Jump to content

We can finally see Alien Head from space!


addisonbr

Recommended Posts

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:

 

But it's a dry heat....someone had to say it.

 

 

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:

 

From a reading of some of the logs on the Alien Head caches it sounded like doing them at night had benefits other than staying out of the mid-day heat. There were numerous logs which marveled at the millions of start, and logs like this which sum up the experience well:

 

"What a great view when the sun came up as we walked and cached the area. For me, this was the highlight of the trip."

 

In fact, the Alien Head was specifically designed to be done at night. In addition to the plea not to drive the cache the owners also write:

 

"the objects reflective to flashlights and it is recommended that the search party be done at night"

 

So why are people driving the series during the day? My guess is that there are lot of cachers that are more interested in racking up numbers rather than having the experience of hiking under a gazillion stars in the desert.

Link to comment

But it's a dry heat....someone had to say it.

 

:lol:

Being a desert rat my entire life. Once it gets over 100, it's just sucky....and that 80 degrees occurs at about 5am just before the sun comes up and lasts for maybe 5 minutes. It's not uncommon for it to be 100+ at 1am. It just shouldn't be that hot after dark...ever! Thankfully in the north, the temperature generally drops 20 degrees as soon as the sun goes down.

 

 

From a reading of some of the logs on the Alien Head caches it sounded like doing them at night had benefits other than staying out of the mid-day heat. There were numerous logs which marveled at the millions of start, and logs like this which sum up the experience well:

 

"What a great view when the sun came up as we walked and cached the area. For me, this was the highlight of the trip."

 

In fact, the Alien Head was specifically designed to be done at night. In addition to the plea not to drive the cache the owners also write:

 

"the objects reflective to flashlights and it is recommended that the search party be done at night"

 

So why are people driving the series during the day? My guess is that there are lot of cachers that are more interested in racking up numbers rather than having the experience of hiking under a gazillion stars in the desert.

The majority of the problem is cachers coming from other areas have a limited time frame, so they do it when convenient. My guess is 99% of these people are number ho's (not that there is anything wrong with that), as my guess is 99% of them came out to primarily do the ET trail, not the Alien Head, the Alien Head is an after thought/added bonus. Which someday, I will get to do...at night...on foot.

Link to comment

Clan Riffster- I think its important to point out you posted AVERAGES tempratures. I lived in the las vegas valley from 96-99 and somedays we saw temps over 115 multiple days in a row. Yes its hot lol

 

The hottest day I cache in Laughlin, in July, the official reading at Davis dam was 126!

Link to comment

So why are people driving the series during the day? My guess is that there are lot of cachers that are more interested in racking up numbers rather than having the experience of hiking under a gazillion stars in the desert.

 

I am not certain that doing The Head Alien is about racking up numbers:

 

If one were more concerned about racking up numbers they would be out along the highway where the caches are more abundant.

 

Along Hwy 375 there are numerous ingress wheel tracks toward the point of the chin, similarly along Gunderson there are a number of ingress areas to access the Left. cheek and forehead.

 

As someone has pointed out, the unsuspecting cacher without access to the cache page and it's admonitions might very well assume that driving to the caches would be acceptable especially given the somewhat obvious access points to various parts of the "figure".

Link to comment

However, this thread may be close to the end.

 

No it has not. As a matter of fact, I think it's about to break the record for longest time on the first page, besting "signing container instead of the log". You know GeoWoodstock? Dallas? DRR? Anyone?

 

This is actually my first post to the thread. K Bye. :P

Link to comment

NEEDED:

 

A " numbers hound " thread in order to keep this thread pristine. However, this thread may be close to the end.

 

A tip of the hat to the OP for raising the awareness of the actions of some and the negative impacts.

One reason that this thread has gone on so long it because we can't agree on the motivation of the OP in bringing up the issue in the first place. Was it to raise awareness of the negative impacts to the environment by a few cachers? Was it to complain that people ignored the request of the cache owner? Was it to argue that even minor impacts might be view negatively by some land managers? Was it to argue that such action are more likely to happen on or near power trails?

 

And then there is the question of what to do about it. That hasn't been decided. Some want to ban power trails. Others may want some kind of sanctions for those who don't abide by a cache owner's requests. Some want a proactive approach with the BLM to head off a possible knee jerk reaction that ends up banning caches. Others would prefer to play it by ear and see what the BLM's reaction is first. And of course there is still disagreement over how serious of an impact this is. Some people, in the East particularly, see a new track in the desert as a horrible destruction of the natural landscape. Others, particularly those in rural western states like Nevada, feel that a single track that connects caches is minor compared to the impacts of the other activities the BLM allows on the same land, and that while driving outside of established trail may be against BLM regulations the BLM is not likely to get too concerned by one new track.

 

This thread may be near its end, but there are still a lot of unresolved issues.

Link to comment

NEEDED:

 

A " numbers hound " thread in order to keep this thread pristine. However, this thread may be close to the end.

 

A tip of the hat to the OP for raising the awareness of the actions of some and the negative impacts.

One reason that this thread has gone on so long it because we can't agree on the motivation of the OP in bringing up the issue in the first place. Was it to raise awareness of the negative impacts to the environment by a few cachers? Was it to complain that people ignored the request of the cache owner? Was it to argue that even minor impacts might be view negatively by some land managers? Was it to argue that such action are more likely to happen on or near power trails?

 

And then there is the question of what to do about it. That hasn't been decided. Some want to ban power trails. Others may want some kind of sanctions for those who don't abide by a cache owner's requests. Some want a proactive approach with the BLM to head off a possible knee jerk reaction that ends up banning caches. Others would prefer to play it by ear and see what the BLM's reaction is first. And of course there is still disagreement over how serious of an impact this is. Some people, in the East particularly, see a new track in the desert as a horrible destruction of the natural landscape. Others, particularly those in rural western states like Nevada, feel that a single track that connects caches is minor compared to the impacts of the other activities the BLM allows on the same land, and that while driving outside of established trail may be against BLM regulations the BLM is not likely to get too concerned by one new track.

 

This thread may be near its end, but there are still a lot of unresolved issues.

 

Well stated

Link to comment

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:

 

I was in Vegas area in early July, and grabbed a cache at Hoover Dam, when the temps were at ~115! Even the short walk down a wash was brutal!

 

Did the original E.T. Trail @ 117º and had to run the truck heater to keep it from over heating. Hiked The Head Alien that same night from 2200 hours to 0245 and the temps dropped to the low 60's around 0200. Rather an odd circumstance in mid summer. Passed through another time and it was 104º @ 0130 hours.

 

Was there 2 weeks ago and it was 16º @ 0400 hours.

 

Word to the wise make like a Boy Scout and " Be Prepared ".

Link to comment

One reason that this thread has gone on so long it because we can't agree on the motivation of the OP in bringing up the issue in the first place.

It is pretty common in these forums to impugn the motives of the OP. It's a convenient way to sidestep the issues being raised.

Link to comment

One reason that this thread has gone on so long it because we can't agree on the motivation of the OP in bringing up the issue in the first place.

It is pretty common in these forums to impugn the motives of the OP. It's a convenient way to sidestep the issues being raised.

I will say that the OP has taken the time in several later post to explain his motivation. In the most recent it seems he is simply asking "what to do about it?". Of course there is still disagreement on the answer to that question.

 

What are the issues being raised?

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.

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...

 

The creation of this thread and the sarcasm that flowed from the OP in the beginning was the slippery slope. I just skipped to the bottom of the hill. Calling spades as I said earlier.

 

I have pointed out repeadedly that I don't perceive a negative impact for this series, so why would I want it archived? Again, if I were the owner of these caches, I would have self archived before this thread got to page 2. I see the slippery slope. You can't or don't want to.

Link to comment

One reason that this thread has gone on so long it because we can't agree on the motivation of the OP in bringing up the issue in the first place.

It is pretty common in these forums to impugn the motives of the OP. It's a convenient way to sidestep the issues being raised.

 

+1

I don't know why I feel that I'm the target of the common tactic in these forums of getting quoted out of context and then being told I'm sidestepping the issue.

 

I responded once, because in fact this OP has taken the time to address certain post that questioned his motivation. Still the dripping sarcasm of the original post will lead many to "impugn" the motivation.

 

Fine, the sarcastic tone of the OP not withstanding, his motivation was just to point out that when the impacts of geocaching can be seen in a satellite photo, there might be ramifications. In any case, there still seems to be quite a bit of disagreement as to what these issues are, let alone what to do about them.

Link to comment

I don't know why I feel that I'm the target of the common tactic in these forums of getting quoted out of context and then being told I'm sidestepping the issue.

 

I responded once, because in fact this OP has taken the time to address certain post that questioned his motivation. Still the dripping sarcasm of the original post will lead many to "impugn" the motivation.

 

Fine, the sarcastic tone of the OP not withstanding, his motivation was just to point out that when the impacts of geocaching can be seen in a satellite photo, there might be ramifications. In any case, there still seems to be quite a bit of disagreement as to what these issues are, let alone what to do about them.

I'm not sure why you feel that way either. The point I was making was not intended to be made at your expense. I was commenting on a specific point you made and the meaning of the sentence I quoted was not changed by the loss of additional context. Plus, your original post was only five post backs and it had already been quoted at least once in its entirety in the interim.

 

It probably won't help to soften the blow that you feel that you've suffered, but I'm afraid you've missed my point anyway.

Link to comment
I'm wondering at what elevation can the trail be seen.

Well, we know at least two points of reference;

It can be seen at ground level, judging by the photos provided and the comments left on various cache pages. (Not sure what the elevation is there) And, if we pretend that the "Eye Level" measurement provided by Google Earth is at least somewhat close to reality, we know that, at least for one old, fat, crippled guy with a smelly hat, (and a pretty basic monitor), it can be seen at about 10 miles up.

Link to comment

One can be sure that the local residents are promoting the whole thing, including the UFO and Alien Head 'geoart'.

 

On Geocaching > Partnering > Travel and Tourism see the video on Rachel... After 4:15 you get to see the local promotion part.

About the 'geoart' that is, the whole video shows the benefit to Tourism that is Geocaching.

 

I'd say off hand that most people in the area are NOT worried about trails of any sort, at least too much!

 

Doug 7rxc

Link to comment

One reason that this thread has gone on so long it because we can't agree on the motivation of the OP in bringing up the issue in the first place.

It is pretty common in these forums to impugn the motives of the OP. It's a convenient way to sidestep the issues being raised.

I'm not often an OP, so reading some of the replies has been interesting. Quite a few question a hidden agenda or hidden motivations.

 

I've tried the best I can to reply reasonably and without personal attack to those who are interested.

Link to comment

One can be sure that the local residents are promoting the whole thing, including the UFO and Alien Head 'geoart'.

 

On Geocaching > Partnering > Travel and Tourism see the video on Rachel... After 4:15 you get to see the local promotion part.

About the 'geoart' that is, the whole video shows the benefit to Tourism that is Geocaching.

 

I'd say off hand that most people in the area are NOT worried about trails of any sort, at least too much!

 

Doug 7rxc

 

It's irrelevant whether the people who live in the area are worried about the trails. What matters is what the BLM thinks. But everyone seems to be hesitant to ask them. I wonder why.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
the sarcasm that flowed from the OP in the beginning

I actually thought that the sarcasm of the original post was overwhelmingly self-evident, but it was interesting to me that some didn't pick up on it.

 

(Tone not being accurately captured in an electronic format is not exactly breaking new ground, I know.)

Link to comment

It's irrelevant whether the people who live in the area are worried about the trails. What matters is what the BLM thinks. But everyone seems to be hesitant to ask them. I wonder why.

Clan Riffster inquired with the BLM ...waaaay back on page 8

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 problem is, "What constitutes an established trail in the eyes of the BLM?" There are no (as far as I can tell) online resources or maps within the BLM website (with the exception of the immediate Las Vegas area). Tomorrow I will stop by the BLM office on my way to class (it's about a block away), I'll even see if they have maps that will clarify this. My money is on "there is no map that clearly shows established trails for thousands and thousands of miles of public land" I will let you know what I find out and hopefully put an end this thread. :ph34r:

Link to comment

It's irrelevant whether the people who live in the area are worried about the trails. What matters is what the BLM thinks. But everyone seems to be hesitant to ask them. I wonder why.

Clan Riffster inquired with the BLM ...waaaay back on page 8

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 problem is, "What constitutes an established trail in the eyes of the BLM?" There are no (as far as I can tell) online resources or maps within the BLM website (with the exception of the immediate Las Vegas area). Tomorrow I will stop by the BLM office on my way to class (it's about a block away), I'll even see if they have maps that will clarify this. My money is on "there is no map that clearly shows established trails for thousands and thousands of miles of public land"

 

I'm not interesting in pursuing this at all with BLM but if someone did I'd say that there is some pretty compelling evidence that the double track trail which traces the Alien Head was *not* an established trail prior to caches being placed. Are you seriously suggesting that the trail pre-existed the caches? Instead of wasting your time looking for a map which probably doesn't exist it might be worth checking to see if there a precedent for what action BLM will take when in discovers the people are driving on a trail that was not an established trail according to their criteria. Are they going to increase enforcement and cite people that drive on non-established trails? Are the going to curtail the use of motor vehicles entirely in the area? Are they going to prohibit access to a segment of land currently available for public use? Are you willing to find out just to prove that you're right?

 

I will let you know what I find out and hopefully put an end this thread. :ph34r:

 

I can understand the motivation for why some might want to end this thread. Whatever the motivation of the OP for starting it, as long as it continues there are some that are expressing criticsm over the actions of a few that are driving the alien head geocaching series. Ending the thread would stop that criticism so that those that are inclined can continue to behave in a manner that come consider to be detrimental to the game. As long as this thread remains active there will continue to be criticism.

Link to comment
I'm wondering at what elevation can the trail be seen.

Well, we know at least two points of reference;

It can be seen at ground level, judging by the photos provided and the comments left on various cache pages. (Not sure what the elevation is there) And, if we pretend that the "Eye Level" measurement provided by Google Earth is at least somewhat close to reality, we know that, at least for one old, fat, crippled guy with a smelly hat, (and a pretty basic monitor), it can be seen at about 10 miles up.

Maybe you should look for yourself you lose the trail between 2 and 3 miles up unless you have the caches highlited

Edited by vagabond
Link to comment

It depends entirely on the resolution of the camera. I remember looking at U2 photos while wearing white cotton gloves. With a 4X hand lens I could see the 4" wide lines on a parking lot.

As long as the BLM is collecting money for cattle grazing on their land, I wouldn't worry about any perceived "trails" a group of geocachers might make walking around a piece of geoart. My first Earthcache has a great trail to it constructed by the BLM. While I was walking out to develop questions for it, I met a cow coming out the trail.

We need to teach a few people not to make a trail straight up a hill in erosive soils.

Link to comment

It's irrelevant whether the people who live in the area are worried about the trails. What matters is what the BLM thinks. But everyone seems to be hesitant to ask them. I wonder why.

Clan Riffster inquired with the BLM ...waaaay back on page 8

 

 

Clan Riffster carefully left out mention of geocaching and the specific situation at the Alien Head site.

 

 

The problem is, "What constitutes an established trail in the eyes of the BLM?" There are no (as far as I can tell) online resources or maps within the BLM website (with the exception of the immediate Las Vegas area). Tomorrow I will stop by the BLM office on my way to class (it's about a block away), I'll even see if they have maps that will clarify this. My money is on "there is no map that clearly shows established trails for thousands and thousands of miles of public land"

 

Forget asking for maps and beating around the bush. Go to the office, ask for Lisa and bring her the sat photo of trails and include a half dozen or so ground level photos of the trails from the logs. Make sure you mention that some suspect geocachers are responsible for creating the trails. Then see what Lisa has to say about the situation. If she is cool with it, then I withdraw about 90 percent of what I wrote in this thread.

Link to comment

...

Then see what Lisa has to say about the situation.

...

 

I hope you're kidding, Brian.

Not many of us 'out west' would be willing to risk a huge chunk of our available Geocaching turf just to prove a point in this forum thread.

 

Certainly, if Lisa were to shrug and say 'WHATEVER!', then a burden would be lifted.

OTOH, she might call every district office to alert them of what is happening.

Maybe they would just go out and put up some signs and fencing. (and probably increase patrol frequency)

 

Whether or not anyone (Geocachers) considers the vehicular tracks in this area to be 'environmental damage' is irrelevant. What is really important is to educate and minimize the spread of this disregard for BLM policy.

 

If it becomes common practice for Geocachers to go randomly driving across public lands we are all in trouble.

Link to comment
I'm wondering at what elevation can the trail be seen.

Well, we know at least two points of reference;

It can be seen at ground level, judging by the photos provided and the comments left on various cache pages. (Not sure what the elevation is there) And, if we pretend that the "Eye Level" measurement provided by Google Earth is at least somewhat close to reality, we know that, at least for one old, fat, crippled guy with a smelly hat, (and a pretty basic monitor), it can be seen at about 10 miles up.

Maybe you should look for yourself you lose the trail between 2 and 3 miles up unless you have the caches highlited

I did. The old, fat, crippled guy with a smelly hat, a basic monitor, (and a pair of trifocal glasses I forgot to mention), referenced in my post was me. I don't lose the trail till the "Eye Level" thingy hits about 47,000 feet. B)

Link to comment

You mean unanswered questions that myself and others have answered repeatedly?

Of course! We're ready for a whole new round of such silliness as;

"It's only a desert. Who cares?"

and let's not forget the awesome,

"There are no signs prohibiting damaging stuff, so it's OK"

Or even the classic,

"You can see the Great Wall of China from space, so it's OK".

Oh... Almost forgot,

"You guys don't live there, so your opinion is irrelevent"

 

Yup... You guys really came up with some great answers... :rolleyes:

Link to comment

You mean unanswered questions that myself and others have answered repeatedly?

Of course! We're ready for a whole new round of such silliness as;

"It's only a desert. Who cares?"

and let's not forget the awesome,

"There are no signs prohibiting damaging stuff, so it's OK"

Or even the classic,

"You can see the Great Wall of China from space, so it's OK".

Oh... Almost forgot,

"You guys don't live there, so your opinion is irrelevent"

 

Yup... You guys really came up with some great answers... :rolleyes:

Link to comment

You mean unanswered questions that myself and others have answered repeatedly?

Of course! We're ready for a whole new round of such silliness as;

"It's only a desert. Who cares?"

and let's not forget the awesome,

"There are no signs prohibiting damaging stuff, so it's OK"

Or even the classic,

"You can see the Great Wall of China from space, so it's OK".

Oh... Almost forgot,

"You guys don't live there, so your opinion is irrelevent"

 

Yup... You guys really came up with some great answers... :rolleyes:

I call heavily biased paraphrasing unless you can quote the posts that support your "answers." :rolleyes:

 

Nice try.

 

Link to comment

84% of land in Nevada is owned by the federal government. A substantial part of that is used by the military and is already off limits not only for geocaching but for nearly any other use. The attitude in Nevada regarding regulations that someone in Washington decides may be different from what someone in New Jersey or Florida might expect. The locals might not care so much that the BLM has regulations that restricts travel in some areas to existing trails. I would guess that many locals are just as concerned about new trails created by recreational use mucking up the environment. But they are likely going to be a bit more nuanced is how they interpret this. In a area near the highway where there are already many "unofficial" tracks crisscrossing the landscape, one new track the connects the caches isn't going to be seen as a big deal. If it brings tourist who will spend money in the area, they may even welcome this track.

 

The BLM can, of course, decide that the track in unacceptable and have the caches archived or ban caches in other areas they deem to be "sensitive". If they should do so, they might expect a backlash from locals who I'm sure have far more resentment of federal agencies than of their own state transportation department.

 

It is hard to tell if those who keep trying to raise some alarm about Geocaching getting a black eye from thousands of miles away, are really concerned about what the BLM might do, or if they are secretly hoping that the federal government has the caches removed. It just isn't that big of concern to those close by, who figure that the BLM is going to have take into account the local community's views before doing anything.

Link to comment

Of course! We're ready for a whole new round of such silliness as;

"It's only a desert. Who cares?"

and let's not forget the awesome,

"There are no signs prohibiting damaging stuff, so it's OK"

Or even the classic,

"You can see the Great Wall of China from space, so it's OK".

Oh... Almost forgot,

"You guys don't live there, so your opinion is irrelevent"

I call heavily biased paraphrasing unless you can quote the posts that support your "answers." :rolleyes:

 

Trails in the desert?...Personally I'm not going to get worked up about it. Are there any rare plants or animals in that area?

What I am legally permitted to do trumps the whims of the cache owner.

Humans have been leaving their mark on planet earth for eons. Here are a few examples:...The great wall of China

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... Even I can see which side is most likely right

 

Best I could do on short notice. Exact quotes they are not, and so I'm sure some will split hairs about that. But I think it's fair to say that they capture the spirit that CR highlighted reasonably accurately.

 

That said, I will happily report that the pace of some of the more ridiculous comments seems to have dropped off. It's been a while since I heard anyone claiming that their only guide to environmental responsibility is what is or isn't prohibited by law, and I've only seen one "I can see other things in satellite photos too so this should be of no concern" in the last couple of weeks.

Link to comment
It is hard to tell if those who keep trying to raise some alarm about Geocaching getting a black eye from thousands of miles away, are really concerned about what the BLM might do, or if they are secretly hoping that the federal government has the caches removed.

I suppose I can add "secret hopes" to "hidden agendas" and "ulterior motives". So I'll go ahead and say that no, I am not secretly hoping that the federal government has these or other caches removed. I would rather the federal government not really get into that business.

 

My non-secret hope is that no land manager weighing the potential human / environmental impact of geocaching on her land, notices from her desktop how quickly these trails emerged. I also non-secretly hope that she doesn't realize that geocachers reading cache pages before hunting or paying attention to CO requests / requirements, is viewed as mockable in many geocaching corners.

Link to comment

...

Then see what Lisa has to say about the situation.

...

 

I hope you're kidding, Brian.

Not many of us 'out west' would be willing to risk a huge chunk of our available Geocaching turf just to prove a point in this forum thread.

 

Certainly, if Lisa were to shrug and say 'WHATEVER!', then a burden would be lifted.

OTOH, she might call every district office to alert them of what is happening.

Maybe they would just go out and put up some signs and fencing. (and probably increase patrol frequency)

 

Whether or not anyone (Geocachers) considers the vehicular tracks in this area to be 'environmental damage' is irrelevant. What is really important is to educate and minimize the spread of this disregard for BLM policy.

 

If it becomes common practice for Geocachers to go randomly driving across public lands we are all in trouble.

 

If those who have no problem with this are so gosh darn sure it's fine with the BLM then what is the risk? If they think that just maybe the BLM won't be OK with this then perhaps we shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

 

And let me be the first to propose this, perhaps the "attractive nuisance" that is inspiring this behavior needs to be removed before the BLM gets wind of it.

 

I completely agree with your last sentence.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

Not all BLM offices have a problem with geocaching. The Idaho BLM webste. They list their caches here. Many of the caches in the more arid regions have noticeable two wheel tracks in the area of the cache, not necessarily because of the cache, so I assume they are aware of driving off the established trails. It will be interesting to come back in a year or two to this one. Expand out for the full geo art. I'm sure it won't be long before the trails from the ATV's will be visible. You can now return to the regularly scheduled debate.

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...