We can finally see Alien Head from space!

[+Kris32]

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.

 

Every time I read "BLM" in this thread, I'm getting irritated. I think they are too busy killing off the wild horses in our area to worry about a track on dirt. But now I understand why they are horse killing, given what you wrote.

[+Roman!]

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 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.

 

You probably have had a larger negative impact on this earth using the technology you used to post your post than all the geocachers caching the alien head have had or will ever have, go ahead, prove me wrong and screw up the earth even more.

[+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.

 

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.

Quick question: What would happen if a hundred or so people each month went to visit pretty much any of our non-urban caches? A trail would form. Regardless of whether anyone drove to the spot, a trail would quickly form. As this trail grew more distinct and google's images are given more granularity, the casual trail would show up on google.

 

So while it is certainly true that a few tire tracks exist in that desert, it is not true that the mere existance of a line on a google image proves that the line is tire tracks or that those tracks are creating any damage whatsoever.

Edited November 17, 2011 by sbell111

[+DazeDnFamily]

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.

 

Actually, I am a school trained imagery analyst, with almost 14 years of experience. In looking at the images at what will serve as full resolution in GE, I would state with 99% confidence the tracks out there were made by wheeled vehicles. (With not being able to actually see a vehicle causing the tracks, I have to leave 1% of doubt.) And, as far as environmental impact, it may be a non-issue. The point that a lot of the people here are trying to make is it's bad for geocaching as a hobby/sport/whatever that we are leaving this noticeable impact on the environment. (Makes us, as a whole, kinda hypocritical.)

 

Later!

[+sbell111]

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.

Agreed. People who ignore posted prohibitions such as you describe are jerkfaces. That's not what's going on in the case of this thread, however.

 

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'm sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Either we are hurting the environment and we should stop so as to not give the impression to others that we hurt the environment or we are not hurting it and there is no issue.

 

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 everyone can tell the difference from a few feet away. From thousands of miles, however, I bet that no one can actually tell the difference, regardless of your insistance to the contrary.

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

<snip>

 

<snip>

 

Taken on 5/21/11

 

<snip>

 

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

 

<snip>

 

And on 5/20/11

<snip>

 

Do these current pictures help?

They sure do. Thank you very much for posting them.

 

Those pictures clearly show that there is no real damage happening here.

[+Snoogans]

They sure do. Thank you very much for posting them.

 

Those pictures clearly show that there is no real damage happening here.

 

Thanks for beating me to it. I would have been way more wordy in my response and possibly hurt geocaching's image more than I already have on this thread.

[WashoeZephyr]

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.

 

Every time I read "BLM" in this thread, I'm getting irritated. I think they are too busy killing off the wild horses in our area to worry about a track on dirt. But now I understand why they are horse killing, given what you wrote.

Sorry to go waaay off topic here. The BLM charges ranchers per head of cattle to graze on thier land. They claim the wild horses & burros don't have enough to eat....um contradiction perhaps or competition for food for the paid feeders?? Anyhooo, the ones near our house are pretty fat & happy. Of course a diet of lawn grass opposed to scrub is probably a major contributor.

[WashoeZephyr]

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

 

Looks like a frontage road seen most places along the highways here. I'm thinking NDOT or utilities are probably the creators of this one...the rest of them look like the rest of the thousands of miles of desert.

[+addisonbr]

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"...

This is a little too "you're rooting for America to lose" for my tastes. I'd prefer that people not ban caching from their lands. Record-friendly driving trails that don't threaten that, I am happy to ignore in the same way that I ignore other caches I'm uninterested in. Until I hear of problems, I'm pretty uninterested in the Route 66 driving trail.

 

I do wish that people wouldn't leave visible tracks on the Alien Head after being asked by the CO not to drive. In the same way that I wish people wouldn't enter parks after hours, hide caches right outside of other people's private residences, use containers that look like pipe bombs, attach containers to power transmission towers without permission, bury caches, etc. etc. etc., and anything else that might not seem like a big whoop-de-do to some but which could have an impact on geocaching elsewhere.

[+Snoogans]

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

 

Looks like a frontage road seen most places along the highways here. I'm thinking NDOT or utilities are probably the creators of this one...the rest of them look like the rest of the thousands of miles of desert.

 

You know this and I know this, but the way it's presented here would make a land manager outside of Nevada think geocachers created it. That really helps the image huh? C'mon just fall on the sword why don'tcha....

 

Even the OP agrees that this particular spot may be a non-issue as you and I know it is. So why did he/she use it? Because it looked like easy pickings to raise a ruckus about a pet issue and he/she posted without knowing the facts on the ground IMO. I see it for what it is, because I will dive on a pet issue almost any time the opportunity presents itself.

 

Here is my challenge again? Go forth and find other sites where true damage to fragile ecosystems is taking place. If there is an overall issue at all then it shouldn't be hard to do. Come with pictures and provide proof of the damage geocaching is causing to sensitive ecosystems. I don't need a sword to fall on, but I'll take a step closer to it for the right argument.

 

I've been caching for nearly 9 years and I've see geotrails come and go. Not a one, in my experience, caused me heartburn or a land manager to ban geocaching in any of the areas I'm familiar with.

[+addisonbr]

Even the OP agrees that this particular spot may be a non-issue as you and I know it is. So why did he/she use it? Because it looked like easy pickings...

The OP is open to debate about the fragility of the ecosystem. That's not the same as agreement. The OP is less open to debate about the validity of the "If it's not against the law I'll do whatever I darn well please" and the "the Great Wall of China can be seen from space" defenses.

 

The OP used this as an example because the CO asked people not to do something, people did it, and it's visible to anyone with an Internet connection. I know that in South Carolina, people who don't like geocaching enjoyed using photos and our own posts against us. It would be better for me, personally, if people weren't leaving behind this kind of evidence of their "HECK NO I'm not gonna read the cache pages for a power trail before heading out" attitudes.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

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

 

Looks like a frontage road seen most places along the highways here. I'm thinking NDOT or utilities are probably the creators of this one...the rest of them look like the rest of the thousands of miles of desert.

 

Actually, I don't think that photo was taken near GZ for Alien Head #51. It appears to be much closer to the paved road than the series of caches.

 

However, if you look at the page listing for Head Alien #14, where the series is closest to the road, then look at the Geocaching Google Maps link which has the recent hi-res images the double track path is clearly visible between #12, #14, and #16 . Look at any of the other map links which show satellite views of the area and you won't see a path.

 

Are you seriously trying to suggest that the double track trail, clearly visible on the latest Google Maps images, which connects the caches on the Head Alien series prexisted the caches placed there?

[+Snoogans]

Even the OP agrees that this particular spot may be a non-issue as you and I know it is. So why did he/she use it? Because it looked like easy pickings...

The OP is open to debate about the fragility of the ecosystem. That's not the same as agreement. The OP is less open to debate about the validity of the "If it's not against the law I'll do whatever I darn well please" and the "the Great Wall of China can be seen from space" defenses.

 

The OP used this as an example because the CO asked people not to do something, people did it, and it's visible to anyone with an Internet connection. I know that in South Carolina, people who don't like geocaching enjoyed using photos and our own posts against us. It would be better for me, personally, if people weren't leaving behind this kind of evidence of their "HECK NO I'm not gonna read the cache pages for a power trail before heading out" attitudes.

 

Did the CO ask you to post this thread or did you pick up his banner all on your own?

 

When is the last time that you read 1200 cache pages before going on a 1200 cache spree? Be realistic.

 

Since the alien head is different from the rest of the ET park and grabs chances are I would check the pages out weeks or months in advance as I was planning a run. What are the chances I'll remember the owner's wishes when I get there equipped with 4WD and there is a trail heading to the nearest cache and after doing perhaps several hundred caches before arriving?

 

Let me be realistic about cache pages in general. If it's a traditional P&G chances are I'm not gonna read it. Chances are I'm not even going to turn on my GPS. If I can distinguish landmarks on a sat image near the cache, chances are I'm not going to need to turn it on unless the search takes me longer than 2 minutes.

 

Now, if the cache is a hike from parking by what I see on the map, I'll read every word, read the logs, and look at the gallery just to be prepared.

 

I know that in South Carolina, people who don't like geocaching enjoyed using photos and our own posts against us.

 

Okay. Which posts and which photos? You said it. Provide proof of that or at least let's have someone in the know come forth...

[+addisonbr]

Did the CO ask you to post this thread or did you pick up his banner all on your own?

My concerns here are my own. The CO may or may not care. I'm glad that he posted the warning, although I suspect that placing it so close to the ET Highway made some of this inevitable.

 

When is the last time that you read 1200 cache pages before going on a 1200 cache spree? Be realistic.

I COMPLETELY AGREE. It's an unfortunate aspect of record-friendly driving trails. The cache pages may not get read. You are right about this.

 

I know that in South Carolina, people who don't like geocaching enjoyed using photos and our own posts against us.

Okay. Which posts and which photos? You said it. Provide proof of that or at least let's have someone in the know come forth...

This is from Craig Keirstead (NWOGEO Steering Committee). I took his information at face value, as I don't believe that he had an ulterior motive.

 

"South Carolina legislators were informed by local churches that people were trespassing on cemetery grounds during restricted hours (night) and doing questionable things (geocaching.) There was ample evidence in the form of online logs as well as pictures posted in logs of people in cemeteries doing silly things like posing with headstones, making goofy faces next to headstones, etc. Generally this was all done in good geocaching fun but it was not appreciated by the churches and historical societies of the state. The locals were up in arms therefore the legislators were up in arms and there is now a South Carolina law that bans geocaching in cemeteries and state historical areas."

[WashoeZephyr]

Are you seriously trying to suggest that the double track trail, clearly visible on the latest Google Maps images, which connects the caches on the Head Alien series prexisted the caches placed there?

 

No, I'm not. I haven't a doubt in my mind that people drive these caches. I'm just tired of people comparing what goes on in the deserts of Nevada with the woods of the south. It's apples and oranges. Actually it's more like plastic and oranges. This is very near the highway, on an open range/public land where off roading IS ALLOWED. End of story. The CO's (whom I know both) would rather people walk it than drive as it adds to the experience and probably keeps people from running over their caches.

 

"South Carolina legislators were informed by local churches that people were trespassing on cemetery grounds during restricted hours (night) and doing questionable things (geocaching.) There was ample evidence in the form of online logs as well as pictures posted in logs of people in cemeteries doing silly things like posing with headstones, making goofy faces next to headstones, etc. Generally this was all done in good geocaching fun but it was not appreciated by the churches and historical societies of the state. The locals were up in arms therefore the legislators were up in arms and there is now a South Carolina law that bans geocaching in cemeteries and state historical areas."

 

...again, in the south and on private property more or less. Personally, I generally don't do cememtery caches anymore as I find them disrespectful. It's my opinion, I choose not to do them, rather than make a public stink about them. Have you ever been to the Nevada desert? If not, maybe visit before you make a judgement.

[+addisonbr]

Have you ever been to the Nevada desert? If not, maybe visit before you make a judgement.

Along with the deserts of Utah, Arizona and New Mexico, yes. But I doubt that makes anyone here more accepting of my point of view, so there's not much point in me bringing it up (unless directly asked, I guess).

[Clan Riffster]

Those pictures clearly show that there is no real damage happening here.

 

Thanks for beating me to it.

I guess the damage must be fake?... or maybe something less than real?

 

 

 

 

Since some don't care about habitat denuding then there must not be any "real" damage occurring?

 

I'm just tired of people comparing what goes on in the deserts of Nevada with the woods of the south. It's apples and oranges. Actually it's more like plastic and oranges.

Finally something we can agree on!

According to one post in this thread, tracks left in this area back in WWII are still clearly visible today. One of my many hats with the Seminole County Sheriff's Office is SWAT driver. (No, I'm not on SWAT. Too old, too fat. But I can still drive!) One of the vehicles we use is the M-113, a very cramped, very noisy armored personnel carrier, which runs on tracks. Looks kinda like this one:

 

 

The state forest we used for our last training showed serious damage, at the time.

Today, less than a year later, there is no trace of that damage.

 

Definitely plastic and oranges.

 

...off roading IS ALLOWED. End of story.

Shouldn't that read, "off roading IS ALLOWED UNDER LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES. Beginning of story."

Presumably you want to have at least the appearance of accuracy in your proclamations, right?

Or are you disputing the earlier claim that off road driving is limited to certain circumstances?

I don't know either way. Perhaps you could provide a source?

Thanx!

Edited November 17, 2011 by Clan Riffster

[WashoeZephyr]

[

 

Hrmmm, need to start running them over with the car, roundup won't even kill that stuff. (Try having it grow it in your yard. You'll have it forever.) This particular picture looks like a trail that's been there longer than the alien head, but that's neither here nor there.

 

Ok, spending my lunch looking at BLM regs, yaaay. Of course can't find much defining anything outside of Las Vegas proper, but did find a proposition for a race that actually did an environmental impact study where both the race promoter and the BLM signed off on it.

 

https://www.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/nepa/7750/15751/15901/Signed_DR_FONSI.PDF

 

and I found this;

Off-highway vehicles are one of many ways to enjoy the Southern Nevada landscape. Due to public health and environmental concerns, off-highway vehicle closures are in place for BLM managed public lands within and designated areas surrounding the Las Vegas Valley. The BLM closure includes Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area, Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area and wilderness areas. The boundaries are:

 

• North – Apex on I-15 or Lee Canyon on US 95

 

• South – Sloan Exit on I-15 or mile marker 14.5 on State Route 604

 

• East – National Park Service’s Lake Mead National Recreation Area

 

• West – U.S. Forest Service’s Spring Mountains National Recreation Area

 

Outside of the closure area, off-highway vehicles can use existing roads, trails and washes within the BLM Las Vegas Field Office managed public lands.

 

I can guarantee you if the BLM were to come out they would consider your picture display above, existing trails. One vehicle would not create that defined of a trail. Even if several have been to the alien head and have created a trail, guess what, the BLM will now consider that a trail. It is what it is.

[+addisonbr]

Even if several have been to the alien head and have created a trail, guess what, the BLM will now consider that a trail.

Pretty interesting, if somewhat Yossarian-ian.

[WashoeZephyr]

Another resource, much of this isn't defined trails and still BLM land

[WashoeZephyr]

Even if several have been to the alien head and have created a trail, guess what, the BLM will now consider that a trail.

Pretty interesting, if somewhat Yossarian-ian.

It is but the BLM is kind of Honey Badgerish, in that "Honey Badger don't care" when it comes to off roading. I personally can't imagine why one would just bounce over sage brush instead of staying on the trail. Southern sagebrush is a lot smaller than the ones we have up north. Seems like a good way to get stuck in place that most likely has no cell service or the slim chance of seeing another person for a long period of time. I'm just saying that I've seen it (people just bouncing over desert) and I've dealt with the BLM. They (BLM) are more interested in poachers and people discharging firearms where they aren't supposed to be than the evil sage brush killers.

[+Snoogans]

Even if several have been to the alien head and have created a trail, guess what, the BLM will now consider that a trail.

Pretty interesting, if somewhat Yossarian-ian.

Us dimwits understand Catch-22 muuuuch better.

 

But yeah, you're right. Gosh aren't government agencies great.

[+Snoogans]

Those pictures clearly show that there is no real damage happening here.

 

Thanks for beating me to it.

I guess the damage must be fake?... or maybe something less than real?

 

 

 

 

Since some don't care about habitat denuding then there must not be any "real" damage occurring?

 

 

Let's just say that the tracks shown were caused by the alien head power trail. They may well have been.

 

Let's get real. Those are tire tracks, not denuded habitat. For the habitat to be truly denuded you'd need to show me a picture of a dust bowl where nothing can live other than sidewinders and scorpions in that area or at least 51% gone to dust and counting. The tracks aren't crisscrossed nor do they show the signs of careless hot-rodding I've seen in other parts of NV where there were no caches. I would go there tomorrow and drive on those tracks and not feel a pang of regret. If the place is a vast wasteland in a couple of years blame me and the CO for advocating caching on percieved sensitive commercial public property.

 

The funny part is a buncha people (non-caching offroaders) could decide to have an offroad party on the spot at some point and really tear the place up whooping it up and there would be geocachers wanting to fall on their swords thinking it was bad geocachers.

 

If you want to keep the geocaching image up, be more careful of taking on blame. Again, find a real spot to wave the flag of blame over rather than a symbolic spot just to raise an issue.

[+EXMAN]

i didn't read ALL of the posts, so hopfully i'm not repeating.

 

i'll BET there are trails leading from Mexico to the U.S,

and law enforcement hasn't made THAT problem disappear.

[+briansnat]

...again, in the south and on private property more or less. Personally, I generally don't do cememtery caches anymore as I find them disrespectful. It's my opinion, I choose not to do them, rather than make a public stink about them. Have you ever been to the Nevada desert? If not, maybe visit before you make a judgement.

 

You're missing the point. The point is that there are people out there who don't like geocaching and some of them are in positions of power. They've been known comb logs and photo galleries looking for anything incriminating. There is nothing better than being able to hang your enemy with their own words and photos and the damage that is occurring around the Alien Head caches is certainly giving them plenty of ammunition.

 

I'm willing to bet they've visited these forums and if any of them happen on this thread and see the cavalier attitude that so many of us have toward the damage will just be more ammunition for them.

[+t4e]

Those pictures clearly show that there is no real damage happening here.

 

Thanks for beating me to it.

I guess the damage must be fake?... or maybe something less than real?

 

 

 

i feel really sorry for all the poor herbivores in the picture looking for food

[+Planet]

This is a really long thread.

There is a natural marking of the earth, and there is the deliberate marking. The only other animal that can change the face of the earth, as much as man, is the beaver.

Man builds cities, people need to live somewhere. So do beavers (see the Imax movie sometime).

Our natural resources should be kept as clean as we can keep it, for our children, and theirs, and so on. Cliche, I know, but it's true.

As a geocacher, this really bothers me, that cachers could leave such a mark, deliberately, over a short period of time. It bothers me even more that someone would think it's cool.

Get out of your gosh darn cars and walk, if that's what the CO asked you to do. If you can't, then choose other caches to find. It's that simple.

And .+1 on Snoogans post about permission, and land ownership. It boils down to that, too

[+Jumpin' Jack Cache]

... 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.

 

Yeah, I'm blind as a bat and have absolutely no concern for the environment in general.

 

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 assure you, I know a foot trail from a tire trail. I also know cattle and game trails. I've walked many of all of 'em.

 

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...

 

I suppose some want to see landowner relations as a two way street. I see no evidence here that the landowner has a problem. I do know that the local residents are rather amused and enriched by the presence of geocachers in the area.

[+Jumpin' Jack Cache]

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.

 

I didn't say that there were no tire tracks. I said that there are places where they are apparent, and others where they are not (at least, that's what I meant). We did not follow tire tracks to every cache, but I suppose that we might have figured out a better path. The tire tracks that I did see were no more than compacted soil, a slightly firmer walking surface. Flora and fauna in the area seemed to be adjusting just fine, as far as my biologist's eye could tell. Of course, there is the off chance that there was one unique plant that got run over. Better chance that some critter ate it as a change from the same ol', I suspect.

[+t4e]

 

As a geocacher, this really bothers me, that cachers could leave such a mark, deliberately, over a short period of time. It bothers me even more that someone would think it's cool.

 

 

what mark?...no one yet has proved that the said marks are left by geocachers...its all speculation...i want to see "before" and "after" satellite images, until i see that i am not convinced

[+SwineFlew]

 

As a geocacher, this really bothers me, that cachers could leave such a mark, deliberately, over a short period of time. It bothers me even more that someone would think it's cool.

 

 

what mark?...no one yet has proved that the said marks are left by geocachers...its all speculation...i want to see "before" and "after" satellite images, until i see that i am not convinced

 

Ask the CO if there was any marks when he placed the cache down.

[Andronicus]

What I want to know is, if I were to walk this trail, would I likely get run over by speeding off-roading geocacher.

 

This new road looks prety nice. I wouldn't hesitate to take my convertable on that trail.

But I really do enjoy a good hike. Not sure how I would do this one...

Edited November 18, 2011 by Andronicus

[Andronicus]

 

As a geocacher, this really bothers me, that cachers could leave such a mark, deliberately, over a short period of time. It bothers me even more that someone would think it's cool.

 

 

what mark?...no one yet has proved that the said marks are left by geocachers...its all speculation...i want to see "before" and "after" satellite images, until i see that i am not convinced

Really?

 

Lets see, there are 2 arguments

1)these are not tire tracks, they could be from walking people/animals

2)they are not from alian head cachers

 

1) The track is clearly a 'two track' that never changes in width. Naturaly developing two track trails from people walking are continualy changing width, and often, one will dissapear, and a new one appear on the other side of the surviving track. these are clearly made by vehicles.

2)what are the chances that there were trails leading to each cache site? Well maybe the cache placer just placed the caches as s/he was driving (or walking) along a existing path? For this to be true, there would have to be a pre-existing track in the middle of the desert shaped like an alien head. I do not believe that, nor do you.

 

Stop with this silly line of arguing. The trail is caused by cachers driving the alien head. The question is, is it OK, good, or bad for them to do that.

[+Jumpin' Jack Cache]

 

As a geocacher, this really bothers me, that cachers could leave such a mark, deliberately, over a short period of time. It bothers me even more that someone would think it's cool.

 

 

what mark?...no one yet has proved that the said marks are left by geocachers...its all speculation...i want to see "before" and "after" satellite images, until i see that i am not convinced

Really?

 

Lets see, there are 2 arguments

1)these are not tire tracks, they could be from walking people/animals

2)they are not from alian head cachers

 

1) The track is clearly a 'two track' that never changes in width. Naturaly developing two track trails from people walking are continualy changing width, and often, one will dissapear, and a new one appear on the other side of the surviving track. these are clearly made by vehicles.

2)what are the chances that there were trails leading to each cache site? Well maybe the cache placer just placed the caches as s/he was driving (or walking) along a existing path? For this to be true, there would have to be a pre-existing track in the middle of the desert shaped like an alien head. I do not believe that, nor do you.

 

Stop with this silly line of arguing. The trail is caused by cachers driving the alien head. The question is, is it OK, good, or bad for them to do that.

 

The real question is, how much angst can be generated in this forum about it?

[+DazeDnFamily]

what mark?...no one yet has proved that the said marks are left by geocachers...its all speculation...i want to see "before" and "after" satellite images, until i see that i am not convinced

 

I suppose common sense is really not a common virtue.

 

As a professional imagery analyst, as I mentioned above, I would also assess with a very high level of confidence that the markings caused by wheeled vehicles are a direct result of cache placement in this area, because the tracks precisely follow the pattern of the placed caches. There is absolutely no other reason that would be a viable assessment, unless the tracks had been ther prior to cache placement, and the CO used the pattern that was there. But, it has already been stated that on previous satellite imagery, the tracks were not visible, which gives more confidence to this assessment. (Not to mention the handheld image of the mini van. But, I agree that that particular vehicle is likely not on the actual trail, due to the paved road nearby.) Also of note are the handhelds that Clan Riffster linked with the annotations regarding plant life. I would assess the damage he showed to be moderate to severe, and the trails to be semi-permanent. If that was newly, or less serevely damaged, the plants would still be there, but be crushed by recent vehicle traffic. Since the tracks are clean of any growth, there has been significant damage over an extended period of time. With the proper data sets and exploitation software, I'm betting I could also prove damage to the vegetation that is outside, and adjacent to the actual tracks as well.

 

addisonbr wrote in the original post:

 

I was worried that all of the logs mentioning an increasingly obvious automotive geotrail were exaggerating, because whenever I looked at the imagery I could see nothing but unmolested desert. But then the maps were updated with the first shots taken since 2010 (March '11), and happily I was wrong - WE DID IT!

 

Oh, and yes, you can generally tell by looking at an image if tracks on the ground were caused by wheeled vehicles, such as our jeeps, and tracked vehicles, like the one Clan Riffster linked up.

 

Also, I'm not entirely sure this was the intent of this photo...

 

 

But those circles have nothing to do with munitions testing. Those are irrigated agricultural areas. They are the size of the irrigation systems which are anchored in the center, and drive on wheels in a circle to irrigate the land. (The irrigator is equal to the radius of the circle.) I had an area that actually is a bombing range, but decided not to post it.

 

Later!

[+t4e]

 

Stop with this silly line of arguing. The trail is caused by cachers driving the alien head. The question is, is it OK, good, or bad for them to do that.

 

i think its from a the heard of bull

 

what mark?...no one yet has proved that the said marks are left by geocachers...its all speculation...i want to see "before" and "after" satellite images, until i see that i am not convinced

 

I suppose common sense is really not a common virtue.

 

As a professional imagery analyst, as I mentioned above, I would also assess with a very high level of confidence that the markings caused by wheeled vehicles are a direct result of cache placement in this area, because the tracks precisely follow the pattern of the placed caches. There is absolutely no other reason that would be a viable assessment, unless the tracks had been ther prior to cache placement, and the CO used the pattern that was there. But, it has already been stated that on previous satellite imagery, the tracks were not visible, which gives more confidence to this assessment. (Not to mention the handheld image of the mini van. But, I agree that that particular vehicle is likely not on the actual trail, due to the paved road nearby.) Also of note are the handhelds that Clan Riffster linked with the annotations regarding plant life. I would assess the damage he showed to be moderate to severe, and the trails to be semi-permanent. If that was newly, or less serevely damaged, the plants would still be there, but be crushed by recent vehicle traffic. Since the tracks are clean of any growth, there has been significant damage over an extended period of time. With the proper data sets and exploitation software, I'm betting I could also prove damage to the vegetation that is outside, and adjacent to the actual tracks as well.

 

 

that is some credible assessment there based on one picture...i sy is based on speculation

[Clan Riffster]

Try having it grow it in your yard. You'll have it forever.

I'm actually surprised the anti-environment crowd hasn't put forth the theory that the gaps in the plant life were pre-alien head, caused by some as yet unidentified natural phenominum, and that those twits who drove from cache to cache simply followed the general course of said phenominum, which is why there just happens to be tread marks running through the gaps in vegetation.

 

Judging by the denuded areas in the photos, it seems that vehicle tires are rather effective at killing that stuff...

 

Or maybe the plants got tired of being driven over and moved on their own?

 

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

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

I know I have some methods I utilize in my job to determine the age of an impression made in dirt.

My methods are not precise enough for me to establish the kind of accuracy you are claiming.

I'm hoping you can help me add to my tracking arsenal.

 

I can guarantee you if the BLM were to come out they would consider your picture display above, existing trails.

Another interesting conclusion. Would you happen to be in BLM upper management? If not, I'm curious how you could make such a guarantee? I know from my rather limited experience, at a local level, enforcing Florida statutes relating to driving on dry lake beds, as well as Seminole County ordinances relating to operating motor vehicles in areas of a park not designated for vehicular traffic, one consideration we don't give much merit to is the number of people who broke that law, or violated that ordinance, prior to my coming in contact with a current violator. Some guy telling me words to the effect of, "Someone else drove here before me" probably isn't going to keep them from facing the consequences of their own stupidity.

 

But presumably, that's not the case on BLM lands?

 

Can you tell me exactly how many violations it takes before BLM is willing to ignore them? Assume for arguments sake, (based on your claim that BLM requires that vehicle operation be limited to existing trails), that the first guy to drive the alien head was in violation. What about the second guy? Since vehicle tracks seem to last for decades out there, would the BLM consider the tracks left by the first violator to be existing trails? If not,how many violators would it take? I'm assuming you can provide a valid answer, based on your "guarantee"..,

 

Let's get real. Those are tire tracks, not denuded habitat.

If there are no plants where the tires have been, doesn't that fit the criteria for "denuded"?

Is there a particular area size required to qualify for that label?

If so, how big does it need to be? 1 acre with no plant life? 10 acres? 100?

To my way of thinking, if you strip away the plant life from a 1 square foot area, that area is "denuded", no?

Doing a bit of math, using guesses based on observation, gives us a general idea of size.

 

 

It appears that each foliage free track is about 1.5 feet wide. Multiply by two, for the two tracks, and you get an area of no plants 3 feet wide. (Admitedly, that's speculation. Feel free to insert your own numbers) I laid out a tracklog following the most visible tracks, and I get a track 6.35 miles long, or 33,528 feet. From here it gets tricky, as math is not my strong suit. To figure out the square footage, would we multiply the length, 33,528', by the (admittedly presumed) width, 3'? If so, I get an area of over 100,000 square feet. That's what... 2 acres? If we call the width 2', we still get just a tad over 1.5 acres.

 

Does this mean that, to a Snoog, 1.5 acres isn't big enough to qualify for the term "denuded"?

Edited November 18, 2011 by Clan Riffster

[+DazeDnFamily]

 

I suppose common sense is really not a common virtue.

 

As a professional imagery analyst, as I mentioned above, I would also assess with a very high level of confidence that the markings caused by wheeled vehicles are a direct result of cache placement in this area, because the tracks precisely follow the pattern of the placed caches. There is absolutely no other reason that would be a viable assessment, unless the tracks had been ther prior to cache placement, and the CO used the pattern that was there. But, it has already been stated that on previous satellite imagery, the tracks were not visible, which gives more confidence to this assessment. (Not to mention the handheld image of the mini van. But, I agree that that particular vehicle is likely not on the actual trail, due to the paved road nearby.) Also of note are the handhelds that Clan Riffster linked with the annotations regarding plant life. I would assess the damage he showed to be moderate to severe, and the trails to be semi-permanent. If that was newly, or less serevely damaged, the plants would still be there, but be crushed by recent vehicle traffic. Since the tracks are clean of any growth, there has been significant damage over an extended period of time. With the proper data sets and exploitation software, I'm betting I could also prove damage to the vegetation that is outside, and adjacent to the actual tracks as well.

 

 

that is some credible assessment there based on one picture...i sy is based on speculation

 

Since I have 3 references that cover at least 5 additional images, I'm glad you actually read what I wrote. Just saying.

[+Snoogans]

Does this mean that, to a Snoog, 1.5 acres isn't big enough to qualify for the term "denuded"?

 

If it was in one spot. Yes. I would have to agree.

 

But now I'll return to my refrain for this thread.

 

This is a symbolic debate. Why? Because no one on your side of the fence can find a better whipping boy to raise this issue of geocaching impact to percieved fragile environments that is in fact a non-issue on the site used for example.

 

That area is commercial property under lease as cattle grazing land and also for use by it's co-owners. Umm, that's us folks, geocachers and offroad hobbyists alike as well as treasure hunters, bug collectors, and amature geologists, etc.

 

I full on agree that a common use impact trail was caused by cachers and now that it's there, I full on advocate it's use to reduce further impact to the area. No harm to the environment is being caused by this common use trail. The sage brush, rattlesnakes, scorpions, lizards, mice, and other assorted flora and fauna are not endangered because of it. If anything it makes that area safer for the folks that choose to walk it whether obeying the CO's wishes, some inner belief of conservation, or just plain fear of getting stuck.

 

The CO's wishes are a moot point. Trails happen in the geocaching context. That's a fact. Many cachers don't read cache pages. That's a fact.

 

I find symbolic debates tiresom. Let's see some real proof of damage to fragile ecosystems caused by cachers? You have not accomplished your mission by starting the debate based on this example. Sorry. I'm not buying what you're selling. Please meet with your marketing department and update your packaging so that it appeals to all consumers.

[+t4e]

 

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

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

 

 

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

 

 

 

I suppose common sense is really not a common virtue.

 

As a professional imagery analyst, as I mentioned above, I would also assess with a very high level of confidence that the markings caused by wheeled vehicles are a direct result of cache placement in this area, because the tracks precisely follow the pattern of the placed caches. There is absolutely no other reason that would be a viable assessment, unless the tracks had been ther prior to cache placement, and the CO used the pattern that was there. But, it has already been stated that on previous satellite imagery, the tracks were not visible, which gives more confidence to this assessment. (Not to mention the handheld image of the mini van. But, I agree that that particular vehicle is likely not on the actual trail, due to the paved road nearby.) Also of note are the handhelds that Clan Riffster linked with the annotations regarding plant life. I would assess the damage he showed to be moderate to severe, and the trails to be semi-permanent. If that was newly, or less serevely damaged, the plants would still be there, but be crushed by recent vehicle traffic. Since the tracks are clean of any growth, there has been significant damage over an extended period of time. With the proper data sets and exploitation software, I'm betting I could also prove damage to the vegetation that is outside, and adjacent to the actual tracks as well.

 

 

that is some credible assessment there based on one picture...i sy is based on speculation

 

Since I have 3 references that cover at least 5 additional images, I'm glad you actually read what I wrote. Just saying.

 

i read what you said, but you don't honestly expect me to go search all Clan Riffster's posts and figure out what linked images you might be refering to, do you?

[Clan Riffster]

Does this mean that, to a Snoog, 1.5 acres isn't big enough to qualify for the term "denuded"?

 

If it was in one spot. Yes. I would have to agree.

Uh... How many spots is it in? Looks like one general area to me...

 

...this issue of geocaching impact to percieved fragile environments...

Once again you seem to be losing sight of what the real issue is. And this is likely my fault as much as yours, as I keep responding to those folks who insist on such silliness as "You can't prove those are tire tracks". Me thinks I should have followed Sammy Clemmons' advice on arguing... As I see it, the greatest problem is how land managers perceive us. Unless we want this game to be limited to parking lots, we are quite dependent upon the good will of land managers. It is to our advantage to feed the myth that we, as a group, are environmentally conscious. If I were a land manager, perusing the forums, and I saw idiotic remarks such as "There ain't no signs prohibiting tearing the place up, so go for it!", that would likely cause me to believe that some cachers really don't give a darn about the environment. Add to that, comments insisting "You can't hurt the desert", and/or, "It's just the desert, who cares?", and those misconceptions grow. I see this as having the potential for negative repercussions. No, I don't think the sky is falling. No, I don't think the game is in any serious danger, overall. But attitudes like the ones displayed in this thread could have an impact.

 

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

 

That bothers me. Maybe it shouldn't, but it does. I don't like losing places to play.

I like it even less when we lose playgrounds due to misconceptions.

 

that is in fact a non-issue on the site used for example.

Not sure I can swallow that kool aid. We've had one person who identified themselves as a local, (though their profile indicates they live 350 miles away), who has stated that driving off road is prohibited in that area, except for those folks who stick to existing trails. I see it as a valid concern that folks are violating that prohibition, and posting evidence of those violations. That 'local' went so far as to offer a guarantee that the BLM would forgive further transgressions, and would declare the evidence of past violations, (6+ miles of tire tracks), to be 'existing trails'... We can clearly see that, though the surrounding areas are mostly evenly covered with reportedly hardy desert vegetation, the areas within those tire tracks are void of vegetation. The most likely conclusion to be drawn from this is that the plants which used to be in those tire tracks were killed by being driven over, though I have little doubt some rather desperate defender will proclaim words to the effect of, "You have no proof!".

So the question is, is it really a non-issue?

Has this been coroberated by anyone in BLM?

There is damage. That much is clear.

There are rules being violated, if the local's statements are valid.

I'm not sure it's a non-issue.

 

No harm to the environment is being caused by this common use trail. The sage brush, rattlesnakes, scorpions, lizards, mice, and other assorted flora and fauna are not endangered because of it.

Even if the real issue was just the tire tracks left by hapless cachers, your statement could still be argued against. If we operate on the assumption that sage brush likes to grow out there, and likes to blanket an area fairly evenly, those plants trying to establish themselves in the tire tracks are seemingly being wiped out. The growth process is obviously being interupted. The only remaining argument is, is stopping such growth, interupting Momma Nature at work, while violating the "Only Drive On Existing Trails" policy, considered harm? I would say it is. Apparently, you would say it is not. We can either agree to disagree on this point, or argue it to death. Personally, I'd rather do the former, as the latter hasn't been very productive. By moving past that point, we can focus on what I see as the more significant issue; attitudes expressed on a mostly public forum.

 

Let's see some real proof of damage to fragile ecosystems caused by cachers?

Since you refuse to accept the death of all vegitation over a 1.5 to 2 acre area as "damage", I doubt I will be able to offer you any proof which you will accept. In the past I've found that when debating with someone who crams their fingers in their ears, scrunching shut their eyes, shouting "La la la la la! I can't hear you! La la la la la", the profering of proof is a wasted effort, as they will simply insist that no such proof has been offered. This has certainly been the case in this thread.

 

Please meet with your marketing department and update your packaging so that it appeals to all consumers.

(stoopid consumers...)

[Clan Riffster]

 

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

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

 

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Can ya throw a dog a bone?

 

Thanx!

[+cheech gang]

Once again you seem to be losing sight of what the real issue is. And this is likely my fault as much as yours, as I keep responding to those folks who insist on such silliness as "You can't prove those are tire tracks". Me thinks I should have followed Sammy Clemmons' advice on arguing...

 

Arguments have no chance against petrified training; they wear it as little as the waves wear a cliff.

- A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court

Sammy Clemmons

 

Excellent advice, which has proven to apply to 93.7% of the threads on GC.com, and 100% of this thread.

[+Snoogans]

Does this mean that, to a Snoog, 1.5 acres isn't big enough to qualify for the term "denuded"?

 

If it was in one spot. Yes. I would have to agree.

Uh... How many spots is it in? Looks like one general area to me...

 

Only enough time to respond to this for now.

 

If it was clearly a 1.5+ area square (one spot) that had been essentially napalmed by cacher feet and tires I would agree. A whole host of issues would be raised then. Where do the critters go? Erosion due to lack of vegetation? etc.

 

You and I can peacefully disagree on the points currently at issue. I find none for this location but I'm willing to entertain a less symbolic argument if one were provided. For you this is a great opportunity for you to expound your positive caching image (and good math skills) while poking at your real motivation:

 

Perhaps our Reviewers could start enforcing the particular guideline created to reduce such things?

Please don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can. The two main goals of the saturation guideline are to encourage you to seek out new places to hide caches rather than putting them in areas where caches already exist, and to limit the number of caches hidden in a particular area, especially by the same hider. Groundspeak may further restrict cache listings in areas where cache saturation becomes a concern.

I won't hold my breath, as enforcing that particular guideline might cost Groundspeak $$$ in the long run...

 

I'm not above doing such things for my own pet issues, but every time I hear someone on your side of the fence say I and people on my side of the fence are hurting geocaching's image by not agreeing with your popular opinion in a largely symbolic debate might as well be invoking Godwin. It amounts to the same.

 

The trails are there and they will stay there until the caches go. If I'm there in July, in 110+ degree heat, you can bet I'd drive the existing tracks rather than risk the heat and dehydration. If I'm there in January, I'd still drive the tracks if I was in a high clearance vehicle because guess what. They are there.

 

I think it's time for an #occupy the alien head movement to save the sage brush and cow pies. However the #occupy tent city will probably denude that 1.5 acres I was talking about.

 

How Yossarianian is that for the op?

Edited November 18, 2011 by Snoogans

[+briansnat]

Once again you seem to be losing sight of what the real issue is. And this is likely my fault as much as yours, as I keep responding to those folks who insist on such silliness as "You can't prove those are tire tracks". Me thinks I should have followed Sammy Clemmons' advice on arguing...

 

Arguments have no chance against petrified training; they wear it as little as the waves wear a cliff.

- A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court

Sammy Clemmons

 

Excellent advice, which has proven to apply to 93.7% of the threads on GC.com, and 100% of this thread.

 

I know of an easy way to end the argument. Someone e-mail the BLM office responsible for the area and attach the sat photo of the tire tracks (or foot tracks if you are to believe one frequent poster in this thread) and some of the log photos showing the tire tracks and see what they have to say. I'm not clear on which unit is responsible for this tract, it's either Southern Nevada (nvsoweb@blm.gov) or the Ely (eyfoweb@blm.gov) district.

 

Well it won't totally end the argument because even if they are completely OK with it it still isn't going to do much for our image as a low impact activity.

Edited November 18, 2011 by briansnat

[+Snoogans]

Well it won't totally end the argument because even if they are completely OK with it it still isn't going to do much for our image as a low impact activity.

 

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

 

The positive impact is $$$ to areas where caches are a draw like Rachel, Nevada. Also the percentage of cachers who practice CITO to whatever degree have a positive effect. Ask the BLM if they will trade a new vehicle trail for some trash clean up in that area and see what they say....

 

The negativly perceived impact is trails or regrettable loss and damage to sensitive ecosystems as the other side of the fence portrays it... and trails are a fact of caching for good or ill. In this particular case and because I'm quite familiar with desert caching, I'm indifferent.

[Clan Riffster]

...while poking at your real motivation:

Uh... OK. Not sure where to go with that one...

 

I have been guilty of expressing my dislike of power trails in many threads. I have also expressed my displeasure at Groundspeak for the current interpretation of their guidelines which seemingly prohibit such power trails. This is not a secret. Any one who knows me knows my feelings on both of these topics. Where you lose me altogether is when you associate those oft spouted beliefs with my expressed concerns in this thread, hinting at some hidden agenda. I have stated, clearly and repeatedly, what I feel is the most significant issue here, and it has almost nothing to do with power trails. The connection between my concerns, and the existence of power trails is so remote as to make it not worth mentioning, which is why I haven't brought it up.

 

For the purpose of clarification, I will make that connection here, once, just so you can see how vague the connection is:

 

Again, in my opinion, the real issue is the attitudes expressed by some of those cachers who think driving in this area is hunky dorey. Yes, there are tire tracks. Those may or may not be a bad thing, I think they are bad, because, as someone pointed out earlier in this thread, those marks are dang near permanent. Others believe the tracks are not bad, as the area is "just a desert". I have fallen into the trap of defending my belief that these tracks are bad, which detracts from my belief that the greater issue is the general contempt expressed by some cachers as regarding environmental stewardship. I suspect these folks keep arguing against the tire track issue because they don't have a good answer for the other, more important issue.

 

It has been indicated that the degree of damage has escalated since the power trail was created. As you mentioned, this is to be expected. The power trail itself cannot be held accountable, as it is just a string of film cans along a road. If you can convince me to shift the focus of my concerns from the disdain expressed by the tire track defenders, to the actual tire tracks themselves, I still could only make the vaguest connection between the tracks and the power trail. Specifically, a power trail often serves to bring large groups of people to a specific geographic region. Any time you increase the number of people going to a specific region, you increase the odds that one or more of those people will be uncaring louts. With that in mind, I suppose it could be argued that creating the power trail near the alien head increased the odds that folks would drive the head instead of walking it. I don't know that I could support such a stretch, but compared to some arguments made here, I suppose it might have a bit of validity.

 

I have also expressed my dislike for crappy cache containers in the past, defining "crappy" as any container that fails to protect its contents from the elements, in the environment it is hidden in. Will you be attempting to link my concerns over crappy containers with the concerns I have expressed in this thread as well, insinuating that I have yet another hidden agenda? I sure hope not, but like you said earlier, you are entitled to try...

 

...but every time I hear someone on your side of the fence say I and people on my side of the fence are hurting geocaching's image by not agreeing with your popular opinion in a largely symbolic debate might as well be invoking Godwin.

Huh... That's pretty far off as well. Which "fence" are we talking about? As I have stated time and again, the "fence" I am standing at is the one dividing those who feel the opinions of land managers are important for the continuance of this hobby, and those who do not. Since earning the wrath of land managers has been demonstrated clearly as having a direct impact on where we are allowed to play this game, I hardly see the debate as symbolic. Rather, I think you are attempting to minimize my views on the matter in an attempt to gain proponents. Politicians do this a lot. I'm reminded of one particular politician who accused another politician of being a racist because he disagreed with a policy proposed by a third politician, who happened to have a different skin tone than the one accused of racism. By tossing down the race card, the accuser was able to shift the focus of the debate away from the actual issue at hand, while at the same time, minimizing the accused by labeling him with a negative stereotype.

 

Not unlike you tossing out the Godwin card...

If you can't attack your opponents views, attack your opponent, eh?

Not kewl...

[WashoeZephyr]

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

 

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

[+Snoogans]

I have stated, clearly and repeatedly, what I feel is the most significant issue here, and it has almost nothing to do with power trails. The connection between my concerns, and the existence of power trails is so remote as to make it not worth mentioning, which is why I haven't brought it up.

 

 

Dood. I quoted your FIRST POST to this thread. It was the FIRST thang you brought up. You moved on to the environmentalist tack after that. Kudos on the math skills though. I have to do a lot more math in my new position at work and I don't have the skill to make those calculations.

 

Not unlike you tossing out the Godwin card...

If you can't attack your opponents views, attack your opponent, eh?

 

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

 

When folks on this thread say that those who oppose them are hurting the image of geocaching it IS tantamount to invoking Godwin. I'm not playing a card. Just callin' spades.

 

Not kewl...

 

I never cared about sittin' at the kewl kids table. I always preferred being kewl all on my own. You and I both appreciate a good disagreement, because maybe we can learn something from it. I've learned a little in this one, but not enough to sway my way of thinking. There isn't enough common ground for any breakthroughs one way or the other to occur here. The OP picked a bad example. I am open minded to a better one.

Edited November 18, 2011 by Snoogans

[4wheelin_fool]

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

 

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

 

Gambling and prostitution would still be legal.