Jump to content

We can finally see Alien Head from space!


addisonbr

Recommended Posts

I believe most Land Managers who might read this will be smart, educated and experienced enough to know that for the area in question it IS a non issue, and those who have been arguing it isn't have no true knowledge of the area and practices in place there.

 

I don't know if the OP has met with land managers, but I have. Every single one that I have met with were local/regional government employees. Smart people. Open minded to geocaching and not unmindful if impact both positive and negative. Not a single one was a knee-jerk reactionary which is the impression this thread gives. However, one of the assistants was reactionary until he understood what geocaching was. It was fun to watch his conversion from dead set against it to all for it.

 

That was the case in the region this thread is fixated on. Lack of understanding combined with some concern for safety. After understanding was given and the safety concerns were addressed we have ET version 2.

 

The driving force is Geocacher $$$. GeoTourism is an untapped force. I have been saying this for years if anyone wants to do a forum search. We shouldn't fear land managers. Land managers will fear losing GeoTourism dollars as geocaching becomes more and more mainstream.

Edited by Snoogans
Link to comment

That was the case in the region this thread is fixated on. Lack of understanding combined with some concern for safety. After understanding was given and the safety concerns were addressed we have ET version 2.

I thought it was addressed by the NDOT punting the caches into someone else's jurisdiction. The often cited tourist dollars don't amount to much and they are not the BLM's concern anyway.

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)?

It's a very fair question, and pleasantly put, so I think in fairness I owe you a response.

 

Like a lot of folks, I probably misjudged how much other people agree with me.

 

I had read through the logs of these caches before and saw a lot of lamenting by cachers that the CO's wishes were being ignored and increasingly visible tracks were showing up. When the satellite images were updated and I saw this definitive outline emerging, I got ticked off, and thought that bringing it to other active cachers' attention there would be a groundswell of "That sucks! People should listen to the CO! This doesn't make us look very good!" and possibly (slim chance?) even some suggestions for ways to actually get people to stop driving it. I'm not sure if that is even possible, with the series so close to the ET Highway, but I'm no expert on managing cacher behavior either.

 

Some folks here obviously agree with me. And clearly, there are some who don't. Which I suppose is why this thread is eleventy-billion pages long instead of, well, much shorter.

 

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

That's about where I am on it. I think reasonable debate can be had on the desert ecology - what constitutes damage, how long does it take to repair itself, from an environmental standpoint does it even matter, is it okay if it generates revenue for Rachel, etc.

 

But some of the other responses I think don't help our image very much.

Link to comment
I believe most Land Managers who might read this will be smart, educated and experienced enough to know that for the area in question it IS a non issue, and those who have been arguing it isn't have no true knowledge of the area and practices in place there.

I worry a bit about reactionary bureaucrats (land managers or politicians) who decide that they're anti-caching and will happily pick and choose which of our words to use against us. Well-reasoned posts about desert ecology (on both sides) are likely to be ignored, but I think some of the other posts are more likely come up again.

Link to comment

That was the case in the region this thread is fixated on. Lack of understanding combined with some concern for safety. After understanding was given and the safety concerns were addressed we have ET version 2.

I thought it was addressed by the NDOT punting the caches into someone else's jurisdiction. The often cited tourist dollars don't amount to much and they are not the BLM's concern anyway.

Nope, the CO worked directly with NDOT and now have thier blessing. B)

Link to comment

That was the case in the region this thread is fixated on. Lack of understanding combined with some concern for safety. After understanding was given and the safety concerns were addressed we have ET version 2.

I thought it was addressed by the NDOT punting the caches into someone else's jurisdiction. The often cited tourist dollars don't amount to much and they are not the BLM's concern anyway.

Nope, the CO worked directly with NDOT and now have thier blessing. B)

Their blessing to move the caches out of the NDOT right of way is not quite the same as their blessing. Anyway, I'm sure their blessing is actually documented somewhere, rather than just rumor. Right?

Link to comment
Their blessing to move the caches out of the NDOT right of way is not quite the same as their blessing. Anyway, I'm sure their blessing is actually documented somewhere, rather than just rumor. Right?

I think so. This interview even uses the term 'blessing'. It doesn't address the Alien Head, or driving right up to the caches in general. But it does suggest that safety was NDOT's primary concern. There is something in there about the caches not being placed beyond 200' of the easement mark, but I'm not really sure what the implications of that are.

 

http://onlinegeocacher.com/issue/real_time/article/the-return-of-the-et-highway

Edited by addisonbr
Link to comment
I believe most Land Managers who might read this will be smart, educated and experienced enough to know that for the area in question it IS a non issue, and those who have been arguing it isn't have no true knowledge of the area and practices in place there.

I worry a bit about reactionary bureaucrats (land managers or politicians) who decide that they're anti-caching and will happily pick and choose which of our words to use against us. Well-reasoned posts about desert ecology (on both sides) are likely to be ignored, but I think some of the other posts are more likely come up again.

Its possible they may read the title, skim over the thread and overreact, believing there is a genuine concern because of reactionary cachers. However, I'm concerned about the extraterrestrials who may see the alien head from space and think we are taunting them.

Link to comment

You guys do realise that "visible from space" was impressive when it meant something like "visible from the naked eye from a spaceship in orbit"? :unsure: Nowadays, if you use the definition as meaning "you can see it on Google maps or Google Earth" pretty much everything that can be seen from above is "visible from space". Zooming on some parks around here, I can see the deer trails :rolleyes:

 

Hey, my house is so big it's visible from space! :lol:

Link to comment

You guys do realise that "visible from space" was impressive when it meant something like "visible from the naked eye from a spaceship in orbit"? :unsure: Nowadays, if you use the definition as meaning "you can see it on Google maps or Google Earth" pretty much everything that can be seen from above is "visible from space". Zooming on some parks around here, I can see the deer trails :rolleyes:

 

Hey, my house is so big it's visible from space! :lol:

This is all very true.

 

Of more interest, I think, is that these are the first satellite images that show evidence of easily identifiable geotrails that I am aware of (I could be wrong). In the past, people had to visit locations to see impacts. That doesn't seem to be true, here.

 

Whether what is seen is evidence of damage or not is clearly a debated issue here. But that it's visible in the imagery, is new.

Edited by addisonbr
Link to comment

That was the case in the region this thread is fixated on. Lack of understanding combined with some concern for safety. After understanding was given and the safety concerns were addressed we have ET version 2.

I thought it was addressed by the NDOT punting the caches into someone else's jurisdiction. The often cited tourist dollars don't amount to much and they are not the BLM's concern anyway.

Nope, the CO worked directly with NDOT and now have thier blessing. B)

Their blessing to move the caches out of the NDOT right of way is not quite the same as their blessing. Anyway, I'm sure their blessing is actually documented somewhere, rather than just rumor. Right?

Here's another article about it...from a news agency

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

"After five months on hiatus a compromise was reached.

 

"So we've worked with them and we've gone over safety policies where to put them where not to put them what we recommend and what we don't recommend," Booth said.

 

The caches were moved well off the highway and re-activated on the web site in August, and geocachers again flocked to Rachel.

 

"It's probably the best thing that ever happened, other than the alien technology that we have been blessed with," said Travis.

 

Now even more caches have been added, two different groups making the shape of a spaceship and an alien head when you log them on your map.

 

The Little A'Le'Inn now has anywhere from 50 to 500 visitors a day, the majority of whom are geocachers."

 

Realisticly they probably don't get 50-500 a day...but that's Fox News for ya.

Link to comment

 

The Little A'Le'Inn now has anywhere from 50 to 500 visitors a day, the majority of whom are geocachers."

 

Realisticly they probably don't get 50-500 a day...but that's Fox News for ya.

 

If kite fliers from all over the world flocked to Rachel, NV to fly their kites in the desert and stayed in, or shopped at the Little Ale' Inn, the proprietors would be praising kite flying as the best hobby ever.

Link to comment

Sorry I've been absent. I've been playing in the woods.

Now that I'm back, there are a few points I'd like to address;

 

If it were possible to drive a vehicle to them, (the Yin-Yang caches),...people would.

Facts not in evidence, your honor. As far as the Yin-Yang series goes, it is certainly possible to drive directly, off road, from one cache to another, (presuming you have a fairly stout 4x4 and a chainsaw), though if you like your paint job and your side view mirrors, fenders, radio antennas, little things like that, I wouldn't recommend it. If you were a numbers oriented cacher who wanted to shave some time off your hunt, or, if you were lazy, and wanted to minimize how far you hiked, you could come in on the numbered roads which cut all through the Yin-Yang. Perfectly legal. Yet, folks don't even do that. Judging from the logs I've read, folks are hiking it for the most part. Not sure why folks hike this one, and drive the alien head. A few have implied, (myself included), that the power trail near the alien head is to blame, but in retrospect, I'm not sure that's accurate, as there are a couple minor power trails close to the Yin-Yang. Heck, for that matter, the Yin-Yang itself could be viewed as a power trail, in that it is a group of caches, with a common theme, placed in close proximity to one another, designed to be done as a group. With that in mind, the existence of a nearby power trail, in and of itself, should not bear all the blame. It's starting to look like it is the type of cacher who is particularly attracted to maximizing smileys that might be to blame. I think the fastest recorded time for acquiring all 60 of the Yin-Yang caches is three solid days of extreme effort. That would probably seem inefficient to a numbers driven cacher.

 

And while I find your interest in the Yin-Yang series fascinating, it has little to do with the issue of land manager perceptions. So far, no one has started a thread in a mostly public forum pointing out any environmental damage to the Yin-Yang area, and, more importantly, no one has replied to those concerns with contempt and/or disdain, spewing such silliness as, "It's just a forest", or the ever popular, "There are no signs prohibiting habitat destruction in that forest, so quit whining". Or even something like, "You can see the Great Wall Of China from space. This damage shouldn't bother you". If such a thread is ever started, and the replies follow the negative examples seen in this thread, then your queries regarding the Yin-Yang series might hold at least a hint of relevance.

 

How about an honest comment?

Sure. What would you like me to comment on? In your continuing bid to steer this discussion away from the issue of land manager perception upon seeing what could easily be interpreted as apathy toward environmental concerns, you've bounced around a bit. I will happily comment on whatever topic you wish, but for the sake of brevity, you should be specific regarding what you wish me to comment on.

 

Seems you are familiar with that particular series.

I am. I have been to each cache in that series. I might even log them some day. But I'm thinking your question is yet another attempt to direct the focus of this thread away from the issue of land manager perceptions. While diversion is often effective, it is seldom appreciated.

 

Yeah there really is a need for a sarcasm font.

Sarcasm, huh? OK. I can accept that. Didn't see it then. Don't see it now. But I'll take your word for it. Might I suggest sticking to regular conversation? Sarcasm as a communication technique is a true art form. It would appear that neither of us are artists...

 

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?

 

Yes we can make those assumptions, if you wish, but there really is no need to say anything for the sake of argument. The facts are easy to establish, at least for that series. I can give you the answers to each of those assumptions. If you like, you can email anyone else who has done the Yin-Yang, and they will verify my description of this area. 

 

First, this is public land, specifically, the Ocala National Forest. Second, while there are a few signs posted, they are few and far between, as only a small handful of the trails you see have been designated as foot traffic only. The rest are "numbered", which makes them legal to drive on, provided you have a licensed motor vehicle. There is also a set of ATV/OHV only trails which the National Forest has built, though most of these are too recent to show on the current satellite image. Maybe next year? Almost all of these trails are wide enough for vehicles.

 

Knowing that, (as mentioned before), judging by the logs I've read, folks i've talked with and first hand experience, folks, so far, have not been driving these trails. Even though, unlike the alien head series, doing so is perfectly legal. As for guessing what folks will do in the future, that would be tough, as my beliefs are in conflict with my observations. I assumed folks would be driving those trails from day one. But I was wrong. Generally, when asked to speculate on the future, I tend to look for patterns in past behavior. Since I still can't figure out why folks, for the most part, are not driving them now, I fear any guess I made would be inherently flawed.

 

Personally, I would rather debate the issue of land manager perceptions, as I feel that this is the most serious issue raised in this thread. But I understand your desire to avoid that topic if at all possible, as it is much easier to toss out irrelevancies than it is to explore one's own possible flaws.

 

I did a bit of scanning around with the satellite view (of the Yin-Yang area) 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.

 

If the issue at hand was trails in Florida, rather than land managers perceptions, your observatory skills would be helpful. But since it's not, such observations are somewhat off topic. But I suppose I could humor your diversion. Let us compare the two sets of trails, and see where it goes. 

 

1 ) The area around the alien head has, (according to a local), a requirement that off road vehicle operation be limited to existing trails. The area around the Yin-Yang has similar rules saying motor vehicle operation is only allowed on named or numbered roads.

 

2 ) The trails leading from cache to cache around the alien head were probably made by geocachers, violating the "Stay on existing trails" rule. The trails which cut through the Yin-Yang were created by the land managers themselves.

 

3 ) The BLM folks might care that folks are violating their rules, despite numerous claims that they won't care. Those waters haven't been tested yet. Hopefully they won't be tested, as the result could, conceivably, impact our hobby. The National Forest folks will almost certainly not care that they, (the National Forest folks), created trails where the Yin-Yang series resides, and as such there is a much smaller risk that these trails might impact our hobby.

 

4 ) According to one Nevada local, there is a tank tread impression which was made near the alien head area back around WWII, which is still visible today, some 70 years later. To me, this is an indication that the area around the alien head takes a long, long time to heal. Earlier I used the term "environmentally sensitive" to describe this phenomenon. Perhaps "environmentally delicate" would better describe it? I'm open to suggestion if you have a better term to describe a habitat that lacks the ability to regenerate in a timely manner. When the National Forest folks select a new area to clear cut, the first thing they do is carve a road around that area for logging truck access. They practice what some would call a scorched earth method, using bulldozers and front end loaders, wiping out every living plant in their way. It's an ugly site. Generally these roads are incorporated into the forest roadway system, given numerical designations, and opened up for Joe Public to use. These roads will not heal so long as Joe keeps driving down them. However, not all roads are left open. When I was plotting my hikes to each of these caches, I used Google Earth to nab a buttload of waypoints, copy/pasting these into Mapsource, eventually building what I thought was a fairly comprehensive trail database for the area, which I then loaded into my Garmin. When I put boots to soil, I discovered that some of these roads, which were crystal clear in GE, were healed, so much so that I could find no trace of them. This led me to the conclusion that the area around the Yin-Yang series healed rather quickly. Perhaps we could define such an area as "environmentally hardy"? If all other factors were equal, I would say that a trail, which can remain visible for several decades, made by people violating the rules, is worse than a trail, made by a land manager, which is undetectable in a decade.

 

So, from my perspective, I would say, "Yes, the trails around the Yin-Yang series are OK. No. The trails leading from cache to cache in the alien head are not OK. Granted, this is just my opinion.

 

Can we get back on topic now?

 

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...

Just for clarification: The trails around the Yin-Yang series are almost entirely legal to drive on. But cachers are apparently choosing to hike them instead, for some bizarre reason. (Obviously they have not mastered Laziness 101) The BLM policy requiring that off road vehicle operation be limited to existing trails seems to indicate that the area directly between Cache A and Cache B, (etc. etc.), on the alien head are not legal to drive on. Yet many cachers do so any way.

 

Looks like apples and aardvarks to me...

 

It's more pointing out that his stance "is the only stance"...

My "stance" is that negative land manager perceptions, whether accurate or not, can have a negative impact on where we are allowed to play this game. This belief is based on actual past incidents, to include the NPS ban based upon their belief that we bury caches, the attempt in the Carolinas to ban caching state wide, (which eventually led to the cemetery ban), based on some politician's belief that we are disrespectful toward the dead, the attempted ban of caching in the Little Big Econ State Forest, which ultimately led to a moratorium that took me several years to correct, based on the belief that cachers use crappy containers and don't ask for permission, the ban on caching in a huge park in California based on the belief that cachers don't care about the environment.

 

I do not believe that this is the "only" stance, contrary to your claim. But I do think it is the one which could conceivably impact us the most. Another stance that is somewhat worrisome to me is that folks are apparently ignoring the BLM rule requiring that folks who drive off road must stick to designated trails. I will be happy to explain why this concerns me, if you wish, but at least in my eyes, it is the lesser evil. Yet another stance is that, rules aside, folks are driving off road. Even if it were allowed, I personally see it as a bad idea, but in my mind, it's not a huge issue. A fourth stance is that folks are ignoring the politely worded request of the cache owner by driving from cache to cache. To my way of thinking, this is the least significant issue of the four. Sure it's rude, but rude isn't the end of the world, though it might rate honorable mention... maybe.

 

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.

If, by bushwhack, you mean off trail hiking, then you are correct. I believe that this is spelled out quite clearly on the various cache pages. It has been my experience that if you want to find a cache in a woodland environment, you are probably going to bushwhack to some extent. I've found that if you place a cache directly on an actual trail, it doesn't last very long. Which is probably why most folks who hide woodland caches go anywhere between an inch to many, many miles off trail, to hide them. Perhaps you could start a new thread to discuss the pros and cons of bushwhacking? It seems a bit off topic here.

 

There is no bushwacking involved on the alien head

If you take a 2 ton SUV, (or other vehicle), and drive over the same plant, say, for instance, a sage, so often that said plant is utterly obliterated, leaving nothing but sand behind, wouldn't that bush be whacked? I can't help but think that, if we alter the definition of bushwhacking from simple off trail movement to off trail damage, it matters less what physically caused any damage, (a Goodyear radial vs. a Rocky hiking boot), and more that such damage was done. By that definition, the alien head most certainly has bushwhacking, and lots of it. I would even go so far as to say the alien head series has more bushwhacking than the Yin-Yang series, as, given two areas of equal size, a vehicle traveling through that area would, in my opinion, cause more damage than a person hiking.

 

But again, all this is off topic.

 

With that, I must bid good evening, as I have some kumquat and wild orange pies to make.,

Link to comment

Sure is funny how people measure the sensitivity of the environment based on what the are familiar with and want to apply that to a different environment on the other side of the country.

 

If you're used to vast open space with only a few shrubs you assume the at wooded area is too dense to move through without bushwhacking. If you're use to woodland with lots of vegetation that grows back quickly if you drive through it, you see a track that last 70 years as sign that the land is sensitive.

 

If you live where even bulldozed roads are difficult to see through the tree cover, you may believe that a visible track on a satellite photo is a sure sign of mayhem on the ground.

 

It's not clear from what's been presented here that the BLM in Rachel has a regulation that you must stick to existing tracks or washes. It seems that was for the Las Vegas Field office which probably would a have a bigger problem with the high traffic going off road and creating tracks. In other areas is seem this more of a request and of course it is common practice among responsible off-road users in general. The problem is when someone does create a new track, others will use it. It seems that a few geocahers did ignore the cache owner's request and drove from cache to cache. After this happened a few times, the geocachers simply began following the "existing" track. Since the track is going to last 70 years in the desert anyhow, it doesn't make sense to tell geocachers not to drive it now.

 

The biggest problem here is not the damage done to the desert, or that people are continuing to drive the alien head. I believe most finders have either walked the alien or drove it following existing tracks. Someone did drive from cache to cache and did create new tracks. There are a number of reasons this area of desert might encourage this "bad" behavior and in that way this is different than a Florida forest. It is unlikely that the E.T. Power Trail is the cause of the problem.

Link to comment

 

The caches were moved well off the highway and re-activated on the web site in August, and geocachers again flocked to Rachel.

 

 

When I read that the caches were moved further away from the road I wondered if there would be some that would just drive parallel to the road to get to the caches quicker, so I just looked at a few logs and found this:

 

"We logged in as SNS as we were traveling on what we called the E.T. Frontage Road."

 

I wonder if this "frontage road" existed prior to the new version of the E.T. trail or was created after the caches were moved further away from the road.

Link to comment

Sure is funny how people measure the sensitivity of the environment based on what the are familiar with and want to apply that to a different environment on the other side of the country.

It is certainly curious, I suppose. Thankfully, that statement doesn't apply to many of the folks debating this issue, myself included, as we have been blessed with experiencing more than one geographic region, and their various habitat types during our lifetimes. While it is true that my time in the desert was before I started playing this quirky little hobby, I think I could accurately claim a fairly high degree of experience in that environment. Should we debate tropical rainforests, subtropic woodlands, or mountainous terrain, I think I could offer a reasonable opinion on those as well.

 

If you're used to vast open space with only a few shrubs you assume the at wooded area is too dense to move through without bushwhacking.

Something else I've noticed is that the term "bushwhacking" has varying connotations based upon ones region and socioeconomic upbringing. For instance, to me, when I hear about someone bushwhacking, I picture someone hiking off trail, carefully weaving through the trees/shrubs, causing little to no damage. But a close friend of mine who lives north of me thinks you aren't bushwhacking unless you are hacking and slicing your way through the brush, flailing away with machettes or other impliments of destruction.

 

If you're use to woodland with lots of vegetation that grows back quickly if you drive through it, you see a track that last 70 years as sign that the land is sensitive.

Yeah, I'm thinking that "environmentally sensitive" might have been a poor choice of words. When I looked up the phrase "environmentally sensitive", I found it really didn't describe what I was trying to convey. Hence, my change to "environmentally delicate" to describe a habitat that is unable to heal itself. If that phrase doesn't work for you, I would be willing to change it again, so that the message I am trying to convey is properly received. It is my contention that we, as players of a game that is often touted as being played by environmentally concious people, should tread a little lighter than normal if we are in an area where damage could last more than half a century due to the habitat being unable to heal itself. Sort of a paper or plastic kind of thing? Maybe? If I see some guy toss a paper grocery bag out of his car window, it would likely irritate me, as I am not very tollerant toward littering, but I am unwilling to get worked up over it, as here in Florida, that bag will be fully decomposed in a matter of days. But if I see that same guy toss a plastic grocery bag, it would probably affect me more, as I know that bag might still be there 6 months from now. Not all damage is created equal. Short term damage is, in my eyes, less of a problem than long term damage.

 

It seems that was for the Las Vegas Field office which probably would a have a bigger problem with the high traffic going off road and creating tracks. In other areas is seem this more of a request and of course it is common practice among responsible off-road users in general.

Agreed. The local who posted the regulation regarding driving off trail advised that he got that information from the Las Vegas Field Office. I think? The alien head is in Lincoln County, which is in the Ely District, and falls under the jurisdiction of the Caliente Field Office, US Highway 93, Building #1, Caliente NV 89008, Phone: 775-726-8100. Whether or not the particular region is relevent is yet to be determined. The National Archives And Records Administration maintains an online database of regulations which apply to all BLM lands. To be more precise, that link leads you on a tour of Title 43, delving into Subtitle B, Chapter II, Subchapter A, regarding general management. The BLM does have unique regulations for certain properties, but the area in question is not one of them. I did find out that there are three designations utilized by the BLM for OHV (off highway vehicle) use, according to this document: Open = unlimited use for OHV, Limited = Stay on approved routes of travel, Closed = No motor vehicles allowed. According to BLM, most of their properties are Limited, though I haven't found a map dictating which areas have which designations. If I remember, I'll call Caliente Monday and inquire. I'll be on duty, so I can't promise that my dispatchers will grant me time to do so, but I'll try. I'm curious about it myself.

 

Since the track is going to last 70 years in the desert anyhow, it doesn't make sense to tell geocachers not to drive it now.

As I grew in my law enforcement career, I studied a phenominom known as "Broken Windows Theory", which relates to neighborhood apathy following the continuation of problematic behaviors. This theory seems to disagree with your advice, addressing the consequences of ignoring bad behavior. The notion that "everybody does it, so it must be OK" is, historically speaking, a recipe for failure.

 

The biggest problem here is not the damage done to the desert, or that people are continuing to drive the alien head.

True. The biggest problem, as I see it, is how some land managers could perceive us as a group when reading some of the argments made in defense of driving off road in this area. Other folks may see other issues brought up during the course of this thread as having the greatest possible impact on our hobby.

Link to comment
According to BLM, most of their properties are Limited, though I haven't found a map dictating which areas have which designations. If I remember, I'll call Caliente Monday and inquire. I'll be on duty, so I can't promise that my dispatchers will grant me time to do so, but I'll try. I'm curious about it myself.

 

I don't want to get into the argument, but I want to say this:

 

If you could get your hands on a map or document that says what land is open to what use, that would be fantastic! I'm an avid off-roader and something like that would be priceless. Let us know if you're able to get your hands on anything!

Link to comment
If you could get your hands on a map or document that says what land is open to what use, that would be fantastic! I'm an avid off-roader and something like that would be priceless. Let us know if you're able to get your hands on anything!

I agree. Such a map could be quite handy. I don't doubt that such a map exists, somewhere online, but my Google skills are not up to snuff. :(

Link to comment

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Link to comment

Here's something pretty interesting I found while looking up BLM stuff for Nevada. Turns out they found some dinosaur tracks in Red Rock Canyon a few days back!

 

http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/lvfo/blm_information/newsroom/2011/november/dinosaur_tracks_confirmed.html

 

No, sorry, those were mine... I was running out of time while caching the area, and someone suggested I make tracks.

 

So I did.

Link to comment
I wouldn't even have been able to make out the markings if the dots hadn't been superimposed. I'm not sure what the big deal is.

If there's one thing I know, it's that trails only a little visible from space, are practically invisible in person.

I walked it back in Aug 11 and had to use my GPS as you really couldnt make out the tire markings.

Link to comment

Here's something pretty interesting I found while looking up BLM stuff for Nevada. Turns out they found some dinosaur tracks in Red Rock Canyon a few days back!

 

http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/lvfo/blm_information/newsroom/2011/november/dinosaur_tracks_confirmed.html

OK. That's officially kewl! Unless you are the dinosaur in question, and you get cited for damaging the ecosystem with your big, clumsy dinosaur feet... :ph34r:

Link to comment

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Well that pretty much settles 8 pages of argument.

Link to comment

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Well that pretty much settles 8 pages of argument.

Not exactly. It clarified the BLM regulations for this particular area. So the argument that it is legal to go anywhere on the land is moot. There is still the issue of what this means to geocaching.

 

People hide caches all the time in parks that are closed a night. They may even post the hours on the cache page and ask that people not look for the cache after hours. Yet we all know that someone will likely ignore the signs and go look for the cache. This is what happened here. The cache owner asked that people walk from cache to cache. Someone, either ignorant of the BLM regs or in spite of them decided to drive. And once there were tracks other followed. The definition of established trails is what is listed on BLM maps, but most people don't have these maps in the desert so they follow track on the ground that look established. I suspect that the BLM maps are frequently updated as new trails get established and others fall into disuse.

 

Geocaching has created a new issue for the BLM in that caches are often placed some distance from established trails in order to protect them from muggles, or to create a pattern when viewed on the map. In some areas, people will ignore rules and regulation simply because they are in too much of a hurry. If a land manager finds this cause a problems, then maybe it is best that they develop geocaching regulations that limit the distance a cache can be placed from a trail in order to discourage driving to the cache off road.

 

The best strategy to prevent knee-jerk reactions from other land managers because some tracks were left in the desert, is to provide an honest view of the impacts that geocaching has. Land managers need to know that they can work with local geocaching groups to develop guidelines or regulations for placement of caches and that Groundspeak volunteers will not knowingly publish caches that violate these local regulations. In fact the ET trail shows how local cachers were able to work with the NDOT to resolve issues with caches too close to the highway. If in fact this was just to push the problem over to BLM lands, it may be that the local cachers should be working with the BLM as well. Who knows, they might even be able to get the Alien Head Trail added to next revision of the BLM maps.

Link to comment

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Well that pretty much settles 8 pages of argument.

 

I disagree.

 

It doesn't settle the catch-22 part about established trails.

 

Clearly, a trail is established for good or ill. What should be done about it? What would happen if say I was caught driving on it?

 

The latter question is pretty easy to answer. Nothing would happen because I would be driving on an established trail. I pass to the South of there pretty regularly. It stands to reason that at some point I would make time to do the power trail. If I'm there, in July or August, in a vehicle that I would be comfortable to take off road, I would take the trail for my own safety (exposure to heat & dehydration being the main concern) or give it a pass.

 

The former question of what should be done rests squarely on the CO as I have stated before. Just how committed are they to their belief that the trail that now exists because of their caches is a bad thing that should be erased? How attached are they to their clever design in the desert? The caches are still there at this point. You decide what you think the CO finds more important.

 

Regardless of the stated intentions of the OP we have arrived back here. The OP and the CO clearly wish people to walk, but we now have an established vehicle trail....

 

It stands to reason that the CO is responsible for the impact because the impact trail forms the pattern of the caches. What would you have him do about it? :unsure:

Edited by Snoogans
Link to comment
It doesn't settle the catch-22 part about established trails.

I think it addresses whether or not the BLM would care; their definition of 'established' is more specific than many here (myself included) thought.

 

It doesn't address whether or not cachers care, or should care, about what the BLM cares about.

Link to comment
Not exactly. It clarified the BLM regulations for this particular area. So the argument that it is legal to go anywhere on the land is moot. There is still the issue of what this means to geocaching.

 

I can't imagine any scenario where it would be a good thing for geocaching.

 

But we know by now that you lack imagination outside of NJ, right?

 

That is correct, my imagination is limted. There may be places where land managers actually welcome damage to the ecosystem.

Link to comment

It stands to reason that the CO is responsible for the impact because the impact trail forms the pattern of the caches. What would you have him do about it? :unsure:

 

It doesn't settle the catch-22 part about established trails.

I think it addresses whether or not the BLM would care; their definition of 'established' is more specific than many here (myself included) thought.

 

It doesn't address whether or not cachers care, or should care, about what the BLM cares about.

 

Ahhh but you started this thread... And since the CO hasn't checked in, (why on Earth would he) I care what you think should be done about these caches that clearly caused this impact to commercially utilized public land.... :unsure:

 

You started this thread and called specific attention to the impact and the CO's wishes. A poster to this thread actually contacted the exact government office that manages the land to ram your point home.

 

Now.....What should be done? Or what would you like to see the CO do? :unsure: Was this all for the sake of argument? Because either way the it's all on the CO. The trail is already well established from what I can gather. (BLM Catch-22) So, every dead bush, any change in erosion/runoff patterns, any other flora, fauna, or cow pie that dies under foot or tire is now on the CO and really always has been for that matter. Except for what the cows trample and eat.

Edited by Snoogans
Link to comment
Ahhh but you started this thread... And since the CO hasn't checked in, (why on Earth would he) I care what you think should be done about these caches that clearly caused this impact to commercially utilized public land.... :unsure:

 

You started this thread and called specific attention to the impact and the CO's wishes. A poster to this thread actually contacted the exact government office that manages the land to ram your point home.

 

Now.....What should be done? Or what would you like to see the CO do? :unsure: Was this all for the sake of argument? Because either way the it's all on the CO. The trail is already well established from what I can gather. (BLM Catch-22) So, every dead bush, any change in erosion/runoff patterns, any other flora, fauna, or cow pie that dies under foot or tire is now on the CO and really always has been for that matter.

As far as what should be done, I think that cachers should not drive the trail, in accordance with the wishes of the CO (and, apparently, the wishes of the BLM, although I'm extrapolating a bit based on the BLM's definition of established). If the community could successfully discourage cachers from driving the trail, to keep from making the trail evidence increasingly visible to land managers (not just those in Nevada), that would make me happy.

 

I don't know the best way to do that. It may be that with the trail so close to the ET Highway, it would be impossible to keep many cachers from flaunting the CO's cache page and the BLM's policies. But I'm open to suggestions.

Link to comment
Ahhh but you started this thread... And since the CO hasn't checked in, (why on Earth would he) I care what you think should be done about these caches that clearly caused this impact to commercially utilized public land.... :unsure:

 

You started this thread and called specific attention to the impact and the CO's wishes. A poster to this thread actually contacted the exact government office that manages the land to ram your point home.

 

Now.....What should be done? Or what would you like to see the CO do? :unsure: Was this all for the sake of argument? Because either way the it's all on the CO. The trail is already well established from what I can gather. (BLM Catch-22) So, every dead bush, any change in erosion/runoff patterns, any other flora, fauna, or cow pie that dies under foot or tire is now on the CO and really always has been for that matter. Except for what the cows trample and eat.

As far as what should be done, I think that cachers should not drive the trail, in accordance with the wishes of the CO (and, apparently, the wishes of the BLM, although I'm extrapolating a bit based on the BLM's definition of established). If the community could successfully discourage cachers from driving the trail, to keep from making the trail evidence increasingly visible to land managers (not just those in Nevada), that would make me happy.

 

I don't know the best way to do that. It may be that with the trail so close to the ET Highway, it would be impossible to keep many cachers from flaunting the CO's cache page and the BLM's policies. But I'm open to suggestions.

 

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

 

I think that even if a small percentage of cachers using that trail practice CITO in that area, so close to the highway, it is much better off than the land nearby that doesn't have caches. I think if what's-her-name from the BLM were to sample the area (boots on the ground) and compare it to other areas along NV highways without caches, she would see a difference for the positive and not even be concerned about a vehicle trail in what amounts to a publicly owned commercial cow pasture.

 

Does that mean I hate the desert? No. Am I hurting geocaching's image because it is still at odds with your side of the fence and the CO's wishes? No.

 

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

Link to comment

As far as what should be done, I think that cachers should not drive the trail, in accordance with the wishes of the CO (and, apparently, the wishes of the BLM, although I'm extrapolating a bit based on the BLM's definition of established). If the community could successfully discourage cachers from driving the trail, to keep from making the trail evidence increasingly visible to land managers (not just those in Nevada), that would make me happy.

I'm not sure there is a way to do this. For the most part geocachers try to be be good stewards of the environment and not cause damage to any property, public or private, in hiding, finding, or logging of a geocache. But like many other guidelines and "creeds", these are not enforceable. The fact is anyone can go geocaching. And that means there will be people who ignore requests from cache owners and may even ignore land managers' regulations and run the risk of a fine.

 

These caches were placed in a part of the desert that is already crisscrossed by tracks that include tracks that are not "established" or listed on the BLM maps. Despite the regulations, off-roaders in ATVs and ranchers in 4x4 trucks tend to go where they want. It was inevitable that someone would drive from cache to cache here. And in this environment it only takes one to create a new track that others will follow.

 

It is up to the cache owner and the BLM to determine what to do here. Arguing in the forum isn't going to change the facts or prevent a repeat in another area with similar conditions. The CO could archive the cache and state simply that they did not intend for the caches to be driven to because they knew it could cause such damage. The BLM could ask for the caches to be archived, and they could review their geocaching policy. I would hope the local geocachers would work with them so the response is reasoned and not a knee jerk reaction. Guidelines for placing caches near existing tracks might reduce the chance of cachers creating new tracks.

 

It's also possible that the BLM may view the damage as minor compared to what other activities have caused. Once the track is there, it seems that cachers are following it and not creating new ones. An explanation that most geocachers followed the CO's request not to drive and that nearly all who did drive followed the existing track might be enough to convince the BLM that geocachers are not intentionally destroying the environment. A CITO event could also help land managers realize that most geocachers are concerned about impacts and that they are willing to volunteer time to help mitigate impacts.

Link to comment

A CITO event could also help land managers realize that most geocachers are concerned about impacts and that they are willing to volunteer time to help mitigate impacts.

 

'Sorry, my brother did a full-throttle burnout across your backyard, in his 4WD pickup.

Can I take out your trash to make up for that?'

 

These 'social trails' are exactly what the BLM policy is trying to prevent. The 'somebody already drove here so it's OK for me to do it also' mentality is just rationalization to do something you KNOW is wrong.

 

What can we do about it?

Probably nothing...other than get out there before the BLM fences the area off (after doling out a few hefty fines to violators).

 

If the alien head was out there by itself, I suspect there would be at least a bit more respect for the rules. The 'clientele' attracted by the power trail are only (well, certainly mostly) interested in gaining the maximum smilies in the minimum time...and if they happen to add their own mark in the desert in the process, so what?

 

Do I think any of this has done real damage to the desert? Hardly. All of it will be erased by plate tectonics, or climate change, or a meteor strike.

 

The short-term concern is still 'what will land managers in other areas make of this'.

Link to comment
Clearly, a trail is established for good or ill. What should be done about it? What would happen if say I was caught driving on it?

 

The latter question is pretty easy to answer. Nothing would happen because I would be driving on an established trail.

It's at that point where your debate hits a snag. You are not using the same definition of "established" as those who own/manage the property in question. You are using the version that most closely fits your side of the debate. Unfortunately, your version is quite different from the BLM's version. To them, an "established trail" is not simply one left by multiple careless and lazy cache hunters, disregarding the request of a cache owner, and thwarting the rules of the land manager. Their version is a bit more specific, requiring a particular trail designation, either by name or by number, recognized by the BLM.

 

A strictly hyperbolic analogy would be me driving my agency's M-113 tracked personnel carrier across the green of a golf course. It will certainly leave a trail. If I drove across it again, I doubt that they would forgive my actions based on the fact that there was an "established" trail there. :unsure:

 

As to what action they would take, that has already been noted. You would get a "serious" fine for doing so, according to the Caliente Field Office Recreation Specialist. (Not sure what they consider to be "serious") :unsure:

 

It stands to reason that the CO is responsible for the impact because the impact trail forms the pattern of the caches.

I would argue that those mooks who ignored the requests of the cache owner, and ignored the rules of the land manager, driving from cache to cache, gouging tire tracks across an ecosystem that takes decades to heal, are the ones responsible for the impact. Your reality would have us blame guns themselves for gun violence, instead of the people visiting violence against one another.

 

676_make-it-stop.gif

Oh, that's an easy one!

Just stop clicking that little "Reply" button.

Eventually it will go away.

But as long as you keep posting, it'll probably keep going.

Not judgin', just sayin'... :ph34r::P

 

A poster to this thread actually contacted the exact government office that manages the land to ram your point home.

Actually, I contacted the Land Manager for much more selfish reasons; to satisfy my curiosity. Having dealt with the bureaucratic mind set for my entire career, I thought I had a pretty good grasp on what their thoughts on the matter would be. Then you came along and made some very intelligent arguments which ran contrary to my beliefs. I wanted to see if I was right. If I understood addisonbr, he saw many different issues that raised some concern, though one issue was repeatedly stated to be his biggest concern. Specifically, the opinions of Land Managers regarding the disdain displayed by some members in this forum. Had I wanted to "ram" his point home, my approach would have been very different.

 

I think if what's-her-name from the BLM were to sample the area (boots on the ground) and compare it to other areas along NV highways without caches, she would see a difference for the positive and not even be concerned about a vehicle trail in what amounts to a publicly owned commercial cow pasture.

Her name is Lisa. She's quite friendly. Hardly deserving your dismissal.

But back to the topic: You may be right. Having worked closely with many Land Managers, it's been my experience that they do spend quite a bit of time with boots on soil. I imagine Lisa has spent quite a bit of her career ground pounding. As to her shrugging off the damage caused by those driving off road in an area where that activity is prohibited, because a select few might stop racking up their smiley count long enough to pick up the occasional beer can, I didn't actually address that possibility in my conversation, but that is not the impression I was left with. Knowing the bureaucratic mind set like I do, I think your theory is highly unlikely, but I can think of only one way to prove or disprove it, and that is a bridge I am unwilling to cross.

 

If the only way to end this debate is to make the BLM aware of the damage, I'd rather just chalk this whole thing up as a loss for my side and walk away. Reason has failed. Deduction has failed. Intuition has failed. I'd rather not try proof, as that might have consequences which I am unwilling to accept.

Link to comment

I would argue that those mooks who ignored the requests of the cache owner, and ignored the rules of the land manager, driving from cache to cache, gouging tire tracks across an ecosystem that takes decades to heal, are the ones responsible for the impact. Your reality would have us blame guns themselves for gun violence, instead of the people visiting violence against one another.

10265106.jpg

 

It's pretty obvious that some people can find endless rationalizations for why it is OK to do something they would probably not do if they were not geocaching. We live on an island and so we see people all the time coming from or going to a ferry that "forget" all the normal traffic laws. Laws that they normally would (mostly) respect.

Link to comment

Dear Forum,

 

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

 

Thanks,

 

Apathetic in Dallas.

Link to comment

As far as what should be done, ... (?)

I believe that the only thing that may work is for signage at the entry points to this trial advertising that it is illigal to drive off road on this trail, and showing the $ value of potential fines. A large dirt baracade blocking the trail may help as well (although off roaders may just go around; not like there are trees to prevent that).

 

Who would pay for this? I certainly do not know. The CO could, but that would likely be $1000 or more (for proper signs). A "Supporters of Power Trails" fundraiser? Maybe. Didn't the town of Rachel like this power trail for financial reasons? Maybe they would help pay.

Link to comment
I'd rather not try proof, as that might have consequences which I am unwilling to accept.

Similar thoughts here... It's hard to find the upside to alerting the BLM to specific geotrails. Each day that goes by where they *don't* notice the tracks, I figure is a good day for me.

Edited by addisonbr
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...