Jump to content

We can finally see Alien Head from space!


addisonbr

Recommended Posts

All I'm saying is the trail exists and people will use it as long as the caches are there. I'm also saying that the trail itself is a safety feature during the hottest months of the year and regardless of anyone's wishes for cachers to walk it, I most certainly would not in 100+ degree weather and I would advocate its use by anyone in those conditions. I think it's a bit naive of the CO to expect folks to hike it in the hottest months.

Wow, this rationalization for why this trail is justified had me laughing my butt off. :laughing: :laughing: How DARE the CO expect people to go out in unbareable weather and NOT use this illegally blazed trail. :laughing: Saftey feature? I guess common sense shouldn't be used as a safety feature (ie: don't go out in weather you are not prepared for) :rolleyes:

Link to comment

All I'm saying is the trail exists and people will use it as long as the caches are there. I'm also saying that the trail itself is a safety feature during the hottest months of the year and regardless of anyone's wishes for cachers to walk it, I most certainly would not in 100+ degree weather and I would advocate its use by anyone in those conditions. I think it's a bit naive of the CO to expect folks to hike it in the hottest months.

Wow, this rationalization for why this trail is justified had me laughing my butt off. :laughing: :laughing: How DARE the CO expect people to go out in unbareable weather and NOT use this illegally blazed trail. :laughing: Saftey feature? I guess common sense shouldn't be used as a safety feature (ie: don't go out in weather you are not prepared for) :rolleyes:

 

I have not tried to justify or rationalize the vehicle impact trail. You left out the context in which I wrote the section you quoted:

 

I think we can take it for granted that this thread will reach only a select few of the folks that will be headed out to do those caches, so the trail will remain as long as the caches remain and for a few years after the caches are gone IF other off road drivers also refrain from using the established trail.

 

I have been a cache owner going on 9 years and have a teensy bit of knowledge on how folks cache.

 

It's because of the unprepared willy-nilly way that some folks cache that I have several caches listed in 4 and 5 star terrain and difficulty that aren't strictly in that catagory 365 days a year.

 

I am realistic and the areas in which I have these caches contain very real dangers for unprepared cachers, but willy-nilly numbers run cachers don't generally go for high terrain and difficulty.

 

Fact: These caches are on the path of a massive numbers run. Fact: Most of these numbers run cachers are unaware of the issue in this thread. Fact: It is unrealistic to think that any cacher is going to read 1200 cache pages before heading out on the mother of all P&G runs, so it stands to reason that the CO was naive to expect all cachers to respect their wishes. Fact: The trail will remain and be utilized by cachers in vehicles and anyone else offroading the area as long as the caches are there or other environmental impact enforcement measures are taken by the BLM. (Don't hold your breath.) FACT: For good or ill the trail is there and in the hottest months temps can exceed 110 degrees which would tend to make that vehicle impact trail a safety feature since it would reduce the exposure to the hazards associated with temps over 100 degrees. (pssst snoogans is a certified safety and health official /whisper)

 

Since everyone else that put their dogs in this hunt is afraid to go there.... Clearly the caches must be archived if the CO, outspoken concerned cachers, and the BLM wish to reduce the impact to this publicly owned, highway adjacent, commercially utilized, cow pasture in the desert. :mellow:

Edited by Snoogans
Link to comment
Fact: It is unrealistic to think that any cacher is going to read 1200 cache pages before heading out on the mother of all P&G runs

It's interesting to note that cachers would only have to look at just one of the Alien Head cache pages, which is a separate series in style and numbering from the ET Highway. I think the request is on all of them, so looking at any one of the 50+ cache pages would do.

Link to comment

If I did not know about this thread...and I were to visit Nevada, and rent a 4wd, since my jeep is in SC, and its not practical to drive it to NV lol. (which BTW was my plan last month, I was going to Nellis AFB for a week of training, and I intended to rent a jeep and find geocaches in the desert. I looked up BLM policy on jeeping on thier lands. The website says use existing trails. If I were to drive out there and see a trail I would drive on it. Starting out I would not know that it goes from cache to cache, I see a existing trail and I am going to drive my 4wd on it because BLM says I can. The CO telling me not to drive on BLM land is a irrevelant request, because the BLM website says you can drive on existing trails, and thats why I bought a Jeep! and in this case rented one.

 

Thought I should add

I believe in tread lightly and take out what you take in for sure, I would not go off trail if the caches become off trail I would just have driven as far as I could possibly drive, because it is the fun part of caching for me.

Edited by TheLoneGrangers
Link to comment
Fact: It is unrealistic to think that any cacher is going to read 1200 cache pages before heading out on the mother of all P&G runs

It's interesting to note that cachers would only have to look at just one of the Alien Head cache pages, which is a separate series in style and numbering from the ET Highway. I think the request is on all of them, so looking at any one of the 50+ cache pages would do.

 

I'll give you a very generous even toss on the point you are making only because that's exactly what I might do, but take note of TheLoneGrangers post above. Oh, and now vagabond's post below.

Edited by Snoogans
Link to comment

There are 4 different bookmarks for the alien head series, realistically

how many cachers are going to down load the bookmarks and read the descriptions? the majority of the cachers are going to be numbers runners and they are not going to take the time to read cache pages.

I know when we went out there last year I just loaded the caches in the 62s and we went, and no we didn't do the alien head we quit after the first 300 of the ET highway.

If we had done it all more then likely we would have driven the alien head

Edited by vagabond
Link to comment

If I did not know about this thread...and I were to visit Nevada, and rent a 4wd, since my jeep is in SC, and its not practical to drive it to NV lol. (which BTW was my plan last month, I was going to Nellis AFB for a week of training, and I intended to rent a jeep and find geocaches in the desert. I looked up BLM policy on jeeping on thier lands. The website says use existing trails. If I were to drive out there and see a trail I would drive on it. Starting out I would not know that it goes from cache to cache, I see a existing trail and I am going to drive my 4wd on it because BLM says I can. The CO telling me not to drive on BLM land is a irrevelant request, because the BLM website says you can drive on existing trails, and thats why I bought a Jeep! and in this case rented one.

 

BUT... This alien head trail doesn't fit the BLM's definition of "existing trail."

Link to comment

If I did not know about this thread...and I were to visit Nevada, and rent a 4wd, since my jeep is in SC, and its not practical to drive it to NV lol. (which BTW was my plan last month, I was going to Nellis AFB for a week of training, and I intended to rent a jeep and find geocaches in the desert. I looked up BLM policy on jeeping on thier lands. The website says use existing trails. If I were to drive out there and see a trail I would drive on it. Starting out I would not know that it goes from cache to cache, I see a existing trail and I am going to drive my 4wd on it because BLM says I can. The CO telling me not to drive on BLM land is a irrevelant request, because the BLM website says you can drive on existing trails, and thats why I bought a Jeep! and in this case rented one.

 

BUT... This alien head trail doesn't fit the BLM's definition of "existing trail."

 

In a slight tangent here... I appreciate where I live when people look at the local laws and regulations pertaining to off roading and using 4wd vehicles on trails before they decide to just go at it because many people who live and recreate here would like to keep their privileges and not have to explain away people who couldn't be bothered to look at the local rules. I would suspect it's similar in places like Nevada or areas where they want to have the opportunity to use trails for that purpose and not have them closed off altogether.

Link to comment

Dear Forum,

 

I've got a few days off next week. Does anybody know an area where I can legally or illegally drive or walk on a possible established or non-established trail to find geocaches while preserving or damaging the ecosystem? I would prefer to find an area visible from space, but not deep space, just Earth orbital space.

 

Thanks,

 

Apathetic in Dallas.

 

What's worse, ignorance or apathy?

 

Who knows? Who cares?

Link to comment

If I did not know about this thread...and I were to visit Nevada, and rent a 4wd, since my jeep is in SC, and its not practical to drive it to NV lol. (which BTW was my plan last month, I was going to Nellis AFB for a week of training, and I intended to rent a jeep and find geocaches in the desert. I looked up BLM policy on jeeping on thier lands. The website says use existing trails. If I were to drive out there and see a trail I would drive on it. Starting out I would not know that it goes from cache to cache, I see a existing trail and I am going to drive my 4wd on it because BLM says I can. The CO telling me not to drive on BLM land is a irrevelant request, because the BLM website says you can drive on existing trails, and thats why I bought a Jeep! and in this case rented one.

 

BUT... This alien head trail doesn't fit the BLM's definition of "existing trail."

 

It's highly unlikely that a geocacher will get into trouble if they are seen using the geotrail. Since visitors are requested to use existing trails, it may appear that is exactly what they are doing. At this point there may also be non geocachers using the trail in the belief that it is ok.

 

The only clear evidence that the trail was not preexisting, and the result of geocaching activity is this thread. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
The only clear evidence that the trail was not preexisting, and the result of geocaching activity is this thread. :rolleyes:

 

That and the BLM charts. Those, I imagine, are pretty clear as well.

 

I'm all for romping in the desert. Legally. I've broken more than a few truck parts in the sand, so I'm not an anti-4WD person.

Link to comment

I will say that before seeing this thread, if I had made my way out to this cache and saw a trail... Yeah, I would've probably driven it. Because I like driving off-road. I figured it was the desert, there's trails everywhere, it must be legal.

 

Now we all know otherwise. If I go there now, I WON'T be driving on the trails. Why? Because it's against the land-use policy. Sure, the likelihood of one of us getting in trouble is slim, but I still stop at stop signs when it's the dead of night and nobody's coming...

 

The likelihood of getting caughte isn't justification for breaking the written rules.

Link to comment
The only clear evidence that the trail was not preexisting, and the result of geocaching activity is this thread. :rolleyes:

 

That and the BLM charts. Those, I imagine, are pretty clear as well.

 

I'm all for romping in the desert. Legally. I've broken more than a few truck parts in the sand, so I'm not an anti-4WD person.

 

Does the BLM provide this information? Because I can't find it anywhere. (I have to admit I didn't look very hard) Bottom line, I did more then probably alot of people who wheel (just assuming) and the trail looks like a existing trail to me, so I would drive on it. The BLM website says you can drive on existing washes too, maybe this whole area is a wash?? Doubtful I am sure. So my main question is, how does the BLM let the public know which trails are acceptable to drive on? Are they clearly marked?

Link to comment
The only clear evidence that the trail was not preexisting, and the result of geocaching activity is this thread. :rolleyes:

 

That and the BLM charts. Those, I imagine, are pretty clear as well.

 

I'm all for romping in the desert. Legally. I've broken more than a few truck parts in the sand, so I'm not an anti-4WD person.

 

Does the BLM provide this information? Because I can't find it anywhere. (I have to admit I didn't look very hard) Bottom line, I did more then probably alot of people who wheel (just assuming) and the trail looks like a existing trail to me, so I would drive on it. The BLM website says you can drive on existing washes too, maybe this whole area is a wash?? Doubtful I am sure. So my main question is, how does the BLM let the public know which trails are acceptable to drive on? Are they clearly marked?

 

The serious people here put in a hard and concerted effort to find out where they go off road in the various vehicles. The less than serious ones, and the ones who cause the most problems for the off roading community here, see a trail and drive on it after casually flitting through a website which then affects the community as a whole as land managers aren't keen on that sort of thing.

 

All it took was for one person here to get information from talking a person. I imagine the serious people not only casually flit through a website but if really conscientious about how their actions may affect a community as a whole will pick up the phone if they do not get clear enough information. I would bet if you ask for a map from the BLM they will gladly give you one.

Link to comment
The only clear evidence that the trail was not preexisting, and the result of geocaching activity is this thread. :rolleyes:

 

That and the BLM charts. Those, I imagine, are pretty clear as well.

 

I'm all for romping in the desert. Legally. I've broken more than a few truck parts in the sand, so I'm not an anti-4WD person.

 

Does the BLM provide this information? Because I can't find it anywhere. (I have to admit I didn't look very hard) Bottom line, I did more then probably alot of people who wheel (just assuming) and the trail looks like a existing trail to me, so I would drive on it. The BLM website says you can drive on existing washes too, maybe this whole area is a wash?? Doubtful I am sure. So my main question is, how does the BLM let the public know which trails are acceptable to drive on? Are they clearly marked?

 

The serious people here put in a hard and concerted effort to find out where they go off road in the various vehicles. The less than serious ones, and the ones who cause the most problems for the off roading community here, see a trail and drive on it after casually flitting through a website which then affects the community as a whole as land managers aren't keen on that sort of thing.

 

All it took was for one person here to get information from talking a person. I imagine the serious people not only casually flit through a website but if really conscientious about how their actions may affect a community as a whole will pick up the phone if they do not get clear enough information. I would bet if you ask for a map from the BLM they will gladly give you one.

 

I can assure you I am a serious driver. I should have included why I didn't search to hard for a map. My trip was cancelled and I didn't feel the need to keep researching since I wasn't going.

Link to comment
The only clear evidence that the trail was not preexisting, and the result of geocaching activity is this thread. :rolleyes:

I think that the trail forms a perfect shortest-distance-between-two-points trail between the geocaches, and forms a distinct shape / outline in the process, would probably be circumstantial evidence enough to most land managers. I know there are some in this thread who claim that it's possible that the trail predates the Alien Head, but I don't think that's realistic.

 

Random trails to random geocaches in the desert - I'm more inclined to agree. I think for those it's a lot more difficult for a third party to pin that on geocaching.

Link to comment

For good or ill the trail is there and in the hottest months temps can exceed 110 degrees which would tend to make that vehicle impact trail a safety feature since it would reduce the exposure to the hazards associated with temps over 100 degrees. (pssst snoogans is a certified safety and health official /whisper)

 

Since everyone else that put their dogs in this hunt is afraid to go there.... Clearly the caches must be archived if the CO, outspoken concerned cachers, and the BLM wish to reduce the impact to this publicly owned, highway adjacent, commercially utilized, cow pasture in the desert. :mellow:

 

110° is only 'a bit warm'. :lol:

 

What sort of 'safety feature' would a network of unmarked illegal tracks provide? I would need a functional GPSr (or a compass) to know which way to go, and if I have either, the tracks are redundant.

 

Your disdain for the commercial use aspects of the land does not make it acceptable to ignore the BLM's rules for off-road travel in the area.

 

Certified by The Muppets? :P

Link to comment
the trail looks like a existing trail to me, so I would drive on it.

 

Yes, to YOU it does. But to the rest of us, who have read every post since the thread started, know that, according to the BLM, it is NOT an existing trail.

 

It's pretty obvious that some people here have skimmed right over this clutch post by Clan Riffster. Here ya go, go ahead and give it another read.

 

HINT: The bold portion is very important.

 

Another update: I spoke to Lisa today, (Recreation Specialist for the Caliente Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management), and got some clarification from her. The area I asked about was the chunk of land about 6 miles northwest of Rachel Nevada, northwest of the intersection of Hwy-375 and Smith Well Rd. I asked her what the OHV (Off Highway Vehicle) classification was for that property, and she said driving off of "established" trails is strictly forbidden, and violators would be subject to "serious fines". (Her words, not mine) When I asked her why they would enforce such a thing in that area, she told me that driving off trail "damages the ecosystem". (Again, her words, not mine) The phone number listed above is the main office. You can call her direct at 775-726-8116 if you wish to verify what she told me.

 

The one thing I really wanted to nail her down on was what the particular classification was for this property. What she described would fall under their definition of "Limited", as you can only travel on "established" trails, but I couldn't get her to specify which classification it had, by name. Just by definition. When I asked what would qualify as an "established" trail, according to their rules, she said any trail that is listed on their maps, by name or numeric designation.

 

Sadly, I neglected to ask if there was an online resource available to us mortals, where we could see for ourselves what a particular property's OHV classification was. :(

 

I did not mention anything about the alien head, or the folks driving it, as I would rather not poke that sleeping dragon. My approach was a fib, in that I claimed I wanted to do some driving around that area when I came over for my next vacation. (Not precisely a lie, but...) :ph34r:

 

I think it's safe to put to bed the notion that they, (The BLM), wouldn't care. :unsure:

 

So, as you other people can (hopefully) see, this trail, though it exists insofar as we can physically see it, does not exist as far as the BLM is concerned. Therefore, driving on this trail would be regarded as driving off of an existing or established trail.

Link to comment
the majority of the cachers are going to be numbers runners and they are not going to take the time to read cache pages... If we had done it all more then likely we would have driven the alien head

I think this is pretty accurate.

 

Awhile back I looked at the find counts on a random cache on the ET trail and compared it to the find counts on a few popular non-PT caches. I don't have the numbers offhand but if I recall the average number of finds for those that logged the ET cache as 5-10 times as much as non-PT caches I looked at. While some may draw other conclusions from that unscientific sample it leads me to believe that most cachers doing the trail are doing it for the numbers and some will employ various strategies to maximize the numbers they can achieve, which includes driving instead of walking the trail. It leads me to wonder if the ET trail didn't exist, but the alien head series did, if there would be a *lot* fewer people driving the path between the caches.

Link to comment
the trail looks like a existing trail to me, so I would drive on it.

 

Yes, to YOU it does. But to the rest of us, who have read every post since the thread started, know that, according to the BLM, it is NOT an existing trail.

 

It's pretty obvious that some people here have skimmed right over this clutch post by Clan Riffster. Here ya go, go ahead and give it another read.

 

HINT: The bold portion is very important.

 

Another update: I spoke to Lisa today, (Recreation Specialist for the Caliente Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management), and got some clarification from her. The area I asked about was the chunk of land about 6 miles northwest of Rachel Nevada, northwest of the intersection of Hwy-375 and Smith Well Rd. I asked her what the OHV (Off Highway Vehicle) classification was for that property, and she said driving off of "established" trails is strictly forbidden, and violators would be subject to "serious fines". (Her words, not mine) When I asked her why they would enforce such a thing in that area, she told me that driving off trail "damages the ecosystem". (Again, her words, not mine) The phone number listed above is the main office. You can call her direct at 775-726-8116 if you wish to verify what she told me.

 

The one thing I really wanted to nail her down on was what the particular classification was for this property. What she described would fall under their definition of "Limited", as you can only travel on "established" trails, but I couldn't get her to specify which classification it had, by name. Just by definition. When I asked what would qualify as an "established" trail, according to their rules, she said any trail that is listed on their maps, by name or numeric designation.

 

Sadly, I neglected to ask if there was an online resource available to us mortals, where we could see for ourselves what a particular property's OHV classification was. :(

 

I did not mention anything about the alien head, or the folks driving it, as I would rather not poke that sleeping dragon. My approach was a fib, in that I claimed I wanted to do some driving around that area when I came over for my next vacation. (Not precisely a lie, but...) :ph34r:

 

I think it's safe to put to bed the notion that they, (The BLM), wouldn't care. :unsure:

 

So, as you other people can (hopefully) see, this trail, though it exists insofar as we can physically see it, does not exist as far as the BLM is concerned. Therefore, driving on this trail would be regarded as driving off of an existing or established trail.

 

that's great, but you realize that a very small precentage of geocachers actually use these forums? I am giving realistic idea of what would happen, based off what I would do...it's not a fact, just my opinion, based off statistics if one person feels that way, there is sure to be many more...and based off the trail that is made, its safe to bet that is what is happening. Like I said if you do not know about the forums, and you do a search on off-road use of BLM lands, thier rules say "use existing trails, or washes". It doesn't say "use existing trails that are listed on our maps or numerically designated" I spent about an hour on thier website yesterday, looking on thier maps, it's not user friendly by any means.

 

So I am standing by what I said, by driving to the location, and you see a trail, you do not know that the trail goes from cache to cache, you won't realize that until you started. You know that BLM rules say to use existing trails, based off thier website. It looks like a existing trail when you get there, so you drive on it.

Link to comment

For good or ill the trail is there and in the hottest months temps can exceed 110 degrees which would tend to make that vehicle impact trail a safety feature since it would reduce the exposure to the hazards associated with temps over 100 degrees. (pssst snoogans is a certified safety and health official /whisper)

 

Since everyone else that put their dogs in this hunt is afraid to go there.... Clearly the caches must be archived if the CO, outspoken concerned cachers, and the BLM wish to reduce the impact to this publicly owned, highway adjacent, commercially utilized, cow pasture in the desert. :mellow:

 

110° is only 'a bit warm'. :lol:

 

What sort of 'safety feature' would a network of unmarked illegal tracks provide? I would need a functional GPSr (or a compass) to know which way to go, and if I have either, the tracks are redundant.

 

Your disdain for the commercial use aspects of the land does not make it acceptable to ignore the BLM's rules for off-road travel in the area.

 

Certified by The Muppets? :P

 

Someone mentioned earlier that it's as much as a 6 mile hike to do all of the caches on foot. I am unclear if that is true or not.

 

During exertion the human body starts to become adversely affected in temps above 100 degrees. That's a fact.

 

I have cached in Nevada in temps exceeding 110 and even above 120 and felt the effects of dehydration starting after just 15 minutes. I wouldn't dream of hiking even half that distance in the desert during the summer months unless it was at night and then there are the poisonous critters that hunt at night to deal with. I couldn't/wouldn't want to carry enough food and water to hike that distance in the summer, but that's just me knowing my limitations.

 

I don't think I need to give a lesson on human exertion during extreme heat exposure. Google is your friend if you want to know more.

 

The main factor I want to point out is acclimatization to the heat. I would imagine that a great many folks that fly and drive to do that series would not be used to the heat which would increase their risk to heat stress while hiking that series by quite a bit.

 

The safety feature of this "network of unmarked illegal tracks" provides is easy access to the refuge of shade, supplies, and AC that a vehicle can provide to people who are not in top physical condition, used to hot weather, or any other condition you want to fill in the blank.

 

I've met 2 or 3 cachers in my travels around the country. Only a small percentage would be fit enough to hike that distance in extreme heat. I am not in that group and if I found myself there in the summer with a vehicle that I was confident could get me through that offroad trail, I would drive it and not have one ethical problem with it, because I know that I wouldn't be causing more harm than those that have gone before me and I won't need to tax the local resources to come rescue me when I've bitten off more than I can chew.

 

Again, clearly, the caches must be archived to end this debate. Neither side is budging.

Edited by Snoogans
Link to comment
Awhile back I looked at the find counts on a random cache on the ET trail and compared it to the find counts on a few popular non-PT caches. I don't have the numbers offhand but if I recall the average number of finds for those that logged the ET cache as 5-10 times as much as non-PT caches I looked at. While some may draw other conclusions from that unscientific sample it leads me to believe that most cachers doing the trail are doing it for the numbers and some will employ various strategies to maximize the numbers they can achieve, which includes driving instead of walking the trail. It leads me to wonder if the ET trail didn't exist, but the alien head series did, if there would be a *lot* fewer people driving the path between the caches.

There's an interesting dance going on with the Alien Head. The intersection of Geo-Art and the ET Highway geodrive trail. The proximity may make it inevitable that the caches get driven instead of walked as per the CO's wishes / BLM policy, or driven enough that obvious evidence remains behind. It's been pointed out, repeatedly, that cachers on a numbers run where they hope to log upwards of 1000+ caches in one trip, are unlikely to be bothered enough to read any of the cache pages to learn about where driving is appropriate and where it's not. It's possible that if a similar series weren't intersecting with a geodrive trail, none of this would be an issue.

 

There is an artistic series in the shape of the Kokopelli in the Utah desert, very close to the Nevada border, that has been around for about as long as Alien Head (as you predict, it has about 1/10th the activity). I don't know if people are driving it or not, but in scouring the satellite photos from this past July I can't see tracks the way that I can see them in Rachel. A log from a few months ago says "...we were surprised as to the little amount of human evidence we found out there. We did see an occasional footprint but for the most part most of the tracks were of cows or horses, We only found one piece of trash which was a single water bottle that we CITO out of the area."

 

I'm not sure if this is because it's *not* near a geodrive trail. But it's an interesting power trail / geoart example in its own right.

Link to comment
that's great, but you realize that a very small precentage of geocachers actually use these forums? I am giving realistic idea of what would happen, based off what I would do...it's not a fact, just my opinion, based off statistics if one person feels that way, there is sure to be many more...and based off the trail that is made, its safe to bet that is what is happening. Like I said if you do not know about the forums, and you do a search on off-road use of BLM lands, thier rules say "use existing trails, or washes". It doesn't say "use existing trails that are listed on our maps or numerically designated" I spent about an hour on thier website yesterday, looking on thier maps, it's not user friendly by any means.

 

So I am standing by what I said, by driving to the location, and you see a trail, you do not know that the trail goes from cache to cache, you won't realize that until you started. You know that BLM rules say to use existing trails, based off thier website. It looks like a existing trail when you get there, so you drive on it.

I think this is basically right. It certainly doesn't help much that the dictionary / common-sense definition of 'established' is apparently different from how the BLM defines it in their policies. Until Clan Riffster's phone call, I thought the same thing you're outlining.

Link to comment

If I did not know about this thread...and I were to visit Nevada, and rent a 4wd, since my jeep is in SC, and its not practical to drive it to NV lol. (which BTW was my plan last month, I was going to Nellis AFB for a week of training, and I intended to rent a jeep and find geocaches in the desert. I looked up BLM policy on jeeping on thier lands. The website says use existing trails. If I were to drive out there and see a trail I would drive on it. Starting out I would not know that it goes from cache to cache, I see a existing trail and I am going to drive my 4wd on it because BLM says I can. The CO telling me not to drive on BLM land is a irrevelant request, because the BLM website says you can drive on existing trails, and thats why I bought a Jeep! and in this case rented one.

 

BUT... This alien head trail doesn't fit the BLM's definition of "existing trail."

 

It's highly unlikely that a geocacher will get into trouble if they are seen using the geotrail. Since visitors are requested to use existing trails, it may appear that is exactly what they are doing. At this point there may also be non geocachers using the trail in the belief that it is ok.

 

The only clear evidence that the trail was not preexisting, and the result of geocaching activity is this thread. :rolleyes:

 

1. Older sat photos show no trails. The latest do.

2. The trails follow the same pattern as the caches and form what looks like an alien head.

3. Some logs mention that the trails go directly from cache to cache.

4. Some logs wonder if the trails will become visible in sat imagery.

 

I guess it is possible that a series of trails that resembled an alien head from above was pre-existing and for some reason the sat photos didn't catch it and someone decided to place caches along that route not knowing that he was following the shape of an alien head because it didn't show on the sat photos at the time, but he happened to decide to put them in the shape of an alien head which just happened to perfectly follow the existing trail that happened to look like an alien head. It's also equally possible that I will see a yeti shopping at the local 7-Eleven.

 

Sorry, but the trout is in the milk with this one.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

For good or ill the trail is there

 

Since everyone else that put their dogs in this hunt is afraid to go there.... Clearly the caches must be archived if the CO, outspoken concerned cachers, and the BLM wish to reduce the impact to this publicly owned, highway adjacent, commercially utilized, cow pasture in the desert. :mellow:

 

Your disdain for the commercial use aspects of the land does not make it acceptable to ignore the BLM's rules for off-road travel in the area.

 

You may perceive disdain, but you would be wrong.

 

While the sage brush hugging side of this debate wrings their hands over the intrinsic wrongness of the impact trail, (any impact trail) I am exhibiting a realistic picture of the land where the caches in question are at extrapolated from my experience caching in Nevada. Which is pretty much a sampling of the entire state except for that tiny spot in the lower middle.

 

The desert is beautiful cow pasture or not and slow to recover. I understand that.

 

The reality of the impact is minimal compared to what I have seen and experienced on the ground in Nevada and the nature of the land's current usage. Hence, I percieve no sword to fall on.

 

I'm not arguing for or against this series or the impact trail. My stance is that this is a poor example for the real agenda behind this thread.

 

Save the cow pies. :anibad::laughing:

Link to comment
the real agenda behind this thread

This isn't the first post to refer to a 'real' agenda of some sort. For the record, as the OP, I don't have an issue with geo-drive trails in general. They're not my cup of tea, but I've never found a reason to complain about the Route 66 trail, for example. Nor do I have an issue with geo-art; the Kokopelli seems like a nice hike.

 

I am disappointed that cachers are driving Alien Head against the CO's wishes and leaving behind the first geo-trail I'm aware of that can be seen by land managers anywhere in the country, from the comfort of their own offices. I don't think it reflects well on geocachers, and if it increases the chances that a land manager somewhere restricts geocaching on her lands because of it, I'd be pretty bummed.

Link to comment
that's great, but you realize that a very small precentage of geocachers actually use these forums? I am giving realistic idea of what would happen, based off what I would do...it's not a fact, just my opinion, based off statistics if one person feels that way, there is sure to be many more...and based off the trail that is made, its safe to bet that is what is happening. Like I said if you do not know about the forums, and you do a search on off-road use of BLM lands, thier rules say "use existing trails, or washes". It doesn't say "use existing trails that are listed on our maps or numerically designated" I spent about an hour on thier website yesterday, looking on thier maps, it's not user friendly by any means.

 

So I am standing by what I said, by driving to the location, and you see a trail, you do not know that the trail goes from cache to cache, you won't realize that until you started. You know that BLM rules say to use existing trails, based off thier website. It looks like a existing trail when you get there, so you drive on it.

 

I do realize that not every cacher is on the forums, and that most, if not all, would look at that trail and say that it's "established." But for you to sit here and say that you would still drive the trail, even after you've learned the rules... Well, there's not much more I can really say about a total disregard for the landowner's wishes...

Link to comment
that's great, but you realize that a very small precentage of geocachers actually use these forums? I am giving realistic idea of what would happen, based off what I would do...it's not a fact, just my opinion, based off statistics if one person feels that way, there is sure to be many more...and based off the trail that is made, its safe to bet that is what is happening. Like I said if you do not know about the forums, and you do a search on off-road use of BLM lands, thier rules say "use existing trails, or washes". It doesn't say "use existing trails that are listed on our maps or numerically designated" I spent about an hour on thier website yesterday, looking on thier maps, it's not user friendly by any means.

 

So I am standing by what I said, by driving to the location, and you see a trail, you do not know that the trail goes from cache to cache, you won't realize that until you started. You know that BLM rules say to use existing trails, based off thier website. It looks like a existing trail when you get there, so you drive on it.

 

I do realize that not every cacher is on the forums, and that most, if not all, would look at that trail and say that it's "established." But for you to sit here and say that you would still drive the trail, even after you've learned the rules... Well, there's not much more I can really say about a total disregard for the landowner's wishes...

 

You qouted me out of context.

Link to comment
When I asked what would qualify as an "established" trail, according to their rules, she said any trail that is listed on their maps, by name or numeric designation.

 

What wasn't answered was how the BLM makes their maps or how they get updated. It's possible that as new trails are created (possibly some illegally), the maps are updated to show these trail. Old trail that fall into disuse may be removed from maps.

 

The rationale behind the BLM rules can be understood as applying to some off-road users that tend to drive wherever they want, particularly looking for areas with no tire track in them. What some geocachers have done, while technically in violation of the BLM rules, may not be the particular kind of activity the BLM is worried about. Certainly ranchers will drive off the designated trails to herd their cattle. I'm pretty sure the BLM accepts this as part of the impact of allowing free range grazing. A prospector with a claim on BLM land most likely can create a trail to their claim.

 

Trails formed by recreational use are a problem because they would be uncontrolled if anyone could drive anywhere they wanted in the desert. Whether or not the BLM would find a trail that goes from cache to cache and that is being followed by other cachers once it was created, an unacceptable impact is not answered by the comment from the BLM manager CR talked to.

Link to comment
the real agenda behind this thread

This isn't the first post to refer to a 'real' agenda of some sort. For the record, as the OP, I don't have an issue with geo-drive trails in general. They're not my cup of tea, but I've never found a reason to complain about the Route 66 trail, for example. Nor do I have an issue with geo-art; the Kokopelli seems like a nice hike.

 

I am disappointed that cachers are driving Alien Head against the CO's wishes and leaving behind the first geo-trail I'm aware of that can be seen by land managers anywhere in the country, from the comfort of their own offices. I don't think it reflects well on geocachers, and if it increases the chances that a land manager somewhere restricts geocaching on her lands because of it, I'd be pretty bummed.

 

Interesting response.

 

I don't really perceive this thread's agenda to be against power trails. However the company on your side of the debate is heavily laced with folks that don't like power trails.

 

My perception of the agenda behind this thread is to self govern/archive a series of caches that is perceived to hurt geocaching's image to prove to some present or future set of negatively inclined land managers that we can self govern our impact to the environment through popular opinion.

 

At this point in the debate it's clear that the caches must be archived to support that agenda. I smelled that from the OP photo. I don't get why you continue to soften your stance hammering consideration for the CO's wishes when it's clear that the only way to begin to reverse the impact would be to archive the alien head series.

 

At this point it appears that the CO isn't too concerned with their own wishes or they would have self archived to save the embarassment of the perceived environmental damage their caches have caused.

 

The only message I will accept that this series is hurting geocaching's image is if Groundspeak archives the series or the BLM steps in and bans/restricts geocaching in this desert cow pasture due to the perceived negative impact in Groundspeak's case or the actual negative impact confirmed by the BLM.

Link to comment
You qouted me out of context.

 

Bottom line, I did more then probably alot of people who wheel (...) and the trail looks like a existing trail to me, so I would drive on it.

 

I apologize if I took it out of context, but that doesn't leave much room for interpretation...

Edited by Mitragorz
Link to comment
My perception of the agenda behind this thread is to self govern/archive a series of caches that is perceived to hurt geocaching's image to prove to some present or future set of negatively inclined land managers that we can self govern our impact to the environment through popular opinion.

 

At this point in the debate it's clear that the caches must be archived to support that agenda. I smelled that from the OP photo. I don't get why you continue to soften your stance hammering consideration for the CO's wishes when it's clear that the only way to begin to reverse the impact would be to archive the alien head series.

I'm generally in favor of self-governance. I certainly prefer it to NPS- and South Carolina-wide bans. I'm open to whatever solutions are on the table. We seem to have self-governed ourselves away from other practices that might threaten our relationships with authorities and land mangers, which gives some hope.

 

I took my initial cues from the CO's request on the cache pages (which I read, although apparently those who hunt the caches aren't expected to). I assumed / suspected that the CO knew what he was talking about; it wasn't until CR's phone call that I had something closer to confirmation that was the case. I don't feel my irritation with the caching behavior here has softened over the last couple of weeks. If it comes across that way, it's my poor communication: I am just as irritated with the caching behavior here today as I was in my first post.

Link to comment
You qouted me out of context.

 

Bottom line, I did more then probably alot of people who wheel (...) and the trail looks like a existing trail to me, so I would drive on it.

 

I apologize if I took it out of context, but that doesn't leave much room for interpretation...

FWIW, I'm not sure if this is where the confusion lies (and I certainly don't mean to speak for TheLoneGrangers so if I'm off base here I'm ready to get put in my place). But when I originally read the post by TLG, I took it to mean that having done the research that was done, TLG would have believed the trails to be established and would have driven them on that basis. I didn't take it to mean that if it was known that the BLM didn't want people driving them, that they'd drive it anyway.

 

I could totally be wrong about how I originally read it, but that's I thought it meant the first time around.

Link to comment
You qouted me out of context.

 

Bottom line, I did more then probably alot of people who wheel (...) and the trail looks like a existing trail to me, so I would drive on it.

 

I apologize if I took it out of context, but that doesn't leave much room for interpretation...

 

Nope you didn't, you got me, I forgot that post =P. Honestly I am torn on what I would do, half of me says to act as if this thread doesn't exist and drive. The other half says, ok, I'm not allowed to drive on this trail, so I will hike it...and truthfully I probably couldn't answer this until I actually got out there.

 

Of course this is all hypothetical, if I ever get a chance to go to Nellis AFB again, I won't be going after the alien head or the ET trail. I will go after caches that I can legally drive my jeep too, and there are plenty, and look more fun

Link to comment

Let's not go overboard here just because something we did is visible from space. Your house is certainly visible from space. Are you going to tear it down because of that?

 

Exactly. I always find it laughable when people don't consider humans as God's (or god's) creatures too. If I look at Google Earth, I can see which direction I mowed my lawn right before the sat passed over. Must have been north-south that day.

Link to comment

I did the Alien Head caches back in September of this year. The hike (CO's request on the cache pages was respected) was just a bit over 6 miles. At night, the heat wasn't a problem at all, actually it was quite cool. Walking in the tracks made by those who chose to drive it before was much easier than walking in the loose sand nearby. I appreciate the opportunity to go to the Nevada desert and hunt these caches. Actually, I appreciate the opportunity to go anywhere and hunt any caches.

Link to comment

I did the Alien Head caches back in September of this year. The hike (CO's request on the cache pages was respected) was just a bit over 6 miles. At night, the heat wasn't a problem at all, actually it was quite cool. Walking in the tracks made by those who chose to drive it before was much easier than walking in the loose sand nearby. I appreciate the opportunity to go to the Nevada desert and hunt these caches. Actually, I appreciate the opportunity to go anywhere and hunt any caches.

 

Did you encounter any rattlesnakes or scorpions? Just curious. :unsure:

Link to comment

Let's not go overboard here just because something we did is visible from space. Your house is certainly visible from space. Are you going to tear it down because of that?

 

Exactly. I always find it laughable when people don't consider humans as God's (or god's) creatures too. If I look at Google Earth, I can see which direction I mowed my lawn right before the sat passed over. Must have been north-south that day.

 

My house likely was built with the landowner's permission and had all of the proper permits. I suspect the same applies to yours.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

Let's not go overboard here just because something we did is visible from space. Your house is certainly visible from space. Are you going to tear it down because of that?

 

Exactly. I always find it laughable when people don't consider humans as God's (or god's) creatures too. If I look at Google Earth, I can see which direction I mowed my lawn right before the sat passed over. Must have been north-south that day.

 

My house likely was built with the landowner's permission and had all of the proper permits. I suspect the same applies to yours.

 

Oh for crying out loud.. I walked down the Mpls sidewalk on the way to work this morning and left prints in the snow. I hope no one notices.

Link to comment

I did the Alien Head caches back in September of this year. The hike (CO's request on the cache pages was respected) was just a bit over 6 miles. At night, the heat wasn't a problem at all, actually it was quite cool. Walking in the tracks made by those who chose to drive it before was much easier than walking in the loose sand nearby. I appreciate the opportunity to go to the Nevada desert and hunt these caches. Actually, I appreciate the opportunity to go anywhere and hunt any caches.

 

Did you encounter any rattlesnakes or scorpions? Just curious. :unsure:

 

I would have liked to have seen a rattlesnake from an appropriate distance during the trip, but didn't. Did see one scorpion on this hike. Much larger and lighter colored than what I normally see back home.

Link to comment
So I am standing by what I said, by driving to the location, and you see a trail, you do not know that the trail goes from cache to cache, you won't realize that until you started. You know that BLM rules say to use existing trails, based off thier website. It looks like a existing trail when you get there, so you drive on it.

Yeah, I suspect you are right. Even those folks who know about the "Only dive on existing trails" rule, (which was a chore in itself to find in the BLMs stodgy website), would likely arrive at the site, see what looked like an established trail by most definitions, and feel perfectly confident that they weren't breaking any rules. If the enforcement arm of the BLM is as understaffed as most at that level of Federal Government, I think it's highly unlikely that anyone driving that trail would ever be stopped and cited for doing so.

 

Someone mentioned earlier that it's as much as a 6 mile hike to do all of the caches on foot. I am unclear if that is true or not.

I think that was me. I would take that measurement with a big grain of salt, as I made that measurement using Google Earth, creating a tracklog, following the tire tracks. Other tracklogs I've created have been shown to be off by as much as 10%. It was really just a guesstimate.

 

Trails formed by recreational use are a problem because they would be uncontrolled if anyone could drive anywhere they wanted in the desert. Whether or not the BLM would find a trail that goes from cache to cache and that is being followed by other cachers once it was created, an unacceptable impact is not answered by the comment from the BLM manager CR talked to.

That's true. When I spoke to the BLM, I most carefully avoided going that route, as I feel the only way to accurately answer such speculation is to show the BLM what is happening and ask them if they were OK with it. The answer to that hypothetical question could, conceivably, have a negative impact on caching on BLM properties, as some land managers can be over reactive, as I have seen both first hand, at a local level, and observed second hand via these forums. Given the choice between "winning" this debate by showing the damage to the BLM, and "losing" this debate because I am unwilling to push that envelope, I'll pick "losing" every time.

 

My perception of the agenda behind this thread is to self govern/archive a series of caches that is perceived to hurt geocaching's image to prove to some present or future set of negatively inclined land managers that we can self govern our impact to the environment through popular opinion.

Unless I've missed something, you are the only person in this thread who has suggested, repeatedly, that the alien head caches should be archived. Given that, I can't help but wonder how you arrived at your perception of our side's "hidden" agenda. Certainly, "our" side has promoted the principal of self governance, several times, but that has always been in the context of bringing awareness to potential future drivers of the alien head, not seeking archival of a set of caches. Apparently, that would be "your" side...

 

Let's hear from the folks that hiked it in July and August. :unsure:

Average temperatures in Southern Nevada, (Laughlin area), according to Google:

July: High = 110*, Low = 80*, August: High = 108*, Low = 79*

Holy Carp! :blink:

 

Methinks, if I were to find myself in that area, during that time of year, I would either do my hike at night, (I'm not one to fret over critters), or give the whole thing a pass. :unsure:

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...