Jump to content

We can finally see Alien Head from space!


addisonbr

Recommended Posts

Given that a trail happens whenever a cache is hidden in vegetation, I believe the belief that geocaching's image should be one of low impact to be a bit rosey.

 

You state that as if it's an irrefutable fact. My experience has been quite the opposite. I've seen very few "geo" trails through vegetation, and only if a cache is hidden within a few feet of a road, parking or trail.

Link to comment

Wow....just wow. A big pissing match started by people that don't even cache in the area or much less live on this side of the country.

 

I believe Rachel falls under the Ely office. I've searched BLM regs and can't find much other than the ORV restrictions in the Las Vegas area. That would be awesome if someone from the east coast sent a nasty gram to the BLM and have geocaching banned because they have a personal vendetta against power trails. Dude, you rock!

 

Gambling and prostitution would still be legal.

:laughing::laughing:

*wiping coffee off of monitor*

 

...and we still have our 24/7 alcohol to fall back on. Oh and not to mention the west side of Reno is burning now....yeah, part of it's BLM and Tahoe National Forest, probably started by Geocachers. :ph34r:

Link to comment

That would be awesome if someone from the east coast sent a nasty gram to the BLM and have geocaching banned because they have a personal vendetta against power trails. Dude, you rock!

 

I seriously doubt they could accomplish that feat. However, as I stated earlier, if I was the CO I would have already archived those caches. Kudos to the CO for not having a knee jerk. Mine would have been calculated and I would have asked for them to be unarchived after the thread died.

 

Now, if the CO is really that concerned, I believe they should go ahead and archive them permanently. What are the odds? :unsure:

Link to comment

Wow....just wow. A big pissing match started by people that don't even cache in the area or much less live on this side of the country.

 

I believe Rachel falls under the Ely office. I've searched BLM regs and can't find much other than the ORV restrictions in the Las Vegas area. That would be awesome if someone from the east coast sent a nasty gram to the BLM and have geocaching banned because they have a personal vendetta against power trails. Dude, you rock!

 

Those on the other side of the country have a dog in this fight because what happens on one side of the country can affect all of us. The NPS wide ban on geocaching started with one buried cache.

 

I'm curious as to why you think an email sent to the Ely BLM office could result in a geocaching ban. If this is all hunky dory with them as you and others here have indicated, then an email should make no difference. They'd just repeat what you've been saying, that it's only desert and not a sensitive area.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

Wow....just wow. A big pissing match started by people that don't even cache in the area or much less live on this side of the country.

 

I believe Rachel falls under the Ely office. I've searched BLM regs and can't find much other than the ORV restrictions in the Las Vegas area. That would be awesome if someone from the east coast sent a nasty gram to the BLM and have geocaching banned because they have a personal vendetta against power trails. Dude, you rock!

 

Because what happens on one side of the country can affect all of us. The NPS wide ban on geocaching started with one buried cache.

 

Which cache and where? I always wanted to know about that. :unsure:

Link to comment
Given that a trail happens whenever a cache is hidden in vegetation, I believe the belief that geocaching's image should be one of low impact to be a bit rosey.

 

You state that as if it's an irrefutable fact. My experience has been quite the opposite. I've seen very few "geo" trails through vegetation, and only if a cache is hidden within a few feet of a road, parking or trail.

 

We cache in different parts of the country but that shouldn't matter much.

 

My experience: New cache = immediate trail that is very clear for the first season of finds. After that, the trail fades as the visit frequency fades.

 

If you are finding caches that are years old, you wouldn't see much of a trail if any.

 

On my visit to the PNW last year, I found quite a few established caches with no aparent geotrail. The one near the Original Stash Plaque was a different story because of the frequency of visits.

 

The tracks in the desert will fade less quickly for the same reason that the trash is so visable. But they will fade and the cows will be bothered by them not at all.

Link to comment

Wow....just wow. A big pissing match started by people that don't even cache in the area or much less live on this side of the country.

 

I believe Rachel falls under the Ely office. I've searched BLM regs and can't find much other than the ORV restrictions in the Las Vegas area. That would be awesome if someone from the east coast sent a nasty gram to the BLM and have geocaching banned because they have a personal vendetta against power trails. Dude, you rock!

 

Because what happens on one side of the country can affect all of us. The NPS wide ban on geocaching started with one buried cache.

 

Which cache and where? I always wanted to know about that. :unsure:

 

The link to the original report no longer works, but this is supposedly what set the NPS off (looks like it was 2 buried caches, not 1):

 

02-056 - Lake Roosevelt NRA (WA) - Geocaching Incident

 

Rangers recently conducted an investigation into geocaching in the park.

Geocaching is a sport in which individuals or organizations cache materials

at particular locations, then provide the GPS coordinates via the Internet

so that other people can attempt to find them. Some times caching entails

digging, which presents obvious problems in national parks. On February

27th, Patrick Hall asked permission to bury a geocache within the park's

historic Fort Spokane Unit. During the conversation, Hall made several

statements which revealed that he'd previously been investigated by the US

Fish and Wildlife Service for this same activity, and that other geocaches

might already be buried within the park. Ranger Jaime Green investigated

and found that two caches had already been buried near Fort Spokane by a

geocache player known as "Fuzzybear." Additional investigation uncovered a

connection between "Fuzzybear" and Hall. Hall was interviewed and admitted

placing both caches. Parks concerned about this activity within their

boundaries may go to http://www.geocaching.com and search for caches

located in their areas. - Chris Rugel, DR, Fort Spokane District, LARO, 3/8

 

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

Wow....just wow. A big pissing match started by people that don't even cache in the area or much less live on this side of the country.

 

I believe Rachel falls under the Ely office. I've searched BLM regs and can't find much other than the ORV restrictions in the Las Vegas area. That would be awesome if someone from the east coast sent a nasty gram to the BLM and have geocaching banned because they have a personal vendetta against power trails. Dude, you rock!

 

Those on the other side of the country have a dog in this fight because what happens on one side of the country can affect all of us. The NPS wide ban on geocaching started with one buried cache.

 

I'm curious as to why you think an email sent to the Ely BLM office could result in a geocaching ban. If this is all hunky dory with them as you and others here have indicated, then an email should make no difference. They'd just repeat what you've been saying, that it's only desert and not a sensitive area.

 

NPS is one thing. How much BLM land is there in New Jersey? Seriously, if you would like to send the BLM a letter, be my guest. The BLM folks I've dealt with in the field don't have a problem with it, in fact we have gotten their blessing in the past to have Geocaching 4X4 rally's on their land. The rally's were along trails, some new, some old, but you had to get out and find caches along the way. People walking to and from the caches also create trails. As far as being shut down...I was speaking theoretically as there is always that one person with a little bit of power that likes to ruin it for everybody (ahem! :blink: )

Link to comment

Wow....just wow. A big pissing match started by people that don't even cache in the area or much less live on this side of the country.

 

I believe Rachel falls under the Ely office. I've searched BLM regs and can't find much other than the ORV restrictions in the Las Vegas area. That would be awesome if someone from the east coast sent a nasty gram to the BLM and have geocaching banned because they have a personal vendetta against power trails. Dude, you rock!

 

Those on the other side of the country have a dog in this fight because what happens on one side of the country can affect all of us. The NPS wide ban on geocaching started with one buried cache.

 

I'm curious as to why you think an email sent to the Ely BLM office could result in a geocaching ban. If this is all hunky dory with them as you and others here have indicated, then an email should make no difference. They'd just repeat what you've been saying, that it's only desert and not a sensitive area.

 

NPS is one thing. How much BLM land is there in New Jersey? Seriously, if you would like to send the BLM a letter, be my guest. The BLM folks I've dealt with in the field don't have a problem with it, in fact we have gotten their blessing in the past to have Geocaching 4X4 rally's on their land. The rally's were along trails, some new, some old, but you had to get out and find caches along the way. People walking to and from the caches also create trails. As far as being shut down...I was speaking theoretically as there is always that one person with a little bit of power that likes to ruin it for everybody (ahem! :blink: )

 

If the BLM is totally fine with what is going in there would be no possibility of them shutting down caching so I wonder why you would even bring it up. Or perhaps you aren't so positive that they are OK with it after all?

Link to comment

Wow....just wow. A big pissing match started by people that don't even cache in the area or much less live on this side of the country.

It's kind of amusing how these arguments go around in circles, while almost everyone studiously ignores the actual issues.

 

Maybe the CO had good reasons for asking people not to drive the circuit. The cows have enough sense to walk when they are asked not to use vehicles, what's the geocacher's excuse?

Link to comment

Wow....just wow. A big pissing match started by people that don't even cache in the area or much less live on this side of the country.

 

I believe Rachel falls under the Ely office. I've searched BLM regs and can't find much other than the ORV restrictions in the Las Vegas area. That would be awesome if someone from the east coast sent a nasty gram to the BLM and have geocaching banned because they have a personal vendetta against power trails. Dude, you rock!

 

Those on the other side of the country have a dog in this fight because what happens on one side of the country can affect all of us. The NPS wide ban on geocaching started with one buried cache.

 

I'm curious as to why you think an email sent to the Ely BLM office could result in a geocaching ban. If this is all hunky dory with them as you and others here have indicated, then an email should make no difference. They'd just repeat what you've been saying, that it's only desert and not a sensitive area.

 

NPS is one thing. How much BLM land is there in New Jersey? Seriously, if you would like to send the BLM a letter, be my guest. The BLM folks I've dealt with in the field don't have a problem with it, in fact we have gotten their blessing in the past to have Geocaching 4X4 rally's on their land. The rally's were along trails, some new, some old, but you had to get out and find caches along the way. People walking to and from the caches also create trails. As far as being shut down...I was speaking theoretically as there is always that one person with a little bit of power that likes to ruin it for everybody (ahem! :blink: )

 

If the BLM is totally fine with what is going in there would be no possibility of them shutting down caching so I wonder why you would even bring it up. Or perhaps you aren't so positive that they are OK with it after all?

I highlighted it for you.

Link to comment

If the BLM is totally fine with what is going in there would be no possibility of them shutting down caching so I wonder why you would even bring it up. Or perhaps you aren't so positive that they are OK with it after all?

 

I hafta admit Brian that I had the same thought. However, I just spent 308 hours of training in safety courses at an OSHA training institute. One of the main bits of wisdom passed along again and again was that when it comes to government agencies, enforcement is subjective and uneven. It depends on the person you're dealing with, what they had for breakfast, their personal problems, etc. I have no doubt that the BLM in Nevada is a big 'Ol box-o-chocolates.

 

forrest-gump-p111.jpg

 

Example: The referenced area south of Vegas is the Desert Tortoise universe. On my 1st couple of visits to Outdoor Nevada Geocache #3 there were no turtle fences. On my next there were fences. On my next I was approached by a nice old guy who was a turtle conservation officer. Just a neat guy with lots of info and a nice disposition. I talked to him about turtle conservation for half an hour. I still have the refrigerator magnet he gave me. The next visit I was approached by a young, surly, PD reject of a turtle dude and the experience was less pleasant. Outdoor Nevada Geocache #3 was archived shortly after.

Edited by Snoogans
Link to comment

Wow....just wow. A big pissing match started by people that don't even cache in the area or much less live on this side of the country.

 

I believe Rachel falls under the Ely office. I've searched BLM regs and can't find much other than the ORV restrictions in the Las Vegas area. That would be awesome if someone from the east coast sent a nasty gram to the BLM and have geocaching banned because they have a personal vendetta against power trails. Dude, you rock!

 

Gambling and prostitution would still be legal.

It has already been shown that as far as Rachel is concerned, geocaching and power trails also have an economic benefit, and I would guess that far fewer people would object to some off-road tracks in the desert than object to gambling and prostitution.

 

One thing that some people miss are the reasons why agencies like the BLM ask people to stay on existing roads, tracks, and washes. It isn't out of concern of a few tracks here and there that have run over vegetation. One of the bigger concerns is erosion. In some areas the tracks can act as channels causing rain water to wash away soils leaving ravines and other barriers that some animals may have difficulty crossing. This is probably not a major concern in this area. Another issue are off-roaders who don't just make new tracks but crisscross entire areas leaving the area vulnerable to wind erosion creating dust storms and blowing away top soil so the area can never recover.

 

I believe what Snoogans is saying is correct. Geocachers may have created some tracks in the area by driving from cache to cache. However the extent of the "damage" is not one the BLM is likely to be concerned about. Cattle grazing and other activities that the BLM allows on lands they manage have a much bigger impact on the land than Geocaching. The BLM may be watching the ET trail and other caches placed on BLM land. If they see geocaching impacts they don't like they may very well change their policy. I doubt however that they will end up banning geocaching or even power trails. They may begin by echoing the cache owners and asking cachers to not create new tracks. If that doesn't work they might decide to restrict geocaches to areas within a certain distance of existing trails. That might put an end to the practice of arranging caches to make a design in the desert but it won't end power trails.

 

I believe that the issue is being blown out of proportion by geocachers who have a prejudice against power trails or against caching from vehicles. Sure, it would be nice for geocachers to adhere to leave no trace practices and to respect a cache owner's wishes that people walk these caches. But geocachers are really no different than any other group that uses these lands. It's not clear that any laws or BLM regulations have been violated.

Link to comment

Wow....just wow. A big pissing match started by people that don't even cache in the area or much less live on this side of the country.

 

I believe Rachel falls under the Ely office. I've searched BLM regs and can't find much other than the ORV restrictions in the Las Vegas area. That would be awesome if someone from the east coast sent a nasty gram to the BLM and have geocaching banned because they have a personal vendetta against power trails. Dude, you rock!

 

Gambling and prostitution would still be legal.

It has already been shown that as far as Rachel is concerned, geocaching and power trails also have an economic benefit, and I would guess that far fewer people would object to some off-road tracks in the desert than object to gambling and prostitution.

 

One thing that some people miss are the reasons why agencies like the BLM ask people to stay on existing roads, tracks, and washes. It isn't out of concern of a few tracks here and there that have run over vegetation. One of the bigger concerns is erosion. In some areas the tracks can act as channels causing rain water to wash away soils leaving ravines and other barriers that some animals may have difficulty crossing. This is probably not a major concern in this area. Another issue are off-roaders who don't just make new tracks but crisscross entire areas leaving the area vulnerable to wind erosion creating dust storms and blowing away top soil so the area can never recover.

 

I believe what Snoogans is saying is correct. Geocachers may have created some tracks in the area by driving from cache to cache. However the extent of the "damage" is not one the BLM is likely to be concerned about. Cattle grazing and other activities that the BLM allows on lands they manage have a much bigger impact on the land than Geocaching. The BLM may be watching the ET trail and other caches placed on BLM land. If they see geocaching impacts they don't like they may very well change their policy. I doubt however that they will end up banning geocaching or even power trails. They may begin by echoing the cache owners and asking cachers to not create new tracks. If that doesn't work they might decide to restrict geocaches to areas within a certain distance of existing trails. That might put an end to the practice of arranging caches to make a design in the desert but it won't end power trails.

 

I believe that the issue is being blown out of proportion by geocachers who have a prejudice against power trails or against caching from vehicles. Sure, it would be nice for geocachers to adhere to leave no trace practices and to respect a cache owner's wishes that people walk these caches. But geocachers are really no different than any other group that uses these lands. It's not clear that any laws or BLM regulations have been violated.

(((swoon :wub: )))I'm a horrible debater (as seen in past posts)thank you for writing out what was going on in my head!

Snoogans & Toz - 2012

Link to comment

If the BLM is totally fine with what is going in there would be no possibility of them shutting down caching so I wonder why you would even bring it up. Or perhaps you aren't so positive that they are OK with it after all?

 

I hafta admit Brian that I had the same thought. However, I just spent 308 hours of training in safety courses at an OSHA training institute. One of the main bits of wisdom passed along again and again was that when it comes to government agencies, enforcement is subjective and uneven. It depends on the person you're dealing with, what they had for breakfast, their personal problems, etc. I have no doubt that the BLM in Nevada is a big 'Ol box-o-chocolates.

 

forrest-gump-p111.jpg

 

Example: The referenced area south of Vegas is the Desert Tortoise universe. On my 1st couple of visits to Outdoor Nevada Geocache #3 there were no turtle fences. On my next there were fences. On my next I was approached by a nice old guy who was a turtle conservation officer. Just a neat guy with lots of info and a nice disposition. I talked to him about turtle conservation for half an hour. I still have the refrigerator magnet he gave me. The next visit I was approached by a young, surly, PD reject of a turtle dude and the experience was less pleasant. Outdoor Nevada Geocache #3 was archived shortly after.

 

All the more reason to tread lightly. Say for the sake of argument that the current BLM supervisor is totally OK with the off road use and the resultant tire tracks. He retires or gets transferred and the new guy comes in and says "Holy carp, look at what those geocachers are doing to the desert!".

Link to comment

Do any of you actually know what that land is used for? Grazing cattle. It's such a fragile environmental area that they allow huge herds of grazing cattle to roam, stampede, eat, poop, and sometimes even wander the roads to cause huge car accidents.

 

The impact of what is going on out there is SO minimal, and is being SO exaggerated in this thread, it's not even funny. I've been there. Recently. Those trails are not so visible from the ground, and if it weren't for the lines being drawn on the OPs little chart there, I wouldn't be able to see it there. But everybody needs something to whine about.

 

Further, I was also at the event in August in Rachel. The COs were VERY clear about it not being ok to drive to the caches in the alien head and/or space ship shape series.

 

But y'all should keep this conversation going. The lines are pretty clearly drawn, and this is way more of a debate about power trails than it is the ecological sanctity of the area in question. You're not really fooling anyone.

Link to comment

Wow....just wow. A big pissing match started by people that don't even cache in the area or much less live on this side of the country.

 

Dude. You don't care about the environment. We get that. For the most part, we are OK with it, as we've learned that the kind of person who believes trashing Momma Nature is OK is never, ever going to change. (Sort of an "accept the things you cannot change" kinda thing) Being able to see the world from your perspective is beneficial to us. What I would ask, before you make such ridiculous statements like the one above, is that, for just 5 seconds, you try to see through the eyes of those who do care about the environment. When I hear about an ecological disaster, or even some mild ecological concern, it upsets me regardless of what geographic region it occurs in. Perhaps some day I could be so callous as to shrug off something like the Exxon Valdez spill, because it didn't mess up my beaches, but I doubt it. Those who care about the environment believe that we all share this planet.

 

That would be awesome if someone from the east coast sent a nasty gram to the BLM and have geocaching banned because they have a personal vendetta against power trails. Dude, you rock!

Are you suggesting this as a course of action? :unsure:

Just let me know. I love communicating with government agencies. B)

Link to comment
Dood. I quoted your FIRST POST to this thread.

Dern... Busted again... :unsure:

You are correct, Sir. My first post was a rather flippant remark directed at this statement:

Walk? When we're on a numbers run?

At the time, I felt it was both relevant and humorous. Remember, the thread was pretty new then. Just a few folks expressing that us, (the collective us), leaving our mark, in such a highly visible manner, was a bad thing. We didn't have a bunch of anti-environment folks pronouncing such silliness as, "It's just a desert. Who cares?", or even, "If there are no signs saying you can't destroy something, feel free to destroy it". It was after those anti-environment folks tossed their two cents in that the direction of this thread changed. Prior to that silliness, the existence of a nearby power trail was a pretty minor player. Once the anti-environment folks chimed in, the power trail comments became all but irrelevant. The focus had changed dramatically from folks damaging a habitat to folks saying it's OK to damage a habitat. Once we showed the general public that people within our ranks really didn't care about Momma Nature, that became the most important aspect of this thread, in my eyes. I thought I made that pretty clear. No? :unsure:

 

Perhaps you are just a bit to sensitive to such things? If you can see one smartalec comment, made early on in a thread, and see some dark, secret agenda, even though the old, fat crippled dude who made it expressed quite clearly what it was that really bothered him, then perhaps there are some paranoia issues going on? Maybe? I say that, because, from here in the cheap seats, I just don't see any hidden agenda. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar... :unsure:

 

Nope. If your argument is pointy, has a handle, and might be good for digging... I'm gonna call it a spade.

If we ever debate shovels, I will keep that in mind. B)

 

When folks on this thread say that those who oppose them are hurting the image of geocaching it IS tantamount to invoking Godwin.

But that's not what folks are saying. It doesn't reach that degree until after it gets spun. What folks are saying is that displaying a callous attitude toward Nature, in a mostly public forum, could hurt this hobby. Invoking Godwin is paramount to inventing a hobgoblin to sell a point of view. A "We're good. They're evil" tactic, general utilized to demonize an opponent as a means of minimizing their message. Assume, for arguments sake that there is some action or activity that a group of geocachers could take, that could, conceivable hurt the image of this hobby. (If you don't believe there is any such action/activity, just pretend) Now, imagine someone pointing out that such action/activity could hurt the image of this hobby. Would the person pointing it out be invoking Godwin? Or would they be simply pointing out the obvious? :unsure:

Link to comment

Wow....just wow. A big pissing match started by people that don't even cache in the area or much less live on this side of the country.

 

Dude. You don't care about the environment. We get that. For the most part, we are OK with it, as we've learned that the kind of person who believes trashing Momma Nature is OK is never, ever going to change. (Sort of an "accept the things you cannot change" kinda thing) Being able to see the world from your perspective is beneficial to us. What I would ask, before you make such ridiculous statements like the one above, is that, for just 5 seconds, you try to see through the eyes of those who do care about the environment. When I hear about an ecological disaster, or even some mild ecological concern, it upsets me regardless of what geographic region it occurs in. Perhaps some day I could be so callous as to shrug off something like the Exxon Valdez spill, because it didn't mess up my beaches, but I doubt it. Those who care about the environment believe that we all share this planet.

 

I care about the environment. Especially the desert. I'm a child of the desert. Born and raised. Spent much of my childhood cleaning up after other people because it was, after all, just the desert. My backyard was treated like the city folks' dumping ground frequently. Also watched as off roaders drove their 4X4s over intaglios that are believed to be thousands of years old, leaving tire marks all over them before the state finally fenced them off.

 

But this is a little ridiculous even in my eyes. Folks are getting worked up over a trail being left. One that's barely noticeable at that. If you're going to get mad about an area that people are driving over, get angry and contact the government about the giant highway that runs through the area a mile away from the alien head. THAT is leaving a mark on the environment.

 

Walk, bike, quad, drive, and it will all leave a trail in time. But the bottom line is that there is no consequence to this more than a barely visible mark being left, of which there are thousands like it within a mile of the same alien head.

Link to comment

I have to ask once again, how current are the tracks and imaging.

 

Are the tracks depicted / suggested on the images the result of enhanced images taken after the first driving insults to the land.

 

Are there continued driving insults to the land.

 

Do the posted images demonstrate insults to the land resultant from continued driving insults.

 

Recently observed a cattle round-up which employed light rotary winged aircraft, over a dozen mounted riders and numerous quad runners and rather large numbers of cattle.

 

Trails; no.

 

Swaths: yes.

Link to comment

 

This particular picture looks like a trail that's been there longer than the alien head...

Interesting conclusion. Can you describe what method you employed for determining the age of that track? :unsure:

 

 

same method as those maintaining it has been caused by cachers since the powertrail has been put out

Kewl! I know that those folks who claim this trail was caused by folks driving from cache to cache, during the time frame that the aforementioned power trail has been in place utilized the Comparison Method, reviewing satellite imagery with date annotations, before the power trail was in place, and after the power trail was in place, to demonstrate that, pre-power trail, there was no clearly defined track leading from cache to cache, on the alien head, and after the power trail was created, there are clearly defined tire tracks following a set course from cache to cache.

 

You are saying you used the Comparison Method to demonstrate the actual age of those tracks?

 

If so, I am confused. I'm hoping you can help a brother out. Earlier, you referenced a photograph from a cache log. Now you are claiming you are utilizing satellite imagery. Were you able to pinpoint exactly where the picture in question was taken, so you could compare past satellite imagery, in that exact spot, to current satellite imagery? Frankly, I'm not sure that's possible, but if you were able to do so, I'd love to learn your process. I think it could be useful to me, in the future. By looking at the track in that picture, and comparing the visible fork in the trail, I find over a dozen similar forks along the alien head tire tracks, in the current satellite imagery. I don't see any of these forks in the old satellite imagery.

 

Can ya throw a dog a bone? :unsure:

 

Thanx! :)

 

huh? :blink:

 

i think you meant to quote someone else, i never referenced any pictures from logs nor satellite imagery

Link to comment
Folks are getting worked up over a trail being left.

They are? I wasn't aware of that. It was my understanding that folks were bothered by the scars, which, according to at least one local, may last for decades, that's true. But the thing that got them "worked up", as you so eloquently put it, was the contempt and disdain expressed by the anti-environment crowd, due to their belief that such public displays could cause us, (the collective us), grief in the future.

 

Lemme check...

 

<still checking>

 

<Still checking>

 

Yup! I was right. In this thread, what has folks "worked up" is the attitudes. The scars are secondary.

 

Perhaps we are reading two different threads? :unsure:

 

One that's barely noticeable at that.

Barely noticeable, eh? They are clearly distinguishable from a gazillion miles up. OK, that's an exaggeration. On my monitor, using Google Earth, the tracks are only clearly distinguishable at 47,055' or lower, or roughly 8.9 miles. I think commercial aviation flies at around 33,000' in that neck of the woods. Perhaps a pilot could verify that? If so, these scars could be seen by passengers of the average 747 flying overhead. Perhaps we have different definitions of "barely"? Personally, I wouldn't call anything which is clearly visible from almost 9 miles up "barely noticeable". But that's just me... and a few other environmentally conscious folks. <_<

Link to comment

This is ridiculous.

 

Look, why doesn't someone who is out in Nevada just drive a herd of cattle over the Alien Head area? Since it's open grazing land, and that is allowed by the BLM, just use the cattle to obliterate the disputed tire tracks, and probably a lot of the caches. The CO can then go out and replace the caches, and in a year, we can rinse and repeat.

Link to comment

i think you meant to quote someone else, i never referenced any pictures from logs nor satellite imagery

No? It wasn't you who said;

This particular picture looks like a trail that's been there longer than the alien head...

Could've swore that was you. If not, I offer my humble apologies.

That particular statement, presumably made by some other t4e, was in reference to a photo from a cache log showing tire tracks through the alien head area. The other t4e made some silly claim about being able to identify the age of a track based on nothing but a photograph, which really intrigued me, as one of my duties involves figuring out how old foot prints and tire tracks are, while tracking them. I was really hoping to learn that technique, as my method requires a pretty intense study of the impression, and must be done on site.

Later on, I could've swore you said something to the effect of;

same method as those maintaining it has been caused by cachers since the powertrail has been put out

Again, please accept my apologies if this was not you.

I apparently had you confused with some other t4e.

By that point in the thread folks had identified an age range for the most distinguishable of the alien head tire tracks, using dated satellite imagery. Since the other t4e had stated that he used this same method to determine that the tracks in the aforementioned photo predated the alien head series. I was just curious about the particulars of that technique.

Sorry! :(

Link to comment

This is ridiculous.

Agreed. While I expected some pretty ridiculous arguments defending those folks who opted to drive from cache to cache, it was rather surprising to see the degree of disdain displayed toward those who expressed a love of our Earth. :unsure:

 

Send in the clowns cows! :lol:B)

 

They'll do more damage than all the cachers put together, but as long as it's not people, I guess it's okay, or something like that.

Link to comment

We still lack any comment from the BLM regarding concern over any perceived or actual damage to the area. I am reminded of a few historical trips along the Oregon Trail where visitors are guided to the many areas where signs of the passage of many people are still visible. These signs are now considered a national treasure.

 

My guess is the folks in charge of land management in the area are happy for the new found way to bring tourism Dollars to the local economy. You can only milk a range cow for a limited amount. Stupid avid cachers willing to spend a few bucks or more for transport, lodging and food to walk/drive around for a few miles to find film cans in the desert are likely pretty popular in the area these days.

Link to comment

My guess is the folks in charge of land management in the area are happy for the new found way to bring tourism Dollars to the local economy. You can only milk a range cow for a limited amount. Stupid avid cachers willing to spend a few bucks or more for transport, lodging and food to walk/drive around for a few miles to find film cans in the desert are likely pretty popular in the area these days.

My guess is that the BLM could care less about the local economy. They might care more if they ever figure out how to extract some of those tourist dollars for themselves. It doesn't amount to much, but then they get only get $1.34 per head of cattle per month, or something like that, so anything extra would be a nice bonus.

Link to comment
As I see it, the greatest problem is how land managers perceive us. Unless we want this game to be limited to parking lots, we are quite dependent upon the good will of land managers. It is to our advantage to feed the myth that we, as a group, are environmentally conscious. If I were a land manager, perusing the forums, and I saw idiotic remarks such as "There ain't no signs prohibiting tearing the place up, so go for it!", that would likely cause me to believe that some cachers really don't give a darn about the environment. Add to that, comments insisting "You can't hurt the desert", and/or, "It's just the desert, who cares?", and those misconceptions grow. I see this as having the potential for negative repercussions. No, I don't think the sky is falling. No, I don't think the game is in any serious danger, overall. But attitudes like the ones displayed in this thread could have an impact.

 

Seems like it was perception that cost us our National Parks. Almost a decade later we are still fighting that battle. All because a land manager formed an inaccurate opinion of our hobby. At a local level, we lost the Little Big Econ State Forest and the Charles Bronson State Forest, because of the mistaken beliefs of one land manager. It took me about 3 years to fix that one. Remember Kit Fox? Didn't he make several rants about us losing a huge tract of public land out west? Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, I think. Roughly 600,000 acres have been off limits since 2007 because a land manager had a misconception about our hobby.

This is basically my concern. It's a subtle point, but I suppose it can be reduced to a sound bite with: "perception is key". Couple the above examples with what a couple of nuts in South Carolina accomplished by using our own photos and posts against us, and I kinda wish that people would follow the CO's wishes here (or at least be less loquacious in expressing public disdain for those wishes).

 

It may just be a desert, but this is the first example I've seen where geocaching's impact can be viewed in satellite imagery. I think that makes it potentially pretty interesting from a perception standpoint.

Link to comment

 

No? It wasn't you who said;

This particular picture looks like a trail that's been there longer than the alien head...

Could've swore that was you. If not, I offer my humble apologies.

That particular statement, presumably made by some other t4e, was in reference to a photo from a cache log showing tire tracks through the alien head area. The other t4e made some silly claim about being able to identify the age of a track based on nothing but a photograph, which really intrigued me, as one of my duties involves figuring out how old foot prints and tire tracks are, while tracking them. I was really hoping to learn that technique, as my method requires a pretty intense study of the impression, and must be done on site.

Later on, I could've swore you said something to the effect of;

 

perhaps you might want to learn how to read quotes before you point any fingers...i am waiting for the apologies

 

This particular picture looks like a trail that's been there longer than the alien head, but that's neither here nor there.

 

 

same method as those maintaining it has been caused by cachers since the powertrail has been put out

Again, please accept my apologies if this was not you.

I apparently had you confused with some other t4e.

By that point in the thread folks had identified an age range for the most distinguishable of the alien head tire tracks, using dated satellite imagery. Since the other t4e had stated that he used this same method to determine that the tracks in the aforementioned photo predated the alien head series. I was just curious about the particulars of that technique.

Sorry! :(

 

they identified it from what?...same way as the question i replied to did

 

all in all has nothing to do with your reply that i quoted above

 

darn quoting has become an art :rolleyes:

Link to comment

Hmm. The ones who live or have first hand knowledge of the area say it's a non issue, those who know nothing about it claim it's horrible and the other side are Anti-Environmentalists who just don't care. Even I can see which side is most likely right, as anyone who bothers to read this thread with an open mind could.

In the East and Center of this country, there are not many large areas of pristine land left. Everything is either industrialized or agriculture. So people in these areas tend to see natural areas as needing to be preserved. In the West and especially in a state like Nevada mostly everything is open natural area. Cities, industrial, and even agriculture are limited to a small part of the state. Here not all natural areas need to have the same level of protection as in the East. In some areas land is preserved to provide habitat for endangered species or to preserve area of special geologic or historic importance. Here in the West, government agencies use a sort of "wow" requirement. Is there a special reason to preserve the area? If so it can be designated wilderness, park, or special preserve. Most ares of public land get used for other things. Some in the West, get quite upset when what the see as Eastern environmental whackos start telling them what they can do on public lands that haven't been given a special designation.

 

There are public lands in Nevada where geocaching isn't allowed and the reason has nothing to do with protecting the environment. The US military has cordoned off vast stretches of desert to test weapons. The government is dropping bombs and setting off explosions that leave craters which are clearly visible in satellite photos. The impact of some geocachers driving off road is miniscule compared to what the government does to the desert nearby. Elsewhere mining companies create huge open-pit mines sometimes on land leased from the BLM. A few tire tracks from cache to cache is hardly something westerners are going to get concerned about.

 

Still the facts are that many Westerners enjoy a pristine desert experience. Most are quite willing to stick to existing roads, tracks, and washes when driving off-road because they know new tracks are easily created and hard to undo. The CO probably wanted to encourage others to not create tracks when doing the alien head caches. It is certainly disappointing that everyone did not follow that requests. But it is not surprising either. Will this cause other land managers to take drastic action and ban caches? Probably not. These caches were placed in an area when even if some did not follow the COs request, it would not cause an environmental disaster. Even if everyone walked there would soon be a foot path from cache to cache. This might not be so obvious in a satellite photo, but it would still be noticeable on the ground. Would the CO and others prefer a foot path to tire tracks? Probably. But in this part of the country, the vehicle track won't be seen at that big of deal either.

Link to comment

Hmm. The ones who live or have first hand knowledge of the area say it's a non issue, those who know nothing about it claim it's horrible and the other side are Anti-Environmentalists who just don't care. Even I can see which side is most likely right, as anyone who bothers to read this thread with an open mind could.

In the East and Center of this country, there are not many large areas of pristine land left. Everything is either industrialized or agriculture. So people in these areas tend to see natural areas as needing to be preserved. In the West and especially in a state like Nevada mostly everything is open natural area. Cities, industrial, and even agriculture are limited to a small part of the state. Here not all natural areas need to have the same level of protection as in the East. In some areas land is preserved to provide habitat for endangered species or to preserve area of special geologic or historic importance. Here in the West, government agencies use a sort of "wow" requirement. Is there a special reason to preserve the area? If so it can be designated wilderness, park, or special preserve. Most ares of public land get used for other things. Some in the West, get quite upset when what the see as Eastern environmental whackos start telling them what they can do on public lands that haven't been given a special designation.

 

There are public lands in Nevada where geocaching isn't allowed and the reason has nothing to do with protecting the environment. The US military has cordoned off vast stretches of desert to test weapons. The government is dropping bombs and setting off explosions that leave craters which are clearly visible in satellite photos. The impact of some geocachers driving off road is miniscule compared to what the government does to the desert nearby. Elsewhere mining companies create huge open-pit mines sometimes on land leased from the BLM. A few tire tracks from cache to cache is hardly something westerners are going to get concerned about.

 

Still the facts are that many Westerners enjoy a pristine desert experience. Most are quite willing to stick to existing roads, tracks, and washes when driving off-road because they know new tracks are easily created and hard to undo. The CO probably wanted to encourage others to not create tracks when doing the alien head caches. It is certainly disappointing that everyone did not follow that requests. But it is not surprising either. Will this cause other land managers to take drastic action and ban caches? Probably not. These caches were placed in an area when even if some did not follow the COs request, it would not cause an environmental disaster. Even if everyone walked there would soon be a foot path from cache to cache. This might not be so obvious in a satellite photo, but it would still be noticeable on the ground. Would the CO and others prefer a foot path to tire tracks? Probably. But in this part of the country, the vehicle track won't be seen at that big of deal either.

This is an interesting observation. It's always been fascinating to me to travel around this country and see how different it is in different parts. It's almost like traveling to other countries sometimes. The history and attitudes in the NE, for example, are so different to the history and attitudes in the NW. We're such a wide open, relatively young area, and view our world differently.

Link to comment
Folks are getting worked up over a trail being left.

They are? I wasn't aware of that. It was my understanding that folks were bothered by the scars, which, according to at least one local, may last for decades, that's true. But the thing that got them "worked up", as you so eloquently put it, was the contempt and disdain expressed by the anti-environment crowd, due to their belief that such public displays could cause us, (the collective us), grief in the future.

 

Lemme check...

 

<still checking>

 

<Still checking>

 

Yup! I was right. In this thread, what has folks "worked up" is the attitudes. The scars are secondary.

 

Perhaps we are reading two different threads? :unsure:

 

 

[whisper]Pssst... Clan Riffster... psssst...

 

Read the title of the thread. Then try again at what this thread is about.[/whisper]

 

One that's barely noticeable at that.

Barely noticeable, eh? They are clearly distinguishable from a gazillion miles up. OK, that's an exaggeration. On my monitor, using Google Earth, the tracks are only clearly distinguishable at 47,055' or lower, or roughly 8.9 miles. I think commercial aviation flies at around 33,000' in that neck of the woods. Perhaps a pilot could verify that? If so, these scars could be seen by passengers of the average 747 flying overhead. Perhaps we have different definitions of "barely"? Personally, I wouldn't call anything which is clearly visible from almost 9 miles up "barely noticeable". But that's just me... and a few other environmentally conscious folks. <_<

 

As a pilot, I indeed can confirm that 33,000' would be a fairly common altitude to fly a commercial jet at. But apparently our "clearly distinguishable" is set at different levels. You do know those cute green lines connecting the dots in the OPs photo aren't what's visible from FL330, right?

Edited by G & C
Link to comment
As I see it, the greatest problem is how land managers perceive us. Unless we want this game to be limited to parking lots, we are quite dependent upon the good will of land managers. It is to our advantage to feed the myth that we, as a group, are environmentally conscious. If I were a land manager, perusing the forums, and I saw idiotic remarks such as "There ain't no signs prohibiting tearing the place up, so go for it!", that would likely cause me to believe that some cachers really don't give a darn about the environment. Add to that, comments insisting "You can't hurt the desert", and/or, "It's just the desert, who cares?", and those misconceptions grow. I see this as having the potential for negative repercussions. No, I don't think the sky is falling. No, I don't think the game is in any serious danger, overall. But attitudes like the ones displayed in this thread could have an impact.

 

Seems like it was perception that cost us our National Parks. Almost a decade later we are still fighting that battle. All because a land manager formed an inaccurate opinion of our hobby. At a local level, we lost the Little Big Econ State Forest and the Charles Bronson State Forest, because of the mistaken beliefs of one land manager. It took me about 3 years to fix that one. Remember Kit Fox? Didn't he make several rants about us losing a huge tract of public land out west? Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, I think. Roughly 600,000 acres have been off limits since 2007 because a land manager had a misconception about our hobby.

This is basically my concern. It's a subtle point, but I suppose it can be reduced to a sound bite with: "perception is key". Couple the above examples with what a couple of nuts in South Carolina accomplished by using our own photos and posts against us, and I kinda wish that people would follow the CO's wishes here (or at least be less loquacious in expressing public disdain for those wishes).

 

It may just be a desert, but this is the first example I've seen where geocaching's impact can be viewed in satellite imagery. I think that makes it potentially pretty interesting from a perception standpoint.

 

They can tell if a topless sunbather has had breast augmentation from space, now that's a real impact on nature....or is it?

Link to comment

 

Example: The referenced area south of Vegas is the Desert Tortoise universe. On my 1st couple of visits to Outdoor Nevada Geocache #3 there were no turtle fences. On my next there were fences. On my next I was approached by a nice old guy who was a turtle conservation officer. Just a neat guy with lots of info and a nice disposition. I talked to him about turtle conservation for half an hour. I still have the refrigerator magnet he gave me. The next visit I was approached by a young, surly, PD reject of a turtle dude and the experience was less pleasant. Outdoor Nevada Geocache #3 was archived shortly after.

 

This was a really cool cache ... was sad to see that it was archived (thanks Snoogans for letting me know about it)

Link to comment

I'm a ham radio operators and back in the '80's my Dad, Mom and I use to help SCORE with the off road races in BAJA and one of the races was in Primm, NV. So you had couple hundred off road cars/trucks/bikes racing 60-100 mph some 300 miles over the NV area.

 

So Cachers are not the first or the last people to have any impact on the desert.

 

And I'm all for keeping as little of impact on Earth but just being here is a impact

Link to comment
It may just be a desert, but this is the first example I've seen where geocaching's impact can be viewed in satellite imagery. I think that makes it potentially pretty interesting from a perception standpoint.

They can tell if a topless sunbather has had breast augmentation from space, now that's a real impact on nature....or is it?

Happily for me, land managers are relatively unlikely to get a negative perception of geocaching if and when distracted by topless sunbathers. So it's a win-win on that count.

Link to comment

This is ridiculous.

Agreed. While I expected some pretty ridiculous arguments defending those folks who opted to drive from cache to cache, it was rather surprising to see the degree of disdain displayed toward those who expressed a love of our Earth. :unsure:

 

Send in the clowns cows! :lol:B)

 

They'll do more damage than all the cachers put together, but as long as it's not people, I guess it's okay, or something like that.

 

Do they? Can you (or anyone) show visual evidence of damage that has been done by grazing cows that is visible from space? I think a photo of an area where cow grazing is allowed and of an area near by where it isn't that should demonstrate that damaging effects of grazing. I suspect we're not going to see such evidence but I'm willing to be shown otherwise.

Link to comment
Dood. I quoted your FIRST POST to this thread.

Dern... Busted again... :unsure:

You are correct, Sir. My first post was a rather flippant remark directed at this statement:

Walk? When we're on a numbers run?

At the time, I felt it was both relevant and humorous.

 

Perhaps the comment was a bit flippant, but I've read a bunch of the logs of those that the Alien Head and those that mentioned walking the trail talk about the experience of being out in the desert at night (from some of the photos it appears that caches are located in pvc tubes with reflective tape to make them easier to see at night). The talk about seeing the milky way in all it's glory, watching the sun come up, and a break from the tedium of driving down a road and getting out of a vehicle every 30 seconds for hours at a time.

 

Why walk? Many of the logs gave all sorts of reason why they enjoyed walking in the desert. Why not? We're on a numbers run and trying the find caches as fast as possible.

Link to comment
[whisper]Pssst... Clan Riffster... psssst...

 

Read the title of the thread. Then try again at what this thread is about.[/whisper]

FWIW, CR is right about what the thread is about.

He knows. As do the folks who keep trying to steer it toward tracks and power trails.

Presumably that's because they can't effectively address the more serious issue.

Perception is reality.

Link to comment
[whisper]Pssst... Clan Riffster... psssst...

 

Read the title of the thread. Then try again at what this thread is about.[/whisper]

FWIW, CR is right about what the thread is about.

He knows. As do the folks who keep trying to steer it toward tracks and power trails.

Presumably that's because they can't effectively address the more serious issue.

Perception is reality.

Yes, I perceive that you and the op belive that anyone that doesn't agree with you and your vast experience of desert impact and how it relates to overall geocaching perception everywhere are hurting geocaching's image.

 

I percieve that if you tell me that I must agree with you or hurt geocaching's image that you are tantamount to invoking Godwin by proxy. (Yes it's a stretch but that's my perception.)

 

Face it. This is a poor example and you can't or don't want to find a better example to rub everyone's nose in.

 

I would like to see what Humbolt Flier has to say about it after their most recent visit.

 

I honestly believe that we can cause negative impacts that hurt our image. It's just that one doesn't exist in this case. You really need to get with your marketing department and package your product in a way that is more appealing....

Edited by Snoogans
Link to comment
[whisper]Pssst... Clan Riffster... psssst...

 

Read the title of the thread. Then try again at what this thread is about.[/whisper]

FWIW, CR is right about what the thread is about.

He knows. As do the folks who keep trying to steer it toward tracks and power trails.

Presumably that's because they can't effectively address the more serious issue.

Perception is reality.

Yes, I perceive that you and the op belive that anyone that doesn't agree with you and your vast experience of desert impact and how it relates to overall geocaching perception everywhere are hurting geocaching's image.

 

I percieve that if you tell me that I must agree with you or hurt geocaching's image that you are tantamount to invoking Godwin by proxy. (Yes it's a stretch but that's my perception.)

 

Face it. This is a poor example and you can't or don't want to find a better example to rub everyone's nose in.

 

I would like to see what Humbolt Flier has to say about it after their most recent visit.

 

I honestly believe that we can cause negative impacts that hurt our image. It's just that one doesn't exist in this case. You really need to get with your marketing department and package your product in a way that is more appealing....

 

The repeated GUESSES as to the environmental impact aside, I would say that this area is a good example of negative impact. I base this on the fact the land managers in Nevada have pulled the trigger, so to speak, and had two entire trails archived. If you think that isn't negative and far reaching, you are sadly mistaken. It has already happend. We should be even more cautious in their areas of control for this reason, and err on the side of caution. They have already proven they will take extreme measures. Why would you want to "poke the bear" and risk another banned area? Makes no sense to me

Link to comment

This is ridiculous.

Agreed. While I expected some pretty ridiculous arguments defending those folks who opted to drive from cache to cache, it was rather surprising to see the degree of disdain displayed toward those who expressed a love of our Earth. :unsure:

 

Send in the clowns cows! :lol:B)

 

They'll do more damage than all the cachers put together, but as long as it's not people, I guess it's okay, or something like that.

 

Do they? Can you (or anyone) show visual evidence of damage that has been done by grazing cows that is visible from space? I think a photo of an area where cow grazing is allowed and of an area near by where it isn't that should demonstrate that damaging effects of grazing. I suspect we're not going to see such evidence but I'm willing to be shown otherwise.

 

Let's see... number of plants killed by cars following the same two tire tracks, vs number of plants killed by cattle running over the desert freely... Dust and impact on ground from cars following the same two tire tracks, vs dust and impact on ground from cattle running over the desert freely... Think about it.

 

The whole "viewable from space" thing is pretty silly. If people ranged freely without following previous tire tracks, they'd do a lot more damage, at least to plants, but none of it would be visible from space.

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...