Jump to content

We can finally see Alien Head from space!


addisonbr

Recommended Posts

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

This is so colored by your prejudice against power trails it almost doesn't rate a reply.

 

There have been far more that two examples of land managers asking that caches be archived for on reason or another. In the two cases you refer to one as a permission issue with caches placed on power transmission towers and the other was a safety issues with cachers stopping on the side of the road in areas that were unsafe. Of course there have been environmental issues with geotrails forming or even that caches may be buried. Geocaching.com has a procedure whereby a land manager can ask that caches that cause problems be archived. If there is a great enough concerned, guidelines can be adopted to control certain problems (as was the case with buried caches).

 

So far the BLM is not concerned with tracks being visible in satellite photos. I don't know if they are just to busy to have noticed this or if they really don't care. What I know is that a good part of the criticism of this phenomenon in this forum is coming from people who have previously made known their feelings about power trails. They seem to wish some disaster happen that will force Groundspeak to change the guidelines. They have an uncanny ability to make mountains out of mole hills. Geocaching does have some impact on the environment. This impact is much less than many other activities that are allowed and even encouraged in the same location. Most geocachers will go out of their way to make as little impact as possible. We even do CITO to have a positive impact in some places. A few tracks that are barely visible in satellite photo, on land that is already crisscrossed by tracks left by off-roaders or ranchers (cowboys don't ride horses so much these days, they drive pickup trucks)is not the disaster the anti-power trail group is looking for.

Link to comment

This is ridiculous.

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

 

Send in the clowns cows! :lol:B)

 

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

You know what, they probably will. But what you and others aren't getting is that land managers in other areas don't deal with cows, they deal with people.

It is their perception of geocachers that is the issue. How can we get you people to understand that?

 

How can we get you people to realize that the future of geocaching as we know it is at risk? This isn't Chicken Little. If we are perceived by land managers as a high impact sport our days of largely unfettered access to public lands are numbered.

 

Maybe you numbers hounds don't give a clam's patootie because you'll still be able to rack up your smileys driving from guardrail to guardrail (unless you live in Virginia), but those of us who enjoy backcountry caches have a big dog in this fight because we want to be able to continue to enjoy them. You folk are just not seeing the big picture.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

This is ridiculous.

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

 

Send in the clowns cows! :lol:B)

 

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

You know what, they probably will. But what you and others aren't getting is that land managers in other areas don't deal with cows, they deal with people.

It is their perception of geocachers that is the issue. How can we get you people to understand that?

 

How can we get you people to realize that the future of geocaching as we know it is at risk? This isn't Chicken Little. If we are perceived by land managers as a high impact sport our days of largely unfettered access to public lands are numbered.

 

Maybe you numbers hounds don't give a clam's patootie because you'll still be able to rack up your smileys driving from guardrail to guardrail (unless you live in Virginia), but those of us who enjoy backcountry caches have a big dog in this fight because we want to be able to continue to enjoy them. You folk are just not seeing the big picture.

 

Yep, real numbers hound here... 2000 caches since 2006. I've never done a powertrail, never plan to, but yeah, chalk me up as one of "those people" if it makes it easier for you. Whatever. But I'm not hearing the land managers squawking, just a bunch of cachers.

Link to comment

Environmental impact of geotrails is worse in forestry areas with single caches, rather than on desert powertrails.

 

I think most powertrails are absurd, but this example is least likely to provide a coherent reason to stop them. Not all powertrails are alike anyhow, each one is different, and there are some good ones with varied and interesting hides.

Link to comment
But I'm not hearing the land managers squawking, just a bunch of cachers.

My best guess is that few land managers are aware of the visibility of these particular trails. I can't say for certain what a NPS representative would think about them, but I'd be crossing my fingers for indifference.

My best guess is that land managers are aware that any activity has an impact. For many, geocaching is a new activity and they aren't sure what that impact is. Perhaps they've been told that geocaching has far less impact than other activities they already allow. Perhaps the they've been told that geocachers practice CITO and and can actually have a net positive impact in some areas. Perhaps they've been told that geocachers never bury caches and that geocache placements do not deface or destroy public or private property. Perhaps they've heard all these claims yet realize that they are only true in a limited sense.

 

My guess is that each land manager looks at what his primary goals are in managing an area. They will take a position on geocaching based on the impact that geocaching may have on their areas, not on the impact it had in Nevada on some land managed by an agency known for being relatively lax. If a land manager believes additional rules are needed to control the impact of the geocaches on their lands, they will create their own restrictions. Already many parks require a permit or limit the number of caches in some other fashion. Some parks limit the amount of time a cache can stay in place. If a land manager doesn't want new trails to form they many limit caches to be near to existing trails (or in a different environment they may limit cache to be far from existing trails so that cachers will choose different paths to go from cache to cache). Geocachers should be working so that land managers have a realistic view of geocaching impacts - not some idealize one. We can then work with land managers to develop policies that work for them. If anything the Alien Head opens a door to discussing the impacts that geocaching has, and when considered in context may even convince land managers in other areas to allow geocaching by empowering the land managers to create their own restrictions that work for their particular lands.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment
They will take a position on geocaching based on the impact that geocaching may have on their areas, not on the impact it had in Nevada on some land managed by an agency known for being relatively lax.

My general experience is that when confronted by something that is poorly understood - as geocaching often is - (mis)perceptions can have pretty amplified consequences. The buried cache (mis)conception killed caching on NPS lands for years. The (mis)conception that geocachers are dancing on graves killed geocaching in all South Carolina cemeteries. I suspect that a land manager who is relatively unfamiliar with geocaching and trying to decide whether to allow it on her lands, may not be as intellectually analytical as we would all like. I'm less optimistic than others that when seeing the tracks in Google Earth just months after the Alien Head opened for business, a land manager is likely to shrug and say, "Well, that was just in Nevada where the BLM guys don't care."

 

If anything the Alien Head opens a door to discussing the impacts that geocaching has, and when considered in context may even convince land managers in other areas to allow geocaching

To open more lands to geocaching, perhaps Groundspeak will feature the Alien Head tracks in their blog and notify the press.

Link to comment

You know what, they probably will. But what you and others aren't getting is that land managers in other areas don't deal with cows, they deal with people.

It is their perception of geocachers that is the issue. How can we get you people to understand that?

 

How can we get you people to realize that the future of geocaching as we know it is at risk? This isn't Chicken Little. If we are perceived by land managers as a high impact sport our days of largely unfettered access to public lands are numbered.

 

Maybe you numbers hounds don't give a clam's patootie because you'll still be able to rack up your smileys driving from guardrail to guardrail (unless you live in Virginia), but those of us who enjoy backcountry caches have a big dog in this fight because we want to be able to continue to enjoy them. You folk are just not seeing the big picture.

I wonder if the Jedi are going to feel this one.

logo.png

Leave No Trace

Leave no trace, dude

Geocaching Policy

Edited by coggins
Link to comment
If anything the Alien Head opens a door to discussing the impacts that geocaching has, and when considered in context may even convince land managers in other areas to allow geocaching

To open more lands to geocaching, perhaps Groundspeak will feature the Alien Head tracks in their blog and notify the press.

Sure, if presented in context. If someone places a cache in an area where off-road vehicle use is allowed, and its part of a power trail where some cachers are trying to find as many caches in some period as they can, and it's in a desert environment were the track might be noticeable in a satellite photo, then is is an example of the kind of impact geocaching can have. If you change one or more of these variables it is much less likely that you would see this sort of impact. As a land manager there are things you can to to help lessen the impact. You can restrict the number of caches. You can required they caches be near existing tracks. You can post signs making your rules for off-road use clear and have them apply to off-roaders or ranchers just as they do for geocachers. And if you start to see impacts that are unacceptable you can have those specific caches archived and still allow caches that were placed in areas that can sustain the additional traffic that the caches may bring.

 

Let the land managers manage the land an stop assuming they all have the narrow east cost mentality that any sign of human use on the landscape is a disaster. I believe that all land managers in any place where geocaching has any chance of being allowed in the first place will understand just what the real impacts are and just what they can do to mitigate these impacts.

 

But if you're so worried about advertising these impacts why did you start this thread? Could it be that you have another agenda?

Link to comment

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

*Edited because Toz already covered what I had to say (I got kind of riled up on page 6):P , but I'll reapeat this part;

The original ET power trail was archived at NDOT's request as some of the placements were too near the flow of traffic and on blind corners. The CO worked it out with NDOT and have since received thier blessing. Yes, their BLESSING.

 

Clan Riffster, for you to say that I hate the environment is rediculous. Yes, it pisses me off when people dump thier crap in the desert. I've picked enough of it up. A few tire trails in less than a square mile, next to a highway? You're right. It doesn't really bother me. The hunters alone in this state cause more off road tracks than any geocacher ever will. In regards to the photo I commented on in an earlier post, the one regarding the tire tracks. It just looked to me like a heavily traveled trail rather than a fresh one. (Of course now you're going to reply that, "See, it's a heavily traveled trail") I'm sorry I'm not the pro and shouldn't have made that assumption. Apparently you are the professional on desert tracks...my apologies. And if you really feel the urge to take on the BLM, be my guest. It seems your itchin' to do just that anyways.

Edited by LostinReno
Link to comment

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

Oh, the BLM has their hand in tourism, you should see how much they make off of Burning Man....over a million

Edited by LostinReno
Link to comment

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

This is so colored by your prejudice against power trails it almost doesn't rate a reply.

 

There have been far more that two examples of land managers asking that caches be archived for on reason or another. In the two cases you refer to one as a permission issue with caches placed on power transmission towers and the other was a safety issues with cachers stopping on the side of the road in areas that were unsafe. Of course there have been environmental issues with geotrails forming or even that caches may be buried. Geocaching.com has a procedure whereby a land manager can ask that caches that cause problems be archived. If there is a great enough concerned, guidelines can be adopted to control certain problems (as was the case with buried caches).

 

So far the BLM is not concerned with tracks being visible in satellite photos. I don't know if they are just to busy to have noticed this or if they really don't care. What I know is that a good part of the criticism of this phenomenon in this forum is coming from people who have previously made known their feelings about power trails. They seem to wish some disaster happen that will force Groundspeak to change the guidelines. They have an uncanny ability to make mountains out of mole hills. Geocaching does have some impact on the environment. This impact is much less than many other activities that are allowed and even encouraged in the same location. Most geocachers will go out of their way to make as little impact as possible. We even do CITO to have a positive impact in some places. A few tracks that are barely visible in satellite photo, on land that is already crisscrossed by tracks left by off-roaders or ranchers (cowboys don't ride horses so much these days, they drive pickup trucks)is not the disaster the anti-power trail group is looking for.

 

I seem to recall the proponants of the ET powertrail downplaying all the concerns just before the ET powertrail was shut down. I believe you tried to say hindsight was 20/20 after the fact and I rebutted with some of had 20/20 foresight. Deja vu. Go ahead and keep it up, with your uncanny ability to use seeminly endless babbling in an attempt to say everyone should play how they want, except puritans of course. I just hope that any sanctions don't affect my area.

Link to comment

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

This is so colored by your prejudice against power trails it almost doesn't rate a reply.

 

There have been far more that two examples of land managers asking that caches be archived for on reason or another. In the two cases you refer to one as a permission issue with caches placed on power transmission towers and the other was a safety issues with cachers stopping on the side of the road in areas that were unsafe. Of course there have been environmental issues with geotrails forming or even that caches may be buried. Geocaching.com has a procedure whereby a land manager can ask that caches that cause problems be archived. If there is a great enough concerned, guidelines can be adopted to control certain problems (as was the case with buried caches).

 

So far the BLM is not concerned with tracks being visible in satellite photos. I don't know if they are just to busy to have noticed this or if they really don't care. What I know is that a good part of the criticism of this phenomenon in this forum is coming from people who have previously made known their feelings about power trails. They seem to wish some disaster happen that will force Groundspeak to change the guidelines. They have an uncanny ability to make mountains out of mole hills. Geocaching does have some impact on the environment. This impact is much less than many other activities that are allowed and even encouraged in the same location. Most geocachers will go out of their way to make as little impact as possible. We even do CITO to have a positive impact in some places. A few tracks that are barely visible in satellite photo, on land that is already crisscrossed by tracks left by off-roaders or ranchers (cowboys don't ride horses so much these days, they drive pickup trucks)is not the disaster the anti-power trail group is looking for.

 

I seem to recall the proponants of the ET powertrail downplaying all the concerns just before the ET powertrail was shut down. I believe you tried to say hindsight was 20/20 after the fact and I rebutted with some of had 20/20 foresight. Deja vu. Go ahead and keep it up, with your uncanny ability to use seeminly endless babbling in an attempt to say everyone should play how they want, except puritans of course. I just hope that any sanctions don't affect my area.

Geocaching Corollary to Godwin's Law: Once the word "puritan" is used in a thread, the probability of subsequent posts containing any useful information approaches zero. - GeoGeeBee

 

I've already made my Godwin by proxy reference to the finger wagglers and here is another....

 

Useful discourse has run outta gas. Finger waggling geocachers 1 Realistic geocachers 1... Uh, in my perception.

Link to comment

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

This is so colored by your prejudice against power trails it almost doesn't rate a reply.

 

There have been far more that two examples of land managers asking that caches be archived for on reason or another. In the two cases you refer to one as a permission issue with caches placed on power transmission towers and the other was a safety issues with cachers stopping on the side of the road in areas that were unsafe. Of course there have been environmental issues with geotrails forming or even that caches may be buried. Geocaching.com has a procedure whereby a land manager can ask that caches that cause problems be archived. If there is a great enough concerned, guidelines can be adopted to control certain problems (as was the case with buried caches).

 

So far the BLM is not concerned with tracks being visible in satellite photos. I don't know if they are just to busy to have noticed this or if they really don't care. What I know is that a good part of the criticism of this phenomenon in this forum is coming from people who have previously made known their feelings about power trails. They seem to wish some disaster happen that will force Groundspeak to change the guidelines. They have an uncanny ability to make mountains out of mole hills. Geocaching does have some impact on the environment. This impact is much less than many other activities that are allowed and even encouraged in the same location. Most geocachers will go out of their way to make as little impact as possible. We even do CITO to have a positive impact in some places. A few tracks that are barely visible in satellite photo, on land that is already crisscrossed by tracks left by off-roaders or ranchers (cowboys don't ride horses so much these days, they drive pickup trucks)is not the disaster the anti-power trail group is looking for.

 

I seem to recall the proponants of the ET powertrail downplaying all the concerns just before the ET powertrail was shut down. I believe you tried to say hindsight was 20/20 after the fact and I rebutted with some of had 20/20 foresight. Deja vu. Go ahead and keep it up, with your uncanny ability to use seeminly endless babbling in an attempt to say everyone should play how they want, except puritans of course. I just hope that any sanctions don't affect my area.

Geocaching Corollary to Godwin's Law: Once the word "puritan" is used in a thread, the probability of subsequent posts containing any useful information approaches zero. - GeoGeeBee

 

I've already made my Godwin by proxy reference to the finger wagglers and here is another....

 

Useful discourse has run outta gas. Finger waggling geocachers 1 Realistic geocachers 1... Uh, in my perception.

 

Just taking toz where he wanted to go, he's been saying IT without saying IT for a while. All I ask is that when you guys repeatedly bury you heads in the proverbial sand, please, please, please don't use a pointy object.

Link to comment
I honestly believe that we can cause negative impacts that hurt our image. It's just that one doesn't exist in this case.

That's kewl. Even if we don't agree in the end, it was still fun pokin' about in your gray matter. Lots of neat stuff buried up there, and by applying it in a civil manner, as you have, you've helped keep me on a mostly even keel, which is often difficult when folks discuss something they are passionate about. Peace, Brother! B)

 

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

This is so colored by your prejudice against power trails...

Huh... So we're back to attacking the person, rather than disputing their views...

I'm not seeing any prejudice in that paragraph. If we edit out the single sentence mentioning power trails, the rest is spot on. To start with, folks on both sides are making guesses about the environmental impact. Some of our guesses are based on past experience, coupled with local observations made in this thread. (Such as the guy who said tank tracks from 70 years ago are still visible today) Some guesses are colored by a general disdain for protecting the environment. But they are all still guesses. So, no "coloring" there.

 

M 5 then speculates that this is a good example of negative impact. That is his opinion, and it is one shared by many in this debate. We all impact the planet every day, in every thing we do. Some impacts are positive, some are neutral, some are negative. A tire track that can be seen from 47,000 feet, and could remain visible for decades to come, does seem to reside on the negative side of the equation, to me. Others feel that scars which last half a century are perfectly fine, so long as cows are on the property, or litter gets dumped nearby on occasion.

 

M 5 then advised what data he based this on, mentioning the two power trails which were killed because of land manager perceptions. One land manager perceived that game pieces on high tension power lines could be a bad thing, though there wasn't a single reported incident of injury or damage. Another land manager perceived that having the film cans so close to the roadway, and placed on blind curves could lead to traffic hazards, even though there was not a single documented incident of an injury or an actual crash which resulted from the placement of a cache nearby. If M 5 had selected other examples of land manager perceptions impacting our field of play, such as the South Carolina politician who wanted geocaching banned state wide, (leading ultimately to the compromise that they will no longer be allowed in cemeteries without very detailed and explicit permission), or the loss of millions of acres of playground because an NPS land manager perceived that geocachers bury stuff, his statement would have been just as valid. His statement was not a rant against power trails, as you seem to be so desperately trying to make it appear. His statement had to do with us losing playgrounds because of how we are perceived by those in charge of those playgrounds. His selection of those two examples was likely made due to proximity, not prejudice. But you are willing to prejudge him without ascertaining the facts. Typical Toz Pot/Kettle techniques.

 

From there, M 5 offers his opinion on land manager perceptions being a pretty big deal, saying folks are sadly mistaken if they believe otherwise. Again, no "coloring" based on power trails. He expounds upon that by suggesting that past bans should serve as an example for why we, as a group, should be more cautious in the future, suggesting that we could all benefit by erring on the side of caution. No power trail "coloring" there either. Just an opinion that has been repeated many times in this thread. M 5 then reminded us that land managers with misconceptions have taken extreme measures in the past, and asks why anyone would willingly and knowingly risk those consequences. No power trail "coloring" there. He then tells the detractors that such a course does not seem reasonable to him. No power trail coloring there. Just a statement.

 

...it almost doesn't rate a reply.

Then why waste 1,830 characters replying to it? :unsure:

 

My guess is that each land manager looks at what his primary goals are in managing an area. They will take a position on geocaching based on the impact that geocaching may have on their areas, not on the impact it had in Nevada on some land managed by an agency known for being relatively lax.

My guess, (which could be way off base, but was derived from that comment), is that you've never had direct negotiations with land managers regarding the formulation of geocaching policies. While my experience certainly isn't as vast as some, I have been directly involved in such negotiations with five separate agencies. The Little Big Econ State Forest, Seminole County Parks & Recreation, Seminole County Natural Lands, the St John's River Water Management District and Florida's Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. I was also instrumental in convincing the National Forest Service, District 8, (Southeast United States), to retract a demand that each cache on their lands have a permit which costs between $59 and $75 dollars, depending on what manager I was talking with. I have offered my services in creating a formative policy, but they have not replied as of yet.

 

In every single instance, (not even one exception), the land managers opened the talks with what they wanted, based upon misconceptions they had regarding our hobby. Our first goal was to educate them beyond those misconceptions, so we were on common ground.

 

And if you really feel the urge to take on the BLM, be my guest. It seems your itchin' to do just that anyways.

Why would you make such a silly statement? Trust me when I say I have no urge to delve into bureaucracy. As I mentioned above, I do speak the language, and based upon my results, I think I speak it well. It is a skill I have. That does not mean I particularly enjoy employing that skill. You keep insisting that, if contacted, the BLM would shrug off the concerns we've mentioned. I simply offered my services in that regard. What I was asking then, and will ask again now, is, do you want me to make that attempt? I have already stated that I do not wish to do so. But if you want your theory tested, so your claim can possibly have some merit, I will volunteer. If you want me to.

 

Do you want me to? :huh:

It is a simple question about what you want, not what I want. <_<

Link to comment
But if you're so worried about advertising these impacts why did you start this thread? Could it be that you have another agenda?

I'd prefer for cachers to take care of issues amongst ourselves rather than wait passively for caching to get a black eye among the media / land managers / etc. I thought that by raising the issue, with cachers, that dozens if not hundreds of cachers were ignoring CO wishes and driving from cache to cache, leaving trails that can now easily be viewed by any land manager or reporter who chooses to investigate, people would generally agree that it's not very cool behavior, and as it can affect caching in general, perhaps apply some public pressure to see that it would stop.

 

I didn't anticipate the various "If it's not expressly illegal I'll darn right do whatever I want" and "I can see the Great Wall of China from space" replies.

 

But yes, generally, if something is happening in the caching world that I'm worried about, I'd rather raise the issues amongst cachers. I'd certainly prefer it to contacting land managers or the media.

Link to comment
But if you're so worried about advertising these impacts why did you start this thread? Could it be that you have another agenda?

I'd prefer for cachers to take care of issues amongst ourselves rather than wait passively for caching to get a black eye among the media / land managers / etc. I thought that by raising the issue, with cachers, that dozens if not hundreds of cachers were ignoring CO wishes and driving from cache to cache, leaving trails that can now easily be viewed by any land manager or reporter who chooses to investigate, people would generally agree that it's not very cool behavior, and as it can affect caching in general, perhaps apply some public pressure to see that it would stop.

 

I didn't anticipate the various "If it's not expressly illegal I'll darn right do whatever I want" and "I can see the Great Wall of China from space" replies.

 

But yes, generally, if something is happening in the caching world that I'm worried about, I'd rather raise the issues amongst cachers. I'd certainly prefer it to contacting land managers or the media.

But as has been amplied explained, by those in a position to know, it's NOT an issue. With Satellites you can see roads used 2000 years ago that are now buried under several feet of new soil, they are visible, they are not affecting anything adversely.

And I personally can't see the roads at all in the posted images.

Link to comment
But as has been amplied explained, by those in a position to know, it's NOT an issue. With Satellites you can see roads used 2000 years ago that are now buried under several feet of new soil, they are visible, they are not affecting anything adversely.

And I personally can't see the roads at all in the posted images.

Holding aside the debate about whether this counts as damage or not, the point is that many people with disproportionate power over our game may react to such fast, visible, and potentially (?) long-lasting evidence that apparently geocachers don't care about leaving trails and certainly don't care about honoring CO wishes.

 

The fact that they can be seen from the satellite photos is somewhat interesting on its own - it's the first evidence of geocaching's environmental impact I've ever seen in any satellite imagery (if I am wrong, I would be very interested to know that).

 

But it's much more interesting to me that it is now readily apparent to anyone who chooses to look for it. At least in the past I had a belief that if geocaching left a visible mark on an area, it would probably only be seen by people visiting the location.

 

That's no longer true.

Link to comment

 

I didn't anticipate the various "If it's not expressly illegal I'll darn right do whatever I want" and "I can see the Great Wall of China from space" replies.

 

Joined in '02? I'm not buying that line.

I think the debate about desert ecology is an interesting one.

 

I think the two arguments quoted above are silly and, yes, they surprised me.

Link to comment

I thought that by raising the issue, with cachers, that dozens if not hundreds of cachers were ignoring CO wishes and driving from cache to cache, leaving trails that can now easily be viewed by any land manager or reporter who chooses to investigate, people would generally agree that it's not very cool behavior, and as it can affect caching in general, perhaps apply some public pressure to see that it would stop.

Since this whole thread just seems to be going in circles... From the first, I totally agree that it should be done on foot as the CO requests, however you will always have the lazy who will drive from cache to cache, it would be ignorant to say that this doesn't happen everywhere. I've cached in a lot of different environments. Trails are made from people bushwacking on foot. I've been to quite few where if it weren't for the trees, they too, would be clearly visible from space. It's just humorous to me when some east coast tree huggers think there's this huge impact on a desert flat that is on public land. The land in question is on open range and has seen more radiation than probably anywhere else on earth with maybe the exception of Japan and Chernobyl. A few squashed sagebrush is really not a valid reason to believe that geocaching is "threatened" across the US because of this particular trail.

Link to comment
A few squashed sagebrush is really not a valid reason to believe that geocaching is "threatened" across the US because of this particular trail.

I respect your skepticism, but I would have hoped something similar about the buried caches misconception w.r.t. the NPS. I'm not saying it *will* happen - and I definitely hope that it doesn't - but yeah, it's something I think about.

Link to comment
A few squashed sagebrush is really not a valid reason to believe that geocaching is "threatened" across the US because of this particular trail.

I respect your skepticism, but I would have hoped something similar about the buried caches misconception w.r.t. the NPS. I'm not saying it *will* happen - and I definitely hope that it doesn't - but yeah, it's something I think about.

I think there's gonna be more vegetation damaged here, frankly.

Link to comment
A few squashed sagebrush is really not a valid reason to believe that geocaching is "threatened" across the US because of this particular trail.

I respect your skepticism, but I would have hoped something similar about the buried caches misconception w.r.t. the NPS. I'm not saying it *will* happen - and I definitely hope that it doesn't - but yeah, it's something I think about.

I think there's gonna be more vegetation damaged here, frankly.

+1

Too bad you can't see the bushwack trails through the trees. :ph34r:

If the vegetation wasn't so thick, you know people would be trying to drive to them too. Pfft.

Edited by LostinReno
Link to comment

But as has been amplied explained, by those in a position to know, it's NOT an issue. With Satellites you can see roads used 2000 years ago that are now buried under several feet of new soil, they are visible, they are not affecting anything adversely.

And I personally can't see the roads at all in the posted images.

Sorry about that. I hope this helps.

 

65b89366-37f3-45aa-b09e-7ec620b15eb1.jpg?rnd=0.5392987

0a4c899d-c1bf-4ea0-b395-23c5992d3f53.jpg?rnd=0.5798306

Link to comment

I think there's gonna be more vegetation damaged here, frankly.

Too bad you can't see the bushwack trails through the trees. :ph34r:

A while back you claimed to actually care about the environment. Now you are actually expressing regret because imagined damage isn't significant enough to be visible from space? I think your true colors are showing... again. If the only thing that can bring you joy is habitat destruction, I feel pity for you. Truly. If my grief for you brands me a tree hugger, or bunny hugger, I will have to bear that shield. If there were some magick wand I could wave to make you at least mildly environmentally conscious, I would do so, but I am afraid, contempt as deep rooted as yours is truly incurable. While there have been other opinions in this thread I have disagreed with, your's is the only one I've seen which publicly lamented a lack of damage. Not sure how to respond to that. Pax vobiscum... :unsure:

Link to comment

I think there's gonna be more vegetation damaged here, frankly.

Too bad you can't see the bushwack trails through the trees. :ph34r:

A while back you claimed to actually care about the environment. Now you are actually expressing regret because imagined damage isn't significant enough to be visible from space? I think your true colors are showing... again. If the only thing that can bring you joy is habitat destruction, I feel pity for you. Truly. If my grief for you brands me a tree hugger, or bunny hugger, I will have to bear that shield. If there were some magick wand I could wave to make you at least mildly environmentally conscious, I would do so, but I am afraid, contempt as deep rooted as yours is truly incurable. While there have been other opinions in this thread I have disagreed with, your's is the only one I've seen which publicly lamented a lack of damage. Not sure how to respond to that. Pax vobiscum... :unsure:

 

To be as twisty with words as you have proven to be, you sure give a good try at ignoring sarcasm but don't quite pull it off. How about an honest comment? Seems you are familiar with that particular series. In fact, much of the verbiage on the ones I glimpsed seemed hauntingly familiar.

Link to comment

Riffster, you can't be serious!!! Yeah there really is a need for a sarcasm font. You need to let it go man. So basically you can honestly say that there are no lazies in the whole state of Florida that given the above example were wide enough to get a vehicle in there, wouldn't? Of course I'm not familiar at all with that portion of Florida. This could be clearly marked that no vehicles are allowed. Let's just say for the sake of argument this was public land and no signs are posted and the trails were large enough to get a vehicle through. Do you honestly think no one would drive it? Puleeze!

Link to comment

I did a bit of scanning around with the satellite view and there are roads/trails/tire tracks all over the place that are not associated with caches. I guess those are okay but the ones to a cache are bad. got it.

 

You're obviously hallucinating. Nothing there but cachers trashing the environment. Driving around & yelling "take that, momma Gaia!" :anibad:

 

And cows, but cows don't count.

Link to comment

 

I didn't anticipate the various "If it's not expressly illegal I'll darn right do whatever I want" and "I can see the Great Wall of China from space" replies.

 

Joined in '02? I'm not buying that line.

I think the debate about desert ecology is an interesting one.

 

I think the two arguments quoted above are silly and, yes, they surprised me.

 

I was tempted to reply to this with a remark about being either naive or something else and passed. Reading back through the first couple of pages, naive is out, so it's the other thing. Naive would have put you in the "not very observant, so ignore" category. The remaining choice puts you in the "pot-stirrer" category. Congratulations!

 

BTW, saying that the responses surprised you, sans naivete, puts you in another category.

Link to comment
A few squashed sagebrush is really not a valid reason to believe that geocaching is "threatened" across the US because of this particular trail.

I respect your skepticism, but I would have hoped something similar about the buried caches misconception w.r.t. the NPS. I'm not saying it *will* happen - and I definitely hope that it doesn't - but yeah, it's something I think about.

I think there's gonna be more vegetation damaged here, frankly.

 

In the long run you're probably right. But as of right now there is no evidence of people driving where they should be walking and the number of visitors is pretty low. Alien head sometimes sees more visitors in a day than most of these caches received since they were placed.

 

Power trails encourage searchers to follow the same path and over time there will likely be visible damage if they are off road.

 

One bad idea doesn't justify the existence of another bad idea though.

Link to comment

I did a bit of scanning around with the satellite view and there are roads/trails/tire tracks all over the place that are not associated with caches. I guess those are okay but the ones to a cache are bad. got it.

 

The other roads might be bad for other user groups. More and more areas are being declared off limits to ATVs and ORVs use because of the damage they cause. The NPS has been trying to ban snowmobiles from Yellowstone thanks to the air pollution and smog they produce. Many parks throughout the US are off limits to mountain bikers because of their perceived impact. Dogs may be banned from parts of Golden Gate National Recreation Area because owners would not keep them on leashes and they were threatening some endangered species. The NPS is banning jetskis from their waters because of their impact and the misbehavior of operators.

 

When a user group is perceived as having a negative impact they start to find themselves unwelcome in many places. Geocachers have suffered from misconceptions about our impact since our beginning, misconceptions that we've spent years trying to correct. What happens when we can no longer say they are misconceptions?

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

But as has been amplied explained, by those in a position to know, it's NOT an issue. With Satellites you can see roads used 2000 years ago that are now buried under several feet of new soil, they are visible, they are not affecting anything adversely.

And I personally can't see the roads at all in the posted images.

Sorry about that. I hope this helps.

 

65b89366-37f3-45aa-b09e-7ec620b15eb1.jpg?rnd=0.5392987

0a4c899d-c1bf-4ea0-b395-23c5992d3f53.jpg?rnd=0.5798306

 

still not satisfactory, how convenient to ignore all the other tracks visible...maybe those where created by the aliens themselves?

 

21-11-20118-06-05AM.png

 

yeap, here's evidence of an UFO :lol:

 

21-11-20118-16-51AM.png

Link to comment
I was tempted to reply to this with a remark about being either naive or something else and passed. Reading back through the first couple of pages, naive is out, so it's the other thing. Naive would have put you in the "not very observant, so ignore" category. The remaining choice puts you in the "pot-stirrer" category. Congratulations!

 

BTW, saying that the responses surprised you, sans naivete, puts you in another category.

I don't understand the direction these comments are taking, but I'll give benefit of the doubt that I can try to restate my opinion without personal attacks.

 

I believe that geocachers, as a whole, understand that good environmental behavior doesn't flow strictly from legality. (This is independent of someone's stance regarding the environmental impact of new trails in the desert.) But to stand up and proclaim that regardless of any impact, no behavior matters if it's not expressly against the law, I think is a surprising attitude. I've watched people trample flower beds looking for a cache before; the behavior *itself* didn't surprise me. What would have surprised me is if those two guys had defended their behavior by pointing out that no law prevents them from tearing the area up.

 

And yes, I think that if a land manager ever asked about these trails, to say that "Well, you can see the Great Wall of China from space too" is such a ridiculous reply that would virtually ensure a negative response from the LM - that it does surprise me that people would think it's helpful.

Link to comment

I did a bit of scanning around with the satellite view and there are roads/trails/tire tracks all over the place that are not associated with caches. I guess those are okay but the ones to a cache are bad. got it.

The issue is to put yourself in the head of a land manager. If a LM decided to evaluate the traffic / etc. effects of geocaches on her lands, I think that a tire track outline in the shape of an Alien Head formed in just a few months would probably draw more attention than the random tracks that others might leave.

Link to comment

I did a bit of scanning around with the satellite view and there are roads/trails/tire tracks all over the place that are not associated with caches. I guess those are okay but the ones to a cache are bad. got it.

 

The other roads might be bad for other user groups. More and more areas are being declared off limits to ATVs and ORVs use because of the damage they cause. The NPS has been trying to ban snowmobiles from Yellowstone thanks to the air pollution and smog they produce. Many parks throughout the US are off limits to mountain bikers because of their perceived impact. Dogs may be banned from parts of Golden Gate National Recreation Area because owners would not keep them on leashes and they were threatening some endangered species. The NPS is banning jetskis from their waters because of their impact and the misbehavior of operators.

 

When a user group is perceived as having a negative impact they start to find themselves unwelcome in many places. Geocachers have suffered from misconceptions about our impact since our beginning, misconceptions that we've spent years trying to correct. What happens when we can no longer say they are misconceptions?

The particular piece of real estate under discussion will not have OHV and ATV bans enacted as long as the controlling agency wants income from cattle grazing. If the controlling agency were to ban OHV and ATV use the cows would go away and the income from the cows would go away. So far the controlling agency has not figured out how to get income from the wild horses, mules and antelope. Once they figure that out they may impose the bans.

Link to comment
A few squashed sagebrush is really not a valid reason to believe that geocaching is "threatened" across the US because of this particular trail.

I respect your skepticism, but I would have hoped something similar about the buried caches misconception w.r.t. the NPS. I'm not saying it *will* happen - and I definitely hope that it doesn't - but yeah, it's something I think about.

I think there's gonna be more vegetation damaged here, frankly.

 

In the long run you're probably right. But as of right now there is no evidence of people driving where they should be walking and the number of visitors is pretty low. Alien head sometimes sees more visitors in a day than most of these caches received since they were placed.

 

Power trails encourage searchers to follow the same path and over time there will likely be visible damage if they are off road.

 

One bad idea doesn't justify the existence of another bad idea though.

 

It was just used as an example as Clan Riffster had this particular series in his bookmarked lists. It's more pointing out that his stance "is the only stance" apparently, as he has a knack of twisting the thread to see only what he wants to see (re: his personal, unvalidated slams towards me that I'm an evironment hater). Yes, this trail sees a lot less travel, however, if it were possible to drive a vehicle to them...people would. I also find it interesting on the Yin/Yang trail there are no marked trails to the majority of the caches which would lead me to believe that you must bushwhack to get to each cache. Hrmm, seems like more environmental damage than the alien head, even on foot. (There is no bushwacking involved on the alien head) I'm not condoning driving off a marked trail, nor have I ever condoned it in this thread. I was simply making the point that BLM public land is FAR different than the NPS. To put it in perspective of the east coasters. Over 8 entire states of NJ would fit in the NV BLM land alone. A huge mountain is being made out of a very small mole hill...all 7 pages of it.

Link to comment

I thought I'd comment on the user trail at the CoExist series, which I have found.

 

There isn't going to be a yin-yang of user trail. Cachers are using different approaches to caches using the marked ATV trails, forest roads, cutting section firebreaks, with some amount of bushwhacking at the last to get to each cache. Other then a couple of caches near forest roads, we saw evidence of cacher passage only at the caches, not in the approach.

 

User trail here is ephemeral, it will disappear over the course of each long hot wet summer.

 

This is a harvested forest. Each cutting section is roller-bladed, clear-cut, and then burnt. This is done on a 15 year cycle, harvesting a young forest for paper pulp, as this favors endangered scrub jays. Regrowth of scrub and hardwood understory is rapid. The substantial bear population is breaking down far more vegetation then the cachers ever will, and none of this will matter in the cycle of cut, burn and regrowth.

Link to comment

I thought I'd comment on the user trail at the CoExist series, which I have found.

 

There isn't going to be a yin-yang of user trail. Cachers are using different approaches to caches using the marked ATV trails, forest roads, cutting section firebreaks, with some amount of bushwhacking at the last to get to each cache. Other then a couple of caches near forest roads, we saw evidence of cacher passage only at the caches, not in the approach.

 

User trail here is ephemeral, it will disappear over the course of each long hot wet summer.

 

This is a harvested forest. Each cutting section is roller-bladed, clear-cut, and then burnt. This is done on a 15 year cycle, harvesting a young forest for paper pulp, as this favors endangered scrub jays. Regrowth of scrub and hardwood understory is rapid. The substantial bear population is breaking down far more vegetation then the cachers ever will, and none of this will matter in the cycle of cut, burn and regrowth.

Thank you for a rational explaination of the series. Nice to hear from someone that has actually been there and has valid knowledge of the area.

:D

Link to comment

I am weakly considering stopping at "Tonopah International Airport" slipping into the FBO and renting a spam can to do an overflight and some orbits above the "Head Alien" for a low level photo op. Real time, real world photos's might shed some additional light. High resolution satellite photos where one can count the hairs on a flies backside make me nervous.

 

I think the part that chaps my hide the most has been the early and flagrant disregard for the request not to drive the Head Alien.

 

Many years of observation cause me to assume that instructional signage, in whatever format, is largely ignored.

 

By example:

( probably weak ) how many folks capture the speed right on the money when a black and white is on their rear bumper. Contrast that to what happens when the black and white is nowhere to be seen. ( Hey I prefaced it with weak ).

 

But heyyyyyyyyyyy when those desert sands get wet and some fool gets stuck and sinks in to the top of the wheel wells and needs local assistance and the inevitable $$$$$$$ to recover the vehicle. Perhaps, and maybe that person might have a behavioral modification moment.

 

As to the environmental damage ... I have to bow out and go watch some kids hug a Redwood tree. Hey our trees have been given names. ( Jerry and Luna come to mind, however, I no longer remember the names of the kids who took up residence IN the trees ... Oooops the Alzheimers cleared for a moment, "Butterfly" lived in Luna for a lonoooong time ?? ~18 months back in the day.

 

I am going back to the sidelines. ( No, not the bar on The Arcata Plaza )

Link to comment
A few squashed sagebrush is really not a valid reason to believe that geocaching is "threatened" across the US because of this particular trail.

I respect your skepticism, but I would have hoped something similar about the buried caches misconception w.r.t. the NPS. I'm not saying it *will* happen - and I definitely hope that it doesn't - but yeah, it's something I think about.

I think there's gonna be more vegetation damaged here, frankly.

 

In the long run you're probably right. But as of right now there is no evidence of people driving where they should be walking and the number of visitors is pretty low. Alien head sometimes sees more visitors in a day than most of these caches received since they were placed.

 

Power trails encourage searchers to follow the same path and over time there will likely be visible damage if they are off road.

 

One bad idea doesn't justify the existence of another bad idea though.

 

 

It was just used as an example as Clan Riffster had this particular series in his bookmarked lists. It's more pointing out that his stance "is the only stance" apparently, as he has a knack of twisting the thread to see only what he wants to see (re: his personal, unvalidated slams towards me that I'm an evironment hater). Yes, this trail sees a lot less travel, however, if it were possible to drive a vehicle to them...people would. I also find it interesting on the Yin/Yang trail there are no marked trails to the majority of the caches which would lead me to believe that you must bushwhack to get to each cache. Hrmm, seems like more environmental damage than the alien head, even on foot. (There is no bushwacking involved on the alien head) I'm not condoning driving off a marked trail, nor have I ever condoned it in this thread. I was simply making the point that BLM public land is FAR different than the NPS. To put it in perspective of the east coasters. Over 8 entire states of NJ would fit in the NV BLM land alone. A huge mountain is being made out of a very small mole hill...all 7 pages of it.

 

If the BLM ever decides that geocaching is no longer compatible with their lands that's a pretty huge chunk of land to lose. All the more reason to be extra careful on BLM lands.

Link to comment

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

I'm guessing this is one of them. The weird thing is, I don't see any logs. http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=a221990c-7508-4ac3-a473-d65b6e1f8d60

Link to comment

I did a bit of scanning around with the satellite view and there are roads/trails/tire tracks all over the place that are not associated with caches. I guess those are okay but the ones to a cache are bad. got it.

 

The other roads might be bad for other user groups. More and more areas are being declared off limits to ATVs and ORVs use because of the damage they cause. The NPS has been trying to ban snowmobiles from Yellowstone thanks to the air pollution and smog they produce. Many parks throughout the US are off limits to mountain bikers because of their perceived impact. Dogs may be banned from parts of Golden Gate National Recreation Area because owners would not keep them on leashes and they were threatening some endangered species. The NPS is banning jetskis from their waters because of their impact and the misbehavior of operators.

 

When a user group is perceived as having a negative impact they start to find themselves unwelcome in many places. Geocachers have suffered from misconceptions about our impact since our beginning, misconceptions that we've spent years trying to correct. What happens when we can no longer say they are misconceptions?

No land manager should be naive about the impact that any activity may have. But they certainly can compare the impact a new activity has compared to other activities that are allowed. The other tracks certain show evidence that off-road use and free range grazing have caused. The land manager may compare the alien head tracks to these other activities. I still believe you can make a claim that geocaching has less impacts than these other activities.

 

Certainly power trails seem to be very popular, and that increase in traffic in remote areas is something new for geocaching. It may be that at some level, the BLM will conclude that this much traffic is "bad" for the desert. But that is up to them.

 

Perhaps east coast geocachers have had it harder than those in the west. In a an area where natural preserves are small and few, the land managers seem to take a stronger stand on "preservation". Geocachers have been forced to argue we have no more impact that bird watchers or hikers. We haven't had that problem in the west. Other than national parks, most land managers have been friendly. Of course there have been exceptions. Anza Borega Desert State Park in California banned geocaching after geocachers were blame (probably unjustly) for damage at archeological site. There have been a few other sites that had caches removed because the land managers became concerned about impacts. But in most cases land managers will work with geocachers to find solutions short of banning caches.

 

I did a bit of scanning around with the satellite view and there are roads/trails/tire tracks all over the place that are not associated with caches. I guess those are okay but the ones to a cache are bad. got it.

The issue is to put yourself in the head of a land manager. If a LM decided to evaluate the traffic / etc. effects of geocaches on her lands, I think that a tire track outline in the shape of an Alien Head formed in just a few months would probably draw more attention than the random tracks that others might leave.

I don't believe so. The geocachers who are driving from caches to cache are leaving a single track that connects the caches. The "damage" is limited to the track. It isn't randomly tearing us new chunks of desert. It may be true that when many vehicles follow the same track, the soil is compacted making re-vegetation take longer. So it's possible the BLM prefers the that each new car takes a different path. But my guess in the particular area it doesn't make that much difference.

Link to comment

The issue is to put yourself in the head of a land manager. If a LM decided to evaluate the traffic / etc. effects of geocaches on her lands, I think that a tire track outline in the shape of an Alien Head formed in just a few months would probably draw more attention than the random tracks that others might leave.

I don't believe so. The geocachers who are driving from caches to cache are leaving a single track that connects the caches. The "damage" is limited to the track. It isn't randomly tearing us new chunks of desert. It may be true that when many vehicles follow the same track, the soil is compacted making re-vegetation take longer. So it's possible the BLM prefers the that each new car takes a different path. But my guess in the particular area it doesn't make that much difference.

I'm not really talking about the extent of the trail / damage / etc. itself, so much as its noticeability. I think that a random trail from a random ATV is difficult to notice in satellite imagery. I believe (but may be wrong) that a trail that perfectly outlines an Alien Head, especially if viewed in a map that features the locations of each of the component caches, is easier to notice. Whether or not the land manager cares, is just the step that comes after the land manager recognizes it in the first place.

Link to comment

Am I missing something addisonbr? I think you are in the camp of 'we should try and promote geocaching in as, environmentally friendly, leave no trace, light, as we can to avoid land managers banning it'?

 

If so why was it you started this thread that highlights the damage/impact/(insert whichever word you feel appropriate)?

 

I think I have gathered that it wasn't you who first spotted the tracks visibility and advertised the fact, just brought it to the forums? And I know ignoring issues doesn't make them go away but creating a 7 page thread for any land manager to read? & Yes I also realise you could never have known it would rumble on this long...

 

For what its worth (not much I know :rolleyes: ), as a complete outsider from the uk knowing nothing about desert, nor likely to ever come to this particular part of the world, some of the responders that can't see what a bad impression their responses might give to land managers from anywhere in the world, who, on first hearing about geocaching from a potential CO, might happen upon these forums in an attempt to find out more about the game they ahve been convinced by said CO is so very low impact, have to be living in cloud cuckoo land.

 

Its not about this particular example, its the image that flaunting/dismissing the result gives.

 

Although I also realise I am about to push it back to the top of the thread list to a more prominent position :unsure:

Edited by The Real Boudica.
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...