current might these tracks be?

 

Tracks remain in the S.W. deserts from WW 2 tank training exercises. Does that excuse current behavior ... no, however, how current are the tracks??

 

Are the tracks remainders and reminders of an earlier subset of bad caching behavior?

 

Are the tracks remainders and reminders of current bad caching behavior?

Link to comment
I believe the other power trail you speak of was the one that was near power lines.

If it's Trail of the Gods, that's my recollection. They were located along "Powerline Road". I believe most of the containers were under piles of rocks near transmission towers, but a few were MHAK's actually attached to the towers, which probably didn't help matters any.

Link to comment
I believe the other power trail you speak of was the one that was near power lines.

If it's Trail of the Gods, that's my recollection. They were located along "Powerline Road". I believe most of the containers were under piles of rocks near transmission towers, but a few were MHAK's actually attached to the towers, which probably didn't help matters any.

 

Wow, attached to the towers?

facepalm2.jpg

Link to comment

Since there has already been two powertrails shut down out in the general area, obviously someone is watching and cares. The cat herding comment, while true, is a shame and is one of the problems with geocacing and it's growth.

 

The latest ET Powertrail has been revived with NDOT's blessing (it even made local news). As much as I'm not really a fan of power trails, the trail has had a large economical impact on Rachel, NV. They didn't realize it until the first power trail was disabled. The original ET trail was a safety issue (caches being too close to the road, not enough room for snow removal equipment, etc.), not an environmental issue. I believe the other power trail you speak of was the one that was near power lines. I haven't as of yet been to either of these places. The one near the power lines was stupid, of course TPTB are going to question suspicious activity near a power grid that most likely supplies power to the majority of the southwestern US.

 

The point is that geocaching has had some very negative pub in the area and the activity is being watched by land managers. While geocachers should be responsible at all times, it is especially prudent when you are on double secret probation in an area.

Link to comment
Wow, attached to the towers?

FWIW, I might be mixing it up with Trail of Fears, and frankly, I could be wrong about this entirely... But I seem to recall some forum posts last year about a power trail with a minority of containers attached to the towers. I'll try to see if I can figure it out which one it was (or if it was either).

Link to comment
Wow, attached to the towers?

FWIW, I might be mixing it up with Trail of Fears, and frankly, I could be wrong about this entirely... But I seem to recall some forum posts last year about a power trail with a minority of containers attached to the towers. I'll try to see if I can figure it out which one it was (or if it was either).

I'd be interested in the method of attachment, also.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...