Jump to content

Geolittering...


strangeday420
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

I received this today...

 

We wanted to contact you about a recent log you posted on your own cache listing. It reads, "This cache is long gone, I no longer support geocaching, as it is pretty much organized littering. I will archive this listing, and will remove any other cache that I come across whether I placed it or not."  We are asking that you do not write such statements on your own, or another cache owner's cache listing.  We are concerned that cache owners and local Reviewers will see this post as a threat.  Please be aware of how these types of posts will affect the geocaching community.

 

We were surprised to see that a longtime cacher, such as yourself, would write this statement.  Are you willing to explain your intentions in posting this log? Would you care to share more on why you feel geocaching is harmful to the environment?    Also, please know that you are encouraged to help improve this game.  There is a movement (many different ones in fact) toward more environmentally aware geocaching.  Please check out what users are saying at our CITO forum.

 

Regards,

 

Kerb

Volunteer Support Specialist

Groundspeak, Inc. - The Language of Location

 

My response-

As stated, geocaching is littering. Period. The vast majority of caches that I see, do not even meet the sites own rules for proper placement. I highly doubt that the owners of most caches, have cleared the placement with either the land owners, or managers, and the geocaching site does not check this before it posts them. The cache that I just pulled, and commented on, is a perfect example. It was placed on national Forrest land, but I asked permission from a friend who works at the wilson observatory, and was told it would be fine to place it. It's not. The forestry dept. Clearly states that all property left unattended for 24 hours is abandoned, and considered trash. There are many of these up in Angeles forest, and I will make a point of removing them as my schedule allows. There is also user impact to think of as well. Many caches are placed far off trails, leading to plant damage, erosion, and containers left where wildlife could encounter them.

 

I do think that geocaching is a fun pastime, and can be done in a smart and Eco friendly manner, but unfortunately, it's not. The average user of this site, feels it's imperative to have a container full of junk, and little trinkets that this site profits from, in order for it to be worth doing. It was fun at one point, but has devolved into a giant and world wide group who likes to litter, and tell others where they did. I will still continue to search and find confluence points, and benchmarks, but any containers are verboten in my book, and while I won't actively seek to remove others caches, I will pull ones I find poorly placed, or in sensitive environments.

Link to comment

Looks like you've made your mind up.

 

I just find it amusing that someone would think you care about what Groundspeak has to say given the fact that you pretty much just said you didn't.

 

FWIW, I don't disagree with much that you've said.

 

I don't think geocaching as a game is littering. But I do think that lax enforcement of the guidelines concerning maintenance have pushed the game in that direction. But this is not all due to volunteers. Geocachers are reluctant to self-police. There is an ever increasing thirst for the smiley at all cost.

 

Recently Groundspeak reversed a long standing interpretation of the proximity/saturation guideline to pave the way for power trails. Groundspeak volunteers were actually involved in the creation of at least one of these trails. This is further proof that as long as more finds will boost sales/traffic that Groundspeak is willing to look the other way.

 

But to say the sport as a whole is littering is just untrue. Yes, reviewers should be more diligent with permission issues. Yes, cachers should be more diligent with reporting problem caches. Yes, Groundspeak could once again uphold the spirit of the saturation guidelines. There is definitely room for improvement.

 

But this game is not one of littering. Never was and hopefully will not be allowed to become that.

 

* I forgot IBTL

Edited by GeoBain
Link to comment

LOL. Some of the caches I have come across, I would have to agree with you. :laughing: Especially the caches that have been left in play with no owner. These are the caches that breakdown and just blow in the wind to create this geolitter. It's sad. We usually pick up the trash and throw it away and write an archive note on the cache page.

Link to comment

I'm going to watch this topic for a few he's found 47 caches in 9 years hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......................

 

Exactly, sounds like he's a really inexperienced cacher going out and crushing plants, 9/10 there's a trail that'll lead to the cache if not a path that other wildlife has made. I guess common sense isn't so common.

Link to comment

I received this today...

 

We wanted to contact you about a recent log you posted on your own cache listing. It reads, "This cache is long gone, I no longer support geocaching, as it is pretty much organized littering. I will archive this listing, and will remove any other cache that I come across whether I placed it or not."  We are asking that you do not write such statements on your own, or another cache owner's cache listing.  We are concerned that cache owners and local Reviewers will see this post as a threat.  Please be aware of how these types of posts will affect the geocaching community.

 

We were surprised to see that a longtime cacher, such as yourself, would write this statement.  Are you willing to explain your intentions in posting this log? Would you care to share more on why you feel geocaching is harmful to the environment?    Also, please know that you are encouraged to help improve this game.  There is a movement (many different ones in fact) toward more environmentally aware geocaching.  Please check out what users are saying at our CITO forum.

 

Regards,

 

Kerb

Volunteer Support Specialist

Groundspeak, Inc. - The Language of Location

 

My response-

As stated, geocaching is littering. Period. The vast majority of caches that I see, do not even meet the sites own rules for proper placement. I highly doubt that the owners of most caches, have cleared the placement with either the land owners, or managers, and the geocaching site does not check this before it posts them. The cache that I just pulled, and commented on, is a perfect example. It was placed on national Forrest land, but I asked permission from a friend who works at the wilson observatory, and was told it would be fine to place it. It's not. The forestry dept. Clearly states that all property left unattended for 24 hours is abandoned, and considered trash. There are many of these up in Angeles forest, and I will make a point of removing them as my schedule allows. There is also user impact to think of as well. Many caches are placed far off trails, leading to plant damage, erosion, and containers left where wildlife could encounter them.

 

I do think that geocaching is a fun pastime, and can be done in a smart and Eco friendly manner, but unfortunately, it's not. The average user of this site, feels it's imperative to have a container full of junk, and little trinkets that this site profits from, in order for it to be worth doing. It was fun at one point, but has devolved into a giant and world wide group who likes to litter, and tell others where they did. I will still continue to search and find confluence points, and benchmarks, but any containers are verboten in my book, and while I won't actively seek to remove others caches, I will pull ones I find poorly placed, or in sensitive environments.

 

Nice speech, but from my experience I fully expect someone else will be picking up your geotrash. It would be nice to be proven wrong. <_<

Link to comment

I'd like to suggest you get a new hobby.

 

Have you seen the damage that off-road vehicles do? How about those little ORVs?

 

Or even mountain bikers do more damage than geocachers. Why not rail against them for a while.

 

How about people who really do litter? I don't see you taking up that flag. Why not?

It sounds more like you want to make people mad then you want to clean up trash. If you really wanted to clean up trash and keep places pristine then you'd be out doing work against people who really cause problems out there.

I think you're just trying to make people mad.

You must be one of those who has so much hurt inside he just can't do anything but lash out against others to try to hurt them, and this is how you're choosing to do it.

 

I'd say, why don't you really try to make an impact in the world. Really go against litter that shows in the world, not hidden stuff no one can see.

Maybe if you do some good for the world it would do something to help all that pain that you're sitting on.

 

You really can't even make a dent in the number of geocaches in the world.

You might have a better impact if you work toward cleaning up some real trash:

 

220px-Littering_in_Stockholm.jpg

 

11_InterstateLitter.jpg

Link to comment

I received this today...

 

We wanted to contact you about a recent log you posted on your own cache listing. It reads, "This cache is long gone, I no longer support geocaching, as it is pretty much organized littering. I will archive this listing, and will remove any other cache that I come across whether I placed it or not." We are asking that you do not write such statements on your own, or another cache owner's cache listing. We are concerned that cache owners and local Reviewers will see this post as a threat. Please be aware of how these types of posts will affect the geocaching community.

 

We were surprised to see that a longtime cacher, such as yourself, would write this statement. Are you willing to explain your intentions in posting this log? Would you care to share more on why you feel geocaching is harmful to the environment? Also, please know that you are encouraged to help improve this game. There is a movement (many different ones in fact) toward more environmentally aware geocaching. Please check out what users are saying at our CITO forum.

 

Regards,

 

Kerb

Volunteer Support Specialist

Groundspeak, Inc. - The Language of Location

 

My response-

As stated, geocaching is littering. Period. The vast majority of caches that I see, do not even meet the sites own rules for proper placement. I highly doubt that the owners of most caches, have cleared the placement with either the land owners, or managers, and the geocaching site does not check this before it posts them. The cache that I just pulled, and commented on, is a perfect example. It was placed on national Forrest land, but I asked permission from a friend who works at the wilson observatory, and was told it would be fine to place it. It's not. The forestry dept. Clearly states that all property left unattended for 24 hours is abandoned, and considered trash. There are many of these up in Angeles forest, and I will make a point of removing them as my schedule allows. There is also user impact to think of as well. Many caches are placed far off trails, leading to plant damage, erosion, and containers left where wildlife could encounter them.

 

I do think that geocaching is a fun pastime, and can be done in a smart and Eco friendly manner, but unfortunately, it's not. The average user of this site, feels it's imperative to have a container full of junk, and little trinkets that this site profits from, in order for it to be worth doing. It was fun at one point, but has devolved into a giant and world wide group who likes to litter, and tell others where they did. I will still continue to search and find confluence points, and benchmarks, but any containers are verboten in my book, and while I won't actively seek to remove others caches, I will pull ones I find poorly placed, or in sensitive environments.

 

And so where do you now sit with this? Have you actively begun going out and picking up other people's caches? Have you yet picked up the remains of your own archived caches?

Link to comment

As FTF on this cache I'll have to disagree that this is geo littering. The cache was hidden on NFS land near the Mt. Wilson observatory. Caches are allowed in the Angeles National Forest except in designated wilderness ares, the San Dimas Experimental forest, and a few other areas. There is at least one active geocacher who is a volunteer with the NFS and has been known to caused almost as much controversy when he has removed caches placed in these areas. However he found this on and didn't seem to complain about it so that's enough for me to know it's in an allowed location.

 

The interesting thing here is the cache had not been found in two years. Now part of that time a large area of the forest was closed due to fire damage so I don't even know if the cache was accessible during all that time. But since Mt. Wilson was spared, I suspect this area was open at least part of the time. Finally someone posted a Needs Archive (should have been a needs maintenance). That triggered a Reviewer disabling the cache which resulted in OPs statement.

 

If he truly believed that geocaching was littering he should have removed and archived his cache long ago. I suspect the action taken by others on his cache is what triggered his response. Either that or he saw the outline of an Alien Head in a satellite photo of the Nevada desert :unsure:

Link to comment

I only brought this up here, as Kerb, an ADMIN/MOD suggested it. The basis for it was, that a cache I placed, was de-listed because nobody had found it in three years. I no longer geocache, but have maintained the one in question. After checking this last weekend, the cache was still there, and in good condition. It was replaced, and the container was upgraded a year ago, after people were posting it was gone. It wasn't. It was well hidden, and I guess people aren't willing to look that hard for them.

 

That said, I pulled it, because it was placed on national forest land, and I did not have permission to have it there, nor does anyone else who has a cache up there, and there are a few. I was just starting a dialogue, but my threat to pull other caches up there, prompted their letter. The bottom line is that placing a cache IS littering. Unless you own the property where you are placing it, chances are it is not a proper placement under groundspeaks terms of use. Caches placed in city parks, and in urban areas, even those that violate these terms, don't bother me as much. Ones left in wilderness areas, or in national parks do. Without physical containers, geocachers wouldn't have any place to put their geo coins, TB's or other swag they buy from Groundspeak. Again, I'm not going to go around pulling peoples caches, but if there are ones I feel are particularly egregious, in wilderness areas, I will have no problem pulling them and notifying the owner.

 

As for the coments about 47 finds in 9 years, geocaching.com is not the only game in town. There are plenty of options for this "sport" besides it, and it's not all about the numbers. I prefer to use my gps hiking the sierras, and peak bagging, rather than looking around a parking lot for a stupid trinket. Most caches now, are boring, and have no thought put into them. I miss the days when OtisPug used to hide his brilliant creations, people here could learn from him.

Link to comment

After checking this last weekend, the cache was still there, and in good condition. It was replaced, and the container was upgraded a year ago, after people were posting it was gone. It wasn't. It was well hidden, and I guess people aren't willing to look that hard for them.

 

This cache is long gone

 

One of these statements is a lie not entirely true. Unfortunately, both statements were made by you. Therefore, I'm not really sure we can believe anything else you have to say on the subject.

 

* Maybe that works better for the OP.

Edited by GeoBain
Link to comment

I am not sure about Forest Service Land, but there is other public lands in my area that allow caches.

The state parks in my area has rules about abandoned items. They say that without permision of the local park supervisor, any thing left over 24 hours will be considered abandoned. It doesn't specifically say any thing geocaches, but the point is, without permission.

BLM land (in our) also allows geocaches.

Link to comment

Statement was made based on comments made on the page. I posted that prior to checking it, and when it was found still intact, I pulled it. Careful who you go around calling a liar...

 

Perhaps you should update your archive note. And perhaps the Groundspeak Lackey was not far off base with his concerns about people viewing your log as a threat. Seems you are have no problem with issuing threats. <_<

Link to comment

Statement was made based on comments made on the page. I posted that prior to checking it, and when it was found still intact, I pulled it. Careful who you go around calling a liar...

 

Aren't you calling other cachers liars?

 

I have never placed a cache that didn't either have explicit permission or at least very clearly had adquate permission, except one, and I pulled that one and archived it after a few weeks. To call all geocaches "litter" is very ingenuous of you.

Link to comment

I would venture to guess, that almost all caches, DON'T have proper permission from land owners/stewards.

 

I'm not threatening anyone. Just a word of caution on going around and calling people liars.

 

Caution all you want. The fact is that those 2 statements do not agree and you made both of them.

 

Honestly, I really doubt that anyone so fed up with geocaching who really thought the cache was missing would bother to go confirm it.

 

If you were planning to check it 2 days later, I don't see why you would say it was long gone.

 

So, I call BS.

 

I believe your archive log is the accurate one, to your knowledge. I think your forum post was BS to justify posting your rant in the forums.

 

I could be wrong and I have definitely been proven wrong before. But that's how I see it.

Link to comment
,

I will pull ones I find poorly placed, or in sensitive environments.

 

Removing caches in sensitive environments causes people to search extra hard for the cache. Which can cause more trauma to sensitive environments. Then the cache gets replaced, and it all starts over again.

 

You do realize this right? That you are doing the *opposite* of your intentions?

 

You could just MYOB when it comes to other caches, pick up your own junky caches, and leave the game. Try to be helpful...

Link to comment

I'm not going to go around pulling peoples caches, but if there are ones I feel are particularly egregious, in wilderness areas, I will have no problem pulling them and notifying the owner.

 

I find that you deciding what needs to be removed a bit of I am better than you thinking. So I find that people who rock climb to be destroying the faces of some of the most beautiful rock faces in the world and degrading the environment. Mountain and peak climbers are the worst (Just look at the trash on Mt. Everest and Mt. Hood). Should I just wait on lower trails and hit them on the knees with a big stick as they make their way up the trail? No because it would be wrong I don't know their intentions don't know it they will litter destroy the face with climbing piton's and if they have permission. Unless you can prove the person who placed the cache doesn't have permission you would be stealing and most people have no use for a thief. If I got an e-mail from you stating you removed (stole) my cache because you thought it violated the rules for a game you don't play I might be more than willing to meet you to get it back and explain to you why you shouldn't steal. Glad I live far far away from you. Tim2akaT2

Link to comment

I was trying to have a dialogue about caches that are placed in improper areas, and without permission. My own was one of them. I thought the forum would be a good place for that, but it's jus typical [edited] like most forums. Don't worry, I'll nuke my acct soon, and you cool kids cam go back to your littering.

 

Is there a mod that can nuke my acct. And save me the trouble, or do I need to start violating forum rules first?

Edited by Keystone
potty langauge removed by moderator
Link to comment

I would venture to guess, that almost all caches, DON'T have proper permission from land owners/stewards.

 

I'm not threatening anyone. Just a word of caution on going around and calling people liars.

 

Are you calling me a liar? I just told you that I have had permission, either adequate, or explicit, for all but one of my caches. If you don't like being called a liar, please extend that to the rest of us as well.

Link to comment

I was trying to have a dialogue about caches that are placed in improper areas, and without permission. My own was one of them. I thought the forum would be a good place for that, but it's jus typical [edited] like most forums. Don't worry, I'll nuke my acct soon, and you cool kids cam go back to your littering.

 

Is there a mod that can nuke my acct. And save me the trouble, or do I need to start violating forum rules first?

 

I will say that I respect your admission about your own cache.

Edited by Keystone
Link to comment

I was trying to have a dialogue about caches that are placed in improper areas, and without permission. My own was one of them. I thought the forum would be a good place for that, but it's jus typical [edited] like most forums. Don't worry, I'll nuke my acct soon, and you cool kids cam go back to your littering.

 

Is there a mod that can nuke my acct. And save me the trouble, or do I need to start violating forum rules first?

 

Accounts are not deleted. If you want to "nuke" your account simply abandon it. If you do not want any more e-mails from the site remove your e-mail address.

 

Oh, BTW

 

Litter

3d0f1102-6648-4878-b631-6be2a0f62ca6.jpg

 

Geocache

7cebfe76-6ef3-409c-ade8-6db0bf33ccd5.jpg

Edited by Keystone
Link to comment

Ok first off I'm going to admit that I have not read all the responses. I can pretty much guess what each person is going to say, what jokes will be made, blah blah.

 

The reason I am replying is that in the last month or so the forums seem to have these outrageous posts from people I've never seen post before. Am I not the only one who thinks someone is purposefully spamming the forums with this BS?

Link to comment

Ok first off I'm going to admit that I have not read all the responses. I can pretty much guess what each person is going to say, what jokes will be made, blah blah.

 

The reason I am replying is that in the last month or so the forums seem to have these outrageous posts from people I've never seen post before. Am I not the only one who thinks someone is purposefully spamming the forums with this BS?

 

Could be because the feedback forums went away so everyone came here?

Link to comment

I would rather just delete my acct. But looking through the site, I can't find anywhere to do it. Suggestions?

 

You can't delete the account. If you could then someone could create a new account with your user name. You don't want someone spamming the forums in your name. Best to delete your email address and log out and forget it.

Link to comment

I too have seen this trend and that was why I posted

 

I'm going to watch this topic for a few he's found 47 caches in 9 years hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......................

 

It seems this has been a trend people with a few finds bring up topics just to cause trouble

 

But that isnt a sock puppet. :blink:

Link to comment
As stated, geocaching is littering. Period. The vast majority of caches that I see, do not even meet the sites own rules for proper placement.

 

The "Needs Archive" log exists for a reason.

 

I highly doubt that the owners of most caches, have cleared the placement with either the land owners, or managers, and the geocaching site does not check this before it posts them.

 

I think this is more often an issue in urban areas than rural ones.

 

At least here in Florida, the Reviewers seem pretty good about ensuring caches in state parks, state forests, WMAs, and other regional/state/national govt-managed land at least claim to have received permission. Sometimes the boundaries are not clear, have expanded/changed, or old caches predate a more proper permission requirements by Reviewers.

 

As for county/city parks, most of them don't seem to even care (though a few do have permission systems in place).

 

While some are closed to geocaching, most state parks/forests down here are open to them and very receptive because geocaches bring people to the parks/forests. People visiting parks/forests helps keep them open; otherwise they get shut down and often eventually bulldozed into another housing development which is a far worse fate than anything geocachers will do.

 

It was placed on national Forrest land, but I asked permission from a friend who works at the wilson observatory, and was told it would be fine to place it. It's not. The forestry dept. Clearly states that all property left unattended for 24 hours is abandoned, and considered trash.

 

Permission from local rangers should trump a general rule about such things. And the rule was probably written before geocaching existed anyway.

 

There is also user impact to think of as well. Many caches are placed far off trails, leading to plant damage, erosion, and containers left where wildlife could encounter them.

 

Wildlife can encounter containers left almost anywhere.

 

Cachers do need to be responsible about using sturdy/durable containers. Many of them simply don't know any better.

 

Some parks have restrictions about caches being placed close to the trail. Some do not. If the area is not particular sensitive, it may not be an issue.

 

I do think that geocaching is a fun pastime, and can be done in a smart and Eco friendly manner, but unfortunately, it's not.

 

So why not work toward improving the geo-community? Building relations with land managers, organizing CITOs, hold an event where event where you give a presentation about eco-friendly caching and cache placement, etc.

 

Earlier this year, I wanted to place a cache in a local state park. I got in contact with a ranger there and received permission. On a later visit, I met the ranger in person and in conversation learned the park...

1) was very open to cache placements in many parts of the park

2) had some parts of the park where they did not want caches

3) were not aware of the location of all placements in the park

 

I made a bookmark list of caches located in the park, checked the other sites to confirm they had no caches listed in the park, and forwarded the info to the ranger. A park volunteer checked on all the caches; a couple were asked to be archived, the rest were fine, and the park was happier.

 

This sounds like the kind of situation you are concerned about.

 

The average user of this site, feels it's imperative to have a container full of junk, and little trinkets that this site profits from

 

From what I've seen, most cache swag is from a dollar store, not Groundspeak. I suppose you mean trackables?

 

BTW the very first geocache was a "container full of junk". If anything, I think more people bemoan the decrease in "containers full of junk" being replaced by tiny containers that have no room for "junk".

 

I will pull ones I find poorly placed, or in sensitive environments.

 

Again, the "Needs Archived" log exists for a reason. You are making an conclusion based on your definition of "poorly placed"/"sensitive environment" and the assumption that the cache does not have permission. What if a cache you remove turns out to have been placed with permission from park/forest management?

 

But I do think that lax enforcement of the guidelines concerning maintenance have pushed the game in that direction. But this is not all due to volunteers. Geocachers are reluctant to self-police. There is an ever increasing thirst for the smiley at all cost.

 

Agreed.

Link to comment
But I do think that lax enforcement of the guidelines concerning maintenance have pushed the game in that direction. But this is not all due to volunteers. Geocachers are reluctant to self-police. There is an ever increasing thirst for the smiley at all cost.

 

Excluding Strangeday's opinion on this particular piece, are you willing to back this up statement?

Edited by BlueDeuce
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...