We can finally see Alien Head from space!

[+addisonbr]

Wow, attached to the towers?

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

It looks like they were attached to the towers. From the cacher who put them out:

 

"For anyone headed out that way... When you take a container off a tower, please place it on the ground and covered with rocks or something. We are working a plan to move them clear of the towers with minimum interruption of visitors to the trail."

("Did I miss something??? Are you moving all the caches for some reason ???")

"Yep. just a little bit. They need to be removed from the towers."

[4 days later...]

("I just saw that many of these caches are now archived is the whole trail going to be archived?")

"There will be someone picking up the containers beginning the 23rd. Until then, nobody will stop you from finding and logging the caches."

 

Exactly how they were attached to the towers I haven't confirmed, but I'm guessing from a common sense standpoint (?) and from what I seem to remember reading last year, probably magnetically?

[WashoeZephyr]

Here's an article on the economic impact.

http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/15902301/rachel-nevada-cashing-in-on-geocaching

[+sbell111]

Wow, attached to the towers?

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

It looks like they were attached to the towers. From the cacher who put them out:

 

"For anyone headed out that way... When you take a container off a tower, please place it on the ground and covered with rocks or something. We are working a plan to move them clear of the towers with minimum interruption of visitors to the trail."

("Did I miss something??? Are you moving all the caches for some reason ???")

"Yep. just a little bit. They need to be removed from the towers."

[4 days later...]

("I just saw that many of these caches are now archived is the whole trail going to be archived?")

"There will be someone picking up the containers beginning the 23rd. Until then, nobody will stop you from finding and logging the caches."

 

Exactly how they were attached to the towers I haven't confirmed, but I'm guessing from a common sense standpoint (?) and from what I seem to remember reading last year, probably magnetically?

I'll not get excited about a magnet micro.

[+addisonbr]

I'll not get excited about a magnet micro.

In this case, I don't think it's any of us who did. I think it's the guys who owned the power transmission towers they were attached to.

[WashoeZephyr]

Here's another...

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/04/22/conspiracy-theory-why-really-did-nevada-remove-geocaches/

[+addisonbr]

How current might these tracks be?

All I can say for certain is that they do not show up on imagery from before the Alien Head was placed in July 2010, and they do show up on the photos from March 2011.

[WashoeZephyr]

I'll not get excited about a magnet micro.

In this case, I don't think it's any of us who did. I think it's the guys who owned the power transmission towers they were attached to.

I recall hearing something more along the lines of NVEnergy employees sighting lots of random people near their towers and taking it as suspicious activity. Even if they approached the people and the peoople gave the usual schpiel on Geocaching. I still wouldn't want the activity happening on or near the power grid. There's a lot of stupid in the world, geocacher's aren't exempt.

Edited November 16, 2011 by LostinReno

[+briansnat]

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Walking in following tire tracks"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Quit making things up.

[+tozainamboku]

There has already been two power trails banned out there. Somebody obviously is watching, and cares. The third time might by the charm.

 

There are of course those that don't like power trails. Certainly driving .1 miles, jumping out of a car, sign a log (or swap a container), and repeat 1000 times is not everybody's idea of a good time.

 

However there see to be some who dislike power trails so much that they do nothing but wish some great disaster befall geocaching to prove their point that power trails are evil.

 

Now there may be reasonable arguments that any who places 1000 caches spread over 100 miles of road is unlikely to get all the permission issues worked out and that land managers or highway departments might end up asking for the caches to be removed. There may even be an argument that the popularity of these trail results in higher traffic than most caches perhaps leading to environmental damage or in making the power trail more noticeable to land managers and law enforcement.

 

From what I have seen however, power trails are no better or worse than any other caches. When there is a problem Groundspeak has dealt with it as with other problem caches by archiving the caches. In fact in the previous cases where power trails were archived there has been more cooperation from the hiders in helping to deal with the issue than in the typical case where a cache is archived because a land owner/manager objected to it. In the case of the ET trail, the cache owner and others worked with the Nevada DOT to determine how the caches could be replaced so as to not cause traffic problems and other issues. Cachers also worked with the local community to make a case that the power trail was contributing to the economy of this remote area.

 

Yet once again those who have a personal dislike of power trails are quick to imagine the looming disaster that power trails will bring. An imagined view of a pristine desert environment suddenly marked by the tracks of geocachers who ignore the request of the cache owner and drive cross country is seen as certain to arouse the ire of conservationist (if not the BLM) and cause the backlash that will ban all geocaching.

 

In reality it has not been shown that anyone does care that people are driving cross country in this area. Sure the BLM asks that people stick to existing roads and tracks. You can look at areas where off-roading becomes popular and you get tracks of people driving everywhere and doing donuts. That cause far more damage than cachers driving from cache to cache. Some people might even find it interesting if you could make a alien head at some point. After all if KFC can make a Colonel Sanders visible from space and the ancient people of the Nazca plain could create giant petroglyphs, a track left by cars creating an alien head may be seen more as art than as destructive to the environment. I don't doubt that some radical environmentalists will object to any tire marks in the desert, even in a area adjacent to the highway that is already being used for off-roading and open range cattle grazing. But I suspect that these people are already anti-geocaching.

 

So those of you who don't particularly care for power trails can go ahead and imagine that they will inevitably lead to the demise of geocaching if they are not stopped. I think I'll take a more balanced view. Many people enjoy this kind of caching; in some area the power trail may have a positive effect on the local economy and even in giving people an appreciation for the natural beauty; geocachers can work with land managers and other public agencies to develop these trails in a responsible manner. In the end I think there are lots of positives in power trail caching while the negatives tend to be exaggerated by some of those who have a personal dislike for this sort of caching.

[Clan Riffster]

... Add to that the fact that they are causing visible scars to an ecologically sensitive area, and it bothers me even more.

The bolded bit has not been shown to be true.

Nor, has it been shown to be untrue.

Having spent quite a bit of time in desert habitats, I'd say it's more likely true, than untrue.

Especially considering posts in this thread which indicate how long scars like these remain visible in this area.

To my way of thinking, that would indicate that an area is particularly sensitive.

I have ecosystems near me that you could drop napalm on and see no trace of it a week later.

I see these ecosystems as being less sensitive.

 

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

Jumpin’ Jack Cache visited these caches just a couple months ago and has reported that tire tracks are not an issue.

Correction. JJC said the tracks were not an issue for him, as he either didn't see them in the dark, or didn't care about them.

These forums have shown us time and again that just because one person is apathetic to an issue does not mean there is no issue.

 

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

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

I suppose there might be someone, somewhere, who couldn't tell a foot print from a tire track... Maybe...

Not sure I'd want to base an entire argument on such an unlikely theory.

Unless, of course, I was just arguing to hear myself type.

 

Great summation of the points.

I would say, "Great twisting of the facts", but to each his own.

 

Not to mention, the summation was irrelevant, as it avoided completely the real problem.

As has been stated many times in this thread, the significant issue is land manager perception, not tire tracks.

If land managers ever collectively get the idea that we, as a group, don't care about the environment, that could cost us.

If one of the many anti-caching wackos were to dig up indications that we were uncaring louts, that could cost us.

 

But I suppose contempt comes naturally to some of us...

[Clan Riffster]

How current might these tracks be?

All I can say for certain is that they do not show up on imagery from before the Alien Head was placed in July 2010, and they do show up on the photos from March 2011.

Must be a coincidence...

[jholly]

... Add to that the fact that they are causing visible scars to an ecologically sensitive area, and it bothers me even more.

The bolded bit has not been shown to be true.

Nor, has it been shown to be untrue.

The area where the Alien Head and the UFO is located is Open Range. By definition Open Range is not ecologically sensitive. In addition to the walking hamburger are the mules, horses, antelope and other wildlife running free in the area. You don't graze cattle in ecological sensitive areas. The BLM does not permit geocaching in designated ecological sensitive areas.

[+the4dirtydogs]

How current might these tracks be?

All I can say for certain is that they do not show up on imagery from before the Alien Head was placed in July 2010, and they do show up on the photos from March 2011.

Must be a coincidence...

NOPE. It's the ALIENS.

Edited November 16, 2011 by the4dirtydogs

[+sbell111]

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

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

I suppose there might be someone, somewhere, who couldn't tell a foot print from a tire track... Maybe...

Not sure I'd want to base an entire argument on such an unlikely theory.

Unless, of course, I was just arguing to hear myself type.

I don't pretend to know why you argue, but my point is that you or I don't know whether we are looking at a footpath or a vehicle track based solely on a picture taken from space. Given that the only person to give his first hand recent experience of the conditions on the ground has reported that it is a non-issue, I have no reason to believe that these tracks are an issue just because you say they are.

[+addisonbr]

Given that the only person to give his first hand recent experience of the conditions on the ground has reported that it is a non-issue

FWIW, I count logs as first-hand.

[+sbell111]

How current might these tracks be?

All I can say for certain is that they do not show up on imagery from before the Alien Head was placed in July 2010, and they do show up on the photos from March 2011.

Still, people who have recently visited the area have reported that there is no real issue. Therefore, we must wonder if an image taken today would even still show these tracks.

[+sbell111]

Given that the only person to give his first hand recent experience of the conditions on the ground has reported that it is a non-issue

FWIW, I count logs as first-hand.

I looked at the logs. Granted, I only read the last few hundred logs for one of the caches, but I saw no mention of any of these finders driving the trail. I did see references to a well-delineated path and a packed trail. The last post that spoke of vehicles was from way back in May.

 

I found no evidence of this being a current issue, even if it was ever a real issue.

Edited November 16, 2011 by sbell111

[+addisonbr]

Still, people who have recently visited the area have reported that there is no real issue. Therefore, we must wonder if an image taken today would even still show these tracks.

I suppose it's possible that one guy who didn't see the tracks well in the middle of the night three months ago means, that the tracks are no longer visible.

 

I'm leaning towards all of the other logs.

[+sbell111]

Still, people who have recently visited the area have reported that there is no real issue. Therefore, we must wonder if an image taken today would even still show these tracks.

I suppose it's possible that one guy who didn't see the tracks well in the middle of the night three months ago means, that the tracks are no longer visible.

 

I'm leaning towards all of the other logs.

All the other logs from when? I'm not seeing this vast number of logs discussing this issue that you seem to be referring to. I saw some logs discussing the issue from last winter. Is that what you are referencing? I personally gave more weight to the hundreds of logs since then.

 

Beyond that, it should be noted that if these tracks were the problem that you and others claim them to be, then a cacher would not be able to 'miss them' regardless of the time of day that the trip was made. They would be directly from cache to cache for the entire series, after all.

Edited November 16, 2011 by sbell111

[WashoeZephyr]

... Add to that the fact that they are causing visible scars to an ecologically sensitive area, and it bothers me even more.

The bolded bit has not been shown to be true.

Nor, has it been shown to be untrue.

The area where the Alien Head and the UFO is located is Open Range. By definition Open Range is not ecologically sensitive. In addition to the walking hamburger are the mules, horses, antelope and other wildlife running free in the area. You don't graze cattle in ecological sensitive areas. The BLM does not permit geocaching in designated ecological sensitive areas.

THANK YOU! Pretty much the whole state is open to grazing. The BLM makes big bucks off cattle, hence one of the reason's they want to get rid of the horse population. They aren't making money off the horses. Environmentally, with the exception of garbage, there isn't much you can do to "hurt" the area.

[+addisonbr]

All the other logs from when? I'm not seeing this vast number of logs discussing this issue that you seem to be referring to. I saw some logs discussing the issue from last winter. Is that what you are referencing? I personally gave more weight to the hundreds of logs since then.

First one I saw was three days after the nighttime visit, saying it was a shame to see all of the tire tracks.

 

But, they might have been mistaken and the tracks could all be gone. That's true.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

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

Are you sure? Jumpin’ Jack Cache visited these caches just a couple months ago and has reported that tire tracks are not an issue.

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

 

Yes, I'm sure.

 

The first image that the OP posted in this thread shows the entire outline. If you look at any of the Alien Head cache listings, then go to the Geocaching Google Maps link and zoom in all that way, you'll find parallel tracks that go to every single cache on the Alien Head. I have no idea who Jumpin' Jack Cache is but the satellite imagery clearly shows parallel tracks on the Alien Head series. However, if you look at the nearby "UFO" series that was placed after the most recent satellite images were taken you won't see a trail at all.

[Andronicus]

... If a land manager gave permission to place caches based on the assurance of a cache owner that geocachers would follow instructions and not drive cross-country from cache to cache ...

If that is true, the CO should state the fact. I have a cache on Buck-for-Wildlife land. I was given premisison bassed on No Vehicles, No Fires, No Camping, No Littering. I stated on my cache page that permission was bassed on these things, and so far, no one has violated that. CO should stop asking nicely if it is a condition of permission, and demand adherence. People will normaly respect that.

[+sbell111]

 

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

Are you sure? Jumpin’ Jack Cache visited these caches just a couple months ago and has reported that tire tracks are not an issue.

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

 

Yes, I'm sure.

 

The first image that the OP posted in this thread shows the entire outline. If you look at any of the Alien Head cache listings, then go to the Geocaching Google Maps link and zoom in all that way, you'll find parallel tracks that go to every single cache on the Alien Head. I have no idea who Jumpin' Jack Cache is but the satellite imagery clearly shows parallel tracks on the Alien Head series. However, if you look at the nearby "UFO" series that was placed after the most recent satellite images were taken you won't see a trail at all.

You are still equating lines on a sat image to vehicle tracks when that conneection hasn't been made. A path created by several hundred cachers could created a path that is picked up by the sat image, for all we know. The mere fact that another group of caches has no such visible track does not mean anything. Per the logs the two series have quite different soil/plant conditions, after all.

[+sbell111]

... If a land manager gave permission to place caches based on the assurance of a cache owner that geocachers would follow instructions and not drive cross-country from cache to cache ...

If that is true, the CO should state the fact. I have a cache on Buck-for-Wildlife land. I was given premisison bassed on No Vehicles, No Fires, No Camping, No Littering. I stated on my cache page that permission was bassed on these things, and so far, no one has violated that. CO should stop asking nicely if it is a condition of permission, and demand adherence. People will normaly respect that.

agreed

[WashoeZephyr]

... If a land manager gave permission to place caches based on the assurance of a cache owner that geocachers would follow instructions and not drive cross-country from cache to cache ...

If that is true, the CO should state the fact. I have a cache on Buck-for-Wildlife land. I was given premisison bassed on No Vehicles, No Fires, No Camping, No Littering. I stated on my cache page that permission was bassed on these things, and so far, no one has violated that. CO should stop asking nicely if it is a condition of permission, and demand adherence. People will normaly respect that.

I doubt seriously this is a condition of permission but more of a request to keep the tree huggers happy.

[+Snoogans]

... Add to that the fact that they are causing visible scars to an ecologically sensitive area, and it bothers me even more.

The bolded bit has not been shown to be true.

Nor, has it been shown to be untrue.

The area where the Alien Head and the UFO is located is Open Range. By definition Open Range is not ecologically sensitive. In addition to the walking hamburger are the mules, horses, antelope and other wildlife running free in the area. You don't graze cattle in ecological sensitive areas. The BLM does not permit geocaching in designated ecological sensitive areas.

THANK YOU! Pretty much the whole state is open to grazing. The BLM makes big bucks off cattle, hence one of the reason's they want to get rid of the horse population. They aren't making money off the horses. Environmentally, with the exception of garbage, there isn't much you can do to "hurt" the area.

 

I'd really like to see Riffster's response to that.

[+Snoogans]

 

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

Are you sure? Jumpin’ Jack Cache visited these caches just a couple months ago and has reported that tire tracks are not an issue.

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

 

Yes, I'm sure.

 

The first image that the OP posted in this thread shows the entire outline. If you look at any of the Alien Head cache listings, then go to the Geocaching Google Maps link and zoom in all that way, you'll find parallel tracks that go to every single cache on the Alien Head. I have no idea who Jumpin' Jack Cache is but the satellite imagery clearly shows parallel tracks on the Alien Head series. However, if you look at the nearby "UFO" series that was placed after the most recent satellite images were taken you won't see a trail at all.

You are still equating lines on a sat image to vehicle tracks when that conneection hasn't been made. A path created by several hundred cachers could created a path that is picked up by the sat image, for all we know. The mere fact that another group of caches has no such visible track does not mean anything. Per the logs the two series have quite different soil/plant conditions, after all.

 

Oh, even I believe that it's vehicle tracks. I have no doubt about that.

[+sbell111]

 

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

Are you sure? Jumpin Jack Cache visited these caches just a couple months ago and has reported that tire tracks are not an issue.

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

Yes, I'm sure.

 

The first image that the OP posted in this thread shows the entire outline. If you look at any of the Alien Head cache listings, then go to the Geocaching Google Maps link and zoom in all that way, you'll find parallel tracks that go to every single cache on the Alien Head. I have no idea who Jumpin' Jack Cache is but the satellite imagery clearly shows parallel tracks on the Alien Head series. However, if you look at the nearby "UFO" series that was placed after the most recent satellite images were taken you won't see a trail at all.

You are still equating lines on a sat image to vehicle tracks when that conneection hasn't been made. A path created by several hundred cachers could created a path that is picked up by the sat image, for all we know. The mere fact that another group of caches has no such visible track does not mean anything. Per the logs the two series have quite different soil/plant conditions, after all.

 

Oh, even I believe that it's vehicle tracks. I have no doubt about that.

Google's sat image of my front yard shows the little access door in my front yard just in case the water needs to be turned off. It also shows a white dot that is a eight inch mickey mouse statue on our deck and a grey dot sitting on one side of my BBQ grill that is my original fake rock cache that I've had sitting out for years to see if the log will ever get wet. My point is, just because a line shows on a google sat image doesn't mean that it is a huge scar on the earth. Edited November 16, 2011 by sbell111

[+Snoogans]

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

I'm not implying anything and I don't speak for the actions of others. I love and respect the desert, but lets call a spade a spade.

 

There's just as much trash near any other highway in the country. The difference is that it gets covered by vegetation over time. The cycle is different in the desert. The wind carries the trash for miles and it isn't so easily covered up. Humification isn't happening on a large scale to take the trash under with it so it just swirls around.

 

Just because I see trash, it's not going to make me litter or disrespect the area.

 

I haven't read every word of the thread, but I haven't seen anyone mention this....

 

One of the issues is disregarding the CO's wishes. Now, it has been mentioned that there are 1200 caches give or take and I have mentioned that not every cacher reads the cache pages. So.....

 

Let's take ME on a hypothetical journey down the ET power trail.

 

Am I gonna read 1200 caches pages before I head out? HECK NO. So I'm several hundred caches into this numbers run and me & my rented and heavily insured 4WD come to the alien head series and while looking for a place to park I see a vehicle trail through the brush headed to the nearest cache. Do I take it. Heck yes. I've been off road in Nevada and if there's a vehicle trail to follow to the cache or to get me closer I'll take it without hesitation. Am I doing it to trash the area? No! I know the desert and I know I'm not doing any harm. The trail is already there now. The only time I'm gonna even look at a cache page on a power trail is going to be to look for a hint if I need one.

 

IMO the owners wishes, while well meaning, are unrealistic. I would venture to guess most folks were done reading well before they got there. I almost NEVER have a navigator so really, what chance does the owner have of getting his message to me other than putting it in the title of the cache and he's outta luck there if I'm using my geomate or I can't get a signal to use my iPhone app to read the page because I'm sure not going to kill a forest to print 1200 mostly P&G caches of a power trail.

 

I'm I the only one that gets that?

[WashoeZephyr]

Other, bigger things seen from space that exist in the Nevada desert;

 

A temporary city of 50,000+ people every year the week before Labor Day.

 

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=40.794188,-119.19342&hl=en&ll=40.777552,-119.209042&spn=0.097363,0.153637&sll=40.794188,-119.19342&sspn=0.097339,0.153637&vpsrc=6&t=h&z=13

 

...and a weird a** cult like group not far from where I live....itty bitty alien head..pffft!

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=39.728841,-119.816551&hl=en&ll=39.729898,-119.815886&spn=0.01236,0.019205&sll=39.728841,-119.816551&sspn=0.01236,0.019205&vpsrc=6&t=h&z=16

[+Snoogans]

 

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

Are you sure? Jumpin’ Jack Cache visited these caches just a couple months ago and has reported that tire tracks are not an issue.

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

Yes, I'm sure.

 

The first image that the OP posted in this thread shows the entire outline. If you look at any of the Alien Head cache listings, then go to the Geocaching Google Maps link and zoom in all that way, you'll find parallel tracks that go to every single cache on the Alien Head. I have no idea who Jumpin' Jack Cache is but the satellite imagery clearly shows parallel tracks on the Alien Head series. However, if you look at the nearby "UFO" series that was placed after the most recent satellite images were taken you won't see a trail at all.

You are still equating lines on a sat image to vehicle tracks when that conneection hasn't been made. A path created by several hundred cachers could created a path that is picked up by the sat image, for all we know. The mere fact that another group of caches has no such visible track does not mean anything. Per the logs the two series have quite different soil/plant conditions, after all.

 

Oh, even I believe that it's vehicle tracks. I have no doubt about that.

Google's sat image of my front yard shows the little access door in my front yard just in case the water needs to be turned off. It also shows a white dot that is a eight inch mickey mouse statue on our deck and a grey dot sitting on one side of my BBQ grill that is my original fake rock cache that I've had sitting out for years to see if the log will ever get wet. My point is, just because a line shows on a google sat image doesn't mean that it is a huge scar on the earth.

 

I agree. I don't see a vehicle trail in that area, no matter how it got there, as a scar.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

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

Are you sure? Jumpin’ Jack Cache visited these caches just a couple months ago and has reported that tire tracks are not an issue.

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

Yes, I'm sure.

 

The first image that the OP posted in this thread shows the entire outline. If you look at any of the Alien Head cache listings, then go to the Geocaching Google Maps link and zoom in all that way, you'll find parallel tracks that go to every single cache on the Alien Head. I have no idea who Jumpin' Jack Cache is but the satellite imagery clearly shows parallel tracks on the Alien Head series. However, if you look at the nearby "UFO" series that was placed after the most recent satellite images were taken you won't see a trail at all.

You are still equating lines on a sat image to vehicle tracks when that conneection hasn't been made. A path created by several hundred cachers could created a path that is picked up by the sat image, for all we know. The mere fact that another group of caches has no such visible track does not mean anything. Per the logs the two series have quite different soil/plant conditions, after all.

 

Oh, even I believe that it's vehicle tracks. I have no doubt about that.

Google's sat image of my front yard shows the little access door in my front yard just in case the water needs to be turned off. It also shows a white dot that is a eight inch mickey mouse statue on our deck and a grey dot sitting on one side of my BBQ grill that is my original fake rock cache that I've had sitting out for years to see if the log will ever get wet. My point is, just because a line shows on a google sat image doesn't mean that it is a huge scar on the earth.

 

Uh, right. It's probably not a vehicle trail that didn't exist prior to the Alien Head caches placed there. It could be an unusually shaped cloud formation that just happens to be the exact same shape, size, and location as the Alien Head.

 

Sheesh. Look at the photos.

[+addisonbr]

[is someone] gonna read 1200 caches pages before [they] head out? HECK NO... The trail is already there now. The only time [they're] gonna even look at a cache page on a power trail is going to be to look for a hint if [they] need one... I would venture to guess most folks were done reading well before they got there...

 

I'm I the only one that gets that?

You're not. I get it too. I think it's just what happens with some power trails.

[+Snoogans]

[is someone] gonna read 1200 caches pages before [they] head out? HECK NO... The trail is already there now. The only time [they're] gonna even look at a cache page on a power trail is going to be to look for a hint if [they] need one... I would venture to guess most folks were done reading well before they got there...

 

I'm I the only one that gets that?

You're not. I get it too. I think it's just what happens with some power trails.

 

Okay, so find a more significantly impactful power trail and I'll wait right here to be convinced you're right, because you haven't nailed it on this one IMO. Nice try though.

Edited November 16, 2011 by Snoogans

[+addisonbr]

I'm not trying to nail anything. I completely agree with you on this point. I think that what happened here is that geocachers either didn't care to honor the COs wishes, or by and large they didn't even bother to know what the COs wishes were. I agree it's more likely to happen on hyperspeed power trails, and whether it's intentional or careless, I think it kind of sucks.

[+luluonthego]

While it may be true that "pretty much the whole state is open to grazing" it is equally true that there are many areas here where motorized vehicles are prohibited. These areas are clearly signposted. That people choose to disregard the signs speaks to me of ignorance and arrogance.

 

I'm not rapt with desert living; I much prefer the beauty of the PNW. But even I know from experience that there are wonderful ecosystems in the desert and flora and fauna that should not be trampled.

 

Last Sunday I cached on Kyle Canyon Road (just outside of Las Vegas). Not 50 yards from the road I startled (and was startled by) a burrowing owl. This beautiful creature flew from its burrow and landed just a few feet away from me; it proceeded to bob up and down and make guttural sounds, presumably to draw me away from the burrow opening. At the time I was walking slowly on land that was in places crumbling under my feet; I did not see the burrow until the owl had flown out of it. I can only imagine the damage I would have done to the land, to the flora and to the owl habitats (there were many of these burrows in the area) had I elected to plow over the desert in a truck in search of a few caches.

 

Please, show some respect for the desert, for the cache owner, for the people of Rachel who enjoy the extra revenue geo-tourism brings to them.

[+TerraViators]

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

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

 

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

But how do you prevent this kind of impact? There's nothing illegal about it and any type of activity could do it. What if they held a marathon every week on this patch of land. After several years, there would be an impact. I just don't see the negative aspects of it.

[Clan Riffster]

By definition Open Range is not ecologically sensitive.

Actually, the definition of "Ecologically Sensitive" has nothing to do with cattle. But I suspect you already knew that. I should also mention that the definition of "Ecologically Sensitive" is not particularly relevant to the conversation at hand. But I suspect you knew that already as well. As used by me, "Ecologically Sensitive" simply means that the area is unable to heal itself quickly. Someone mentioned tank tracks made near the area back in WWII, which are still visible. If that is accurate, I'd say this area certainly has a tough time healing itself. The scars we leave today may very well be visible to our grandchildren. The BLM has allowed geocaches on that property, and by default, they allow geocachers. Presumably they also allow vehicle operation under certain limitations that someone posted earlier. If those BLM "rules" were cited accurately, then obviously those folks driving from cache to cache are violating them, but that's a topic for another thread. As mentioned earlier, this is not a conversation about geocachers committing crimes against humanity, nor is it a conversation against folks violating BLM policy.

 

This is a conversation about certain people ignoring the pleasantly worded and respectful request of a cache owner, while at the same time, creating scars significant enough to be viewed from a gazillion miles up, and the callous disregard displayed by certain forum members for that damage. In this thread we've seen folks justify the damage by suggesting, "It's just a desert. Who cares?" as well as, "There are no signs prohibiting destroying the area, so feel free!". Neither of these statements paint geocachers in a particularly positive light.

 

It is the utter disdain and contempt displayed toward those who hint that being a good steward to the Earth might be good for our hobby in the long run that has me concerned. I'm reminded of conversations where one guy expressed a desire to bury a cache, and the firestorm of responses he received, based almost entirely on the perception such an act might create. Back then, a concerned land manager could have popped into these forums and observed, first hand, that the majority of cachers represented in that thread appeared to care about the environment. There was not a single reply to that thread which suggested, "It's just a forest. Who cares?" or even, "There are no signs prohibiting digging holes in that particular forest, so feel free!". The perception which could result from digging holes in said forest was almost unanimously decried as a bad thing. That is no longer the case. Now we have this thread, which land managers with geocaching accounts are free to view, which paints us in an entirely different light.

 

Personally, I think we should tread lightly anywhere we go, minimizing our impact on the Earth whenever possible. I am not suggesting we attempt any zero impact silliness, as we have as much right to be on this little blue marble as any other critter. I just think that we, as the only sentient life form, (not counting cats), should act with care, not with disregard. It does sadden me a little to learn that I am in the minority concerning respecting our Earth, but I don't see much I can do to change that. Those folks who don't give a hoot about Nature probably are not going to change their attitudes because of a forum thread.

 

You don't graze cattle in ecological sensitive areas.

That's true. I do not graze cattle in ecologically sensitive areas.

Florida's Division of Forestry does, as does the St John's River Water Management District and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. A National Forest in Florida allows ATV operation in two ecologically sensitive areas. Another state runs an oil pipeline smack dab through ecologically sensitive areas. I expect that same state will soon allow drilling for oil in another ecologically sensitive area. They do so because they make gobs of money doing so. Generating income has often trumped ecological concerns. Claiming the area can't be ecologically sensitive because the BLM makes gobs of money allowing cattle grazing doesn't hold much weight, as far as arguments go.

 

But you are correct. I do not graze cattle in environmentally sensitive areas...

Mostly because I don't own any cattle...

 

Environmentally, with the exception of garbage, there isn't much you can do to "hurt" the area.

Again, this is not really about "hurting" an area. Any more than driving a nail in a tree, or digging a hole in a forest will "hurt" a tree or an area. This is about attempting to maintain the illusion that we, as a group, care about the environment. Sadly, the Genie has escaped and likely cannot be crammed back in the bottle. Those folks who don't care about the environment have shown their true colors for any curious land manager to see.

 

I'd really like to see Riffster's response to that.

Done... Not that it will change anything...

 

Oh, even I believe that it's vehicle tracks. I have no doubt about that.

I doubt there are any in this thread who don't recognize the difference between tire tracks and foot prints. I suspect that those folks who insist such silliness as "There is no proof that these are tire tracks!" share a mental outlook with the rather infamous 'See No Evil, Hear No Evil' caricature oft portrayed under similar circumstances

[Clan Riffster]

But how do you prevent this kind of impact?

I suppose you could create a website based on a mostly outdoors activity. Then create guidelines for that activity that repeatedly suggest the players be sensitive to the environment. You could even link many pages of your website to a set of behavioral standards that express environmental concern. Perhaps even calling these standards a "creed", just to make it seem like it had validity...

 

Oh... Uh... Er...

 

Nevermind. It's already been done...

[jholly]

By definition Open Range is not ecologically sensitive.

Actually, the definition of "Ecologically Sensitive" has nothing to do with cattle. But I suspect you already knew that. I should also mention that the definition of "Ecologically Sensitive" is not particularly relevant to the conversation at hand. But I suspect you knew that already as well. As used by me, "Ecologically Sensitive" simply means that the area is unable to heal itself quickly. Someone mentioned tank tracks made near the area back in WWII, which are still visible. If that is accurate, I'd say this area certainly has a tough time healing itself. The scars we leave today may very well be visible to our grandchildren. The BLM has allowed geocaches on that property, and by default, they allow geocachers. Presumably they also allow vehicle operation under certain limitations that someone posted earlier. If those BLM "rules" were cited accurately, then obviously those folks driving from cache to cache are violating them, but that's a topic for another thread. As mentioned earlier, this is not a conversation about geocachers committing crimes against humanity, nor is it a conversation against folks violating BLM policy.

 

This is a conversation about certain people ignoring the pleasantly worded and respectful request of a cache owner, while at the same time, creating scars significant enough to be viewed from a gazillion miles up, and the callous disregard displayed by certain forum members for that damage. In this thread we've seen folks justify the damage by suggesting, "It's just a desert. Who cares?" as well as, "There are no signs prohibiting destroying the area, so feel free!". Neither of these statements paint geocachers in a particularly positive light.

 

It is the utter disdain and contempt displayed toward those who hint that being a good steward to the Earth might be good for our hobby in the long run that has me concerned. I'm reminded of conversations where one guy expressed a desire to bury a cache, and the firestorm of responses he received, based almost entirely on the perception such an act might create. Back then, a concerned land manager could have popped into these forums and observed, first hand, that the majority of cachers represented in that thread appeared to care about the environment. There was not a single reply to that thread which suggested, "It's just a forest. Who cares?" or even, "There are no signs prohibiting digging holes in that particular forest, so feel free!". The perception which could result from digging holes in said forest was almost unanimously decried as a bad thing. That is no longer the case. Now we have this thread, which land managers with geocaching accounts are free to view, which paints us in an entirely different light.

 

Personally, I think we should tread lightly anywhere we go, minimizing our impact on the Earth whenever possible. I am not suggesting we attempt any zero impact silliness, as we have as much right to be on this little blue marble as any other critter. I just think that we, as the only sentient life form, (not counting cats), should act with care, not with disregard. It does sadden me a little to learn that I am in the minority concerning respecting our Earth, but I don't see much I can do to change that. Those folks who don't give a hoot about Nature probably are not going to change their attitudes because of a forum thread.

 

You don't graze cattle in ecological sensitive areas.

That's true. I do not graze cattle in ecologically sensitive areas.

Florida's Division of Forestry does, as does the St John's River Water Management District and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. A National Forest in Florida allows ATV operation in two ecologically sensitive areas. Another state runs an oil pipeline smack dab through ecologically sensitive areas. I expect that same state will soon allow drilling for oil in another ecologically sensitive area. They do so because they make gobs of money doing so. Generating income has often trumped ecological concerns. Claiming the area can't be ecologically sensitive because the BLM makes gobs of money allowing cattle grazing doesn't hold much weight, as far as arguments go.

 

But you are correct. I do not graze cattle in environmentally sensitive areas...

Mostly because I don't own any cattle...

 

Environmentally, with the exception of garbage, there isn't much you can do to "hurt" the area.

Again, this is not really about "hurting" an area. Any more than driving a nail in a tree, or digging a hole in a forest will "hurt" a tree or an area. This is about attempting to maintain the illusion that we, as a group, care about the environment. Sadly, the Genie has escaped and likely cannot be crammed back in the bottle. Those folks who don't care about the environment have shown their true colors for any curious land manager to see.

 

I'd really like to see Riffster's response to that.

Done... Not that it will change anything...

 

Oh, even I believe that it's vehicle tracks. I have no doubt about that.

I doubt there are any in this thread who don't recognize the difference between tire tracks and foot prints. I suspect that those folks who insist such silliness as "There is no proof that these are tire tracks!" share a mental outlook with the rather infamous 'See No Evil, Hear No Evil' caricature oft portrayed under similar circumstances

Better yank your caches out of those ecologically sensitive alligator swamps. Some one might leave a footprint.

[+briansnat]

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

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

 

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

But how do you prevent this kind of impact? There's nothing illegal about it and any type of activity could do it. What if they held a marathon every week on this patch of land. After several years, there would be an impact. I just don't see the negative aspects of it.

 

If they held a marathon every week it would certainly have an impact. So the organizers of the marathon decide to expand and run a marathon in a national forest in Oregon. They go to the superintendent with their proposal and the superintendent says "No way, I saw what your sport did to the desert in Nevada".

 

THAT my friend is the negative aspect. THAT is what the "it's only desert" and the "but you can see farms from space too" and the "Big deal they tested nuclear bombs 100 miles from here" and the "so, they graze cattle" crowd just ain't getting.

 

We don't practice our sport in a vacuum. What a geocacher does in Nevada can affect the sport in Maine.

Edited November 17, 2011 by briansnat

[+slukster]

I found no evidence of this being a current issue, even if it was ever a real issue.

Picture taken on 10/30/11 and posted to Head Alien #1 picture gallery.

 

 

Taken on 5/21/11

 

 

Picture taken at Head Alien #51 on 10/27/11 as posted in the picture gallery

 

 

And on 5/20/11

 

Do these current pictures help?

[+slukster]

As reference for comparison for when the sat. image is updated, here is the saucer image as it stands prior to placing the caches.

 

[+slukster]

And some closer up images.

 

[Clan Riffster]

Better yank your caches out of those ecologically sensitive alligator swamps. Some one might leave a footprint.

Since you can't even be bothered to read a post before replying, further conversation would be pointless.

[Clan Riffster]

I found no evidence of this being a current issue, even if it was ever a real issue.

Picture taken on 10/30/11 and posted to Head Alien #1 picture gallery.

 

 

Taken on 5/21/11

 

 

Picture taken at Head Alien #51 on 10/27/11 as posted in the picture gallery

 

 

And on 5/20/11

 

Do these current pictures help?

It hasn't been proven that those tracks weren't made by a really tall person on giant rollerblades...

And the van could have been photoshopped onto the giant rollerblade tracks!

No proof, I tell ya!

[+TerraViators]

But how do you prevent this kind of impact?

I suppose you could create a website based on a mostly outdoors activity. Then create guidelines for that activity that repeatedly suggest the players be sensitive to the environment. You could even link many pages of your website to a set of behavioral standards that express environmental concern. Perhaps even calling these standards a "creed", just to make it seem like it had validity...

 

Oh... Uh... Er...

 

Nevermind. It's already been done...

I appreciate your feedback, but your examples are sugessting prevention. How do you actually enforce something not illegal?

[+TerraViators]

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

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

 

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

But how do you prevent this kind of impact? There's nothing illegal about it and any type of activity could do it. What if they held a marathon every week on this patch of land. After several years, there would be an impact. I just don't see the negative aspects of it.

 

If they held a marathon every week it would certainly have an impact. So the organizers of the marathon decide to expand and run a marathon in a national forest in Oregon. They go to the superintendent with their proposal and the superintendent says "No way, I saw what your sport did to the desert in Nevada".

 

THAT my friend is the negative aspect. THAT is what the "it's only desert" and the "but you can see farms from space too" and the "Big deal they tested nuclear bombs 100 miles from here" and the "so, they graze cattle" crowd just ain't getting.

 

We don't practice our sport in a vacuum. What a geocacher does in Nevada can affect the sport in Maine.

I understand your point, but I still fail to see the negative impact, ecologically or otherwise, of a trail in this patch of desert. We just diagree, which is perfectly alright. I appreciate your respose.

Edited November 17, 2011 by TerraViators

[+tozainamboku]

It hasn't been proven that those tracks weren't made by a really tall person on giant rollerblades...

And the van could have been photoshopped onto the giant rollerblade tracks!

No proof, I tell ya!

I don;t see anyone arguing that people haven't driven the alien head, and other that than sbell, nobody argues that what shows up in the satellite photo aren't tire tracks.

 

What is being argued is that

1. the cache owner requested that people walk and not drive
   
2. the BLM asks that outside of closed areas, off-highway vehicles can use existing roads, trails and washes
   
3. some land manager elsewhere will have a conniption when they see this and ban all geocaching.
   

 

1. The spirit of geocaching (or so we've been told) is to respect the wishes of the cache owner. The truth is that cache owners can only request, and they probably should expect some geocachers will ignore it.
   
2. It isn't clear what action the BLM will take. One possibility is that the rule is aimed at certain off road / ATV users who will drive everywhere and they aren't as concerned if Geocachers create a new track that goes from cache to cache. But I have no way of knowing. They may ask that the caches be archive before more damage is done, but I tend to doubt this will happen.
   
3. This is simply speculation that is colored by some people's prejudice against power trails. They would love nothing better than for someone to say "If it weren't for the dadgum power trails, I would allow caches" and then for Groundspeak to change the guidelines. In fact the popularity of power trails has already had the other effect: the Nevada DOT working with the hiders found a satisfactory compromise that allowed the ET trail to be reconstituted. As geocaching becomes more mainstream and is seen as a potential economic benefit in promoting tourism, agencies will be forced to balance their desire to protect a certain area with the benefit that geocaching will bring. Of course if geocachers have a reputation for leave no trace and CITO that is better than a reputation for driving on sensitive ground, but I don't believe that this one incident is likely to have a great impact.