Is this allowed?

[+W4G_SOTAGoat]

I was discussing some interesting hides with a friend and he said that he had found one that was about 10' up on a tree. It was a bison tube hanging in full view on a hook that had been screwed into the tree. Isn't this against the "Leave No Trace" guidelines?

[Keystone]

Correct. More precisely, it's against what reviewers call the "defacement" guideline. A geocache hider cannot deface a natural or man-made object, whether to provide a hiding place or a clue.

[knowschad]

There is no "Leave No Trace" guideline, and true-blue "Leave No Tracers" think that geocachers are the devil incarnate. But yeah... hooks, screws, nails in trees are considered bad things. Not that most of us believe that they will really harm the trees (see the 'Hungry Trees" thread here) but that land managers tend to frown on such things. I saw that happen in my own area a few years back. Bad idea.

[Mr.Yuck]

There is no "Leave No Trace" guideline, and true-blue "Leave No Tracers" think that geocachers are the devil incarnate. But yeah... hooks, screws, nails in trees are considered bad things. Not that most of us believe that they will really harm the trees (see the 'Hungry Trees" thread here) but that land managers tend to frown on such things. I saw that happen in my own area a few years back. Bad idea.

 

KnowerofChad is correct. In reality, stuff like this is never going to hurt the tree (not that I'm an arborist or anything, and speak for every species in the world), but nope, we can't do it. I've never seen it, but if he says there has been one where a land manager didn't like it, I believe him, and it's a black eye on Geocaching everywhere.

 

I admit to finding dozens of caches or legs of multi's on small hooks in/on live trees. I may have even found a leg of a multi "stapled" to a tree the other day.

[+lamoracke]

wish there was a better procedure to report these types of hides. I feel newbies in our areas get their share of archive requests or reports behind the scenes, but there are some experienced cachers who hide this way repeatedly and kinda get free passes. Probably just a local thing, but we have quite a few of these in our area and I never know what to do about it. Its like, I have heard they are against the guidelines, but I do not want to be the one tattling to mommy and being called the geo-cops, ya know? If its an egregiously bad nail, where its really stuck deep in the tree, I at least report those.

 

As an ecologist, I feel it certainly does not help the tree. As a geocacher, I think folks could find better way to hides thing. If its a dead tree, that is different of course.

 

Once saw one of these in a space where there were trees, stumps, logs for 700 feet in every direction, and how does the CO hide it? Of course, nail on a tree.

Edited December 27, 2011 by lamoracke

[+Coldgears]

I admit to finding dozens of caches or legs of multi's on small hooks in/on live trees. I may have even found a leg of a multi "stapled" to a tree the other day.

Yep. I found over a dozen in one day! A whole series of caches nailed into tree's!

 

I find about 1 in every 15 is drilled into a tree.

 

You could probably get it through the reviewer without issue. If not, than you are doing something wrong. You are supposed to get the land owner's permission, more likely than not, the land owner is NOT stupid and will not think it will damage the tree.

 

If you don't get permission... Well... That's your fault.

[+cx1]

Ok, this will most likely sound silly, but it is 3am and I am in a silly question kinda mood

Anyway...

 

Would gluing something to the bark of a tree be harmful to the tree? The bark is going to fall off eventually anyway right? I'm thinking a nickle sized washer or similar so a magnet could be used to attach the cache container. This came to mind when I was picking up shed pieces of bark off the ground for a future hide today. Seems better then zip-ties since it would not inhibit the trees growth.

I suppose it would still be considered defacing, though fire-tacks are not considered defacing. If one could demonstrate that the glued washer could be removed it doesn't seem that much different.

[+Fianccetto]

Ok, this will most likely sound silly, but it is 3am and I am in a silly question kinda mood

Anyway...

 

Would gluing something to the bark of a tree be harmful to the tree? The bark is going to fall off eventually anyway right? I'm thinking a nickle sized washer or similar so a magnet could be used to attach the cache container. This came to mind when I was picking up shed pieces of bark off the ground for a future hide today. Seems better then zip-ties since it would not inhibit the trees growth.

I suppose it would still be considered defacing, though fire-tacks are not considered defacing. If one could demonstrate that the glued washer could be removed it doesn't seem that much different.

Ask the owner of the tree/land as if you have their permission, that is good enough for GS.

 

Firetacks are not approved by some land owners either because they make a hole in the bark which can let in 'infection' (for want of a better word.) I'm not a botanist, but some species of trees might have special protection in different regions, and some land owners don't want pins stuck in their trees, or anything stuck to their trees.

[+A & J Tooling]

Of course any way you attach it to a tree, unless you inspect it yearly, the tree will eat it. A nail never hurt a tree. It might of hurt a few saw blades and people running that wood through a mill (something I do) but it never hurt a tree. I collect about 12 lbs of metal I find in wood each year in wood I mill.

[+W4G_SOTAGoat]

Never really even thought about fire tacks. Haven't heard of anyone having an issue with getting a night cache with these passed by a reviewer.

 

This is in a public county maintained park and the county doesn't (AKAIK) have any guidelines for placing caches so I doubt anyone in particular was contacted.

[+Chief301]

Correct. More precisely, it's against what reviewers call the "defacement" guideline. A geocache hider cannot deface a natural or man-made object, whether to provide a hiding place or a clue.

 

I would imagine that most hiders only mention that the cache is hidden "in a tree" without specifying that it will actually be screwed into the tree. Not really lying, just not telling the whole story.

 

A little screw isn't going to hurt a tree. Deer and woodpeckers do way more damage to trees and I don't see anybody up in arms over it.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

 

A little screw isn't going to hurt a tree. Deer and woodpeckers do way more damage to trees and I don't see anybody up in arms over it.

Deer, woodpeckers and (other wild critters) make their living doing that. To do that as part of a "game" is simply wrong -- that's my purist side talkin', there.

 

It just comes down to human impact upon nature. Good? Bad? Who knows for sure?

 

It just harkens back to "Every litter bit hurts".

 

As a side note, it certainly is a joy to find a lag screw deep in a tree with a chain saw. I would imagine that it does a number on one of those 4 ft. veneer lathe blades (you simply must see one of those in operation).

[+bflentje]

[TRIM]..because they make a hole in the bark which can let in 'infection' (for want of a better word.) ..[TRIM]

 

This has to win as the biggest fairy tale told during the month of December.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

[TRIM]..because they make a hole in the bark which can let in 'infection' (for want of a better word.) ..[TRIM]

 

This has to win as the biggest fairy tale told during the month of December.

bflentje is mostly correct, here. Trees (and other organisms) have immune systems. As long as the tree is alive (and healthy) a small hole in the bark doesn't harm it. If not, apple tree pruning is doomed to kill the orchard.

 

Growing shiitake mushrooms in logs requires the 'curing' time of 3/4 months prior to introduction of the spores to the logs. This allows for the immune system to 'retire' in the cut log.

[Keystone]

As with other guidelines (e.g., "buried caches"), the focus of the defacement guideline is not actual damage to the tree or other object, but rather the perception of a land manager who finds out that (1) there's a geocache on their land they didn't know about, and (2) it's screwed into a live tree.

 

Here is a good, simple self-check when you are thinking of a way to hide a cache: "When I archive this cache and remove the container, will there be any evidence left that it was once hiding there?"

[+SwineFlew]

Here we go again about trees.

[+doug_hollyNKC]

In my opinion the key word to all of this is "LIVE". I wouldn't think of screwing or drilling a hole into a "LIVE" tree. A clearly dead tree, or old stump, etc. is a whole different issue and is quite common.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

When I hide pre-forms in trees, I use a length of 14ga copper wire wrapped around the neck, and formed into a hook.

 

I can then hang it over a branch, without harming the tree (or the perception of harming it). It also makes retrieval easier than when caches are zip-tied to a branch. In those cases you have to open the container while the top half is still attached to the branch - very awkward.

[+savageshep]

[TRIM]..because they make a hole in the bark which can let in 'infection' (for want of a better word.) ..[TRIM]

 

This has to win as the biggest fairy tale told during the month of December.

bflentje is mostly correct, here. Trees (and other organisms) have immune systems. As long as the tree is alive (and healthy) a small hole in the bark doesn't harm it. If not, apple tree pruning is doomed to kill the orchard.

 

Growing shiitake mushrooms in logs requires the 'curing' time of 3/4 months prior to introduction of the spores to the logs. This allows for the immune system to 'retire' in the cut log.

 

Apple trees are pruned in the winter precisely for this reason. You have to wait until the temps remain below freezing before pruning your apple tree otherwise there is a good chance of undesireable organisms getting in.

[+ras_oscar]

In my opinion the key word to all of this is "LIVE". I wouldn't think of screwing or drilling a hole into a "LIVE" tree. A clearly dead tree, or old stump, etc. is a whole different issue and is quite common.

 

True, but the line needs to be drawn in a place everybody can understand. If we specify that only "dead" trees can be drilled, you will encounter some yoyo that asserts the branch was dead so s/he drilled it. Eventually you'll have someone with a huge auger that decided to drill a hole and shove an ammo can in the tree. "No holes" and "leave no trace" is easy, and keeps hiders well within the limits of what property owners are likely to agree to.

[4wheelin_fool]

Some time ago I hid a cache using small nails, as I had found plenty like that and did not think it was a big deal. Land managers frequently nail signs to trees anyhow. I hung "tree faces" to provide clues to find the final. A week or so afterwards another cacher who liked it, used a tree face to hide his cache. However, his cache consisted of boring a large hole in a tree 150+ years old to accomodate a film can hidden behind the nose. When I saw him at an event, I mentioned that it was a bit different than using nails, and would likely cause an issue if the wrong person noticed it. He got rather indignant and said it was only a tree, and mentioned owning a few hundred acres in the area, and cutting them down frequently.

 

His cache was later archived for non-maintenance, as the film can did not hold up too well. I eventually archived mine, as I did not want to further encourage anyone.

[+GeoBain]

As with other guidelines (e.g., "buried caches"), the focus of the defacement guideline is not actual damage to the tree or other object, but rather the perception of a land manager who finds out that (1) there's a geocache on their land they didn't know about, and (2) it's screwed into a live tree.

 

It's all about perception. A lot of us know that a nail in a tree is not going to harm it. But every time one of these threads pop up we still see people who are convinced that the nail is harming the tree.

 

If there are geocachers out there convinced it harms the tree, then we certainly do not want land owners that might share the same sentiment to find a cache like that on their land. You never know which kind of land owner you're dealing with.

 

(Unless, of course, you do something revolutionary like ask permission to hide the cache.)

[knowschad]

[TRIM]..because they make a hole in the bark which can let in 'infection' (for want of a better word.) ..[TRIM]

 

This has to win as the biggest fairy tale told during the month of December.

bflentje is mostly correct, here. Trees (and other organisms) have immune systems. As long as the tree is alive (and healthy) a small hole in the bark doesn't harm it. If not, apple tree pruning is doomed to kill the orchard.

 

Growing shiitake mushrooms in logs requires the 'curing' time of 3/4 months prior to introduction of the spores to the logs. This allows for the immune system to 'retire' in the cut log.

 

Apple trees are pruned in the winter precisely for this reason. You have to wait until the temps remain below freezing before pruning your apple tree otherwise there is a good chance of undesireable organisms getting in.

 

What about tapping maple trees?

 

Professional tree trimmers no longer coat the scar with anything, either. They have learned that the scar heals best when uncoated.

 

(although, as has been pointed out already... this information is moot anyway. This is about perception, not about whether or not the tree will be harmed)

 

 

 

.

Edited December 27, 2011 by knowschad

[+SwineFlew]

 

What about tapping maple trees?

 

 

You can over tapped a maple tree if you wanna kill it. It might take up to two years to do it. Alot of grade A fancy maple syrup!

[7rxc]

What about tapping maple trees?

 

Professional tree trimmers no longer coat the scar with anything, either. They have learned that the scar heals best when uncoated.

 

(although, as has been pointed out already... this information is moot anyway. This is about perception, not about whether or not the tree will be harmed)

 

 

Most of the time tree pruning simply takes place in the off season between crops. Easier and safer to dispose of the trimmings then as well (many burn them). Leaves thin out after harvest time as well so you can see better. Many reasons for it that vary with the location and the orchardist's needs. On the other hand, storm damage can and is trimmed away year round mostly without additional harm. Tapping sugar maples is similar, one could take sap anytime it's flowing, but the larger flows are in the late winter/early spring. Besides that's valuable as a 'crop' and as tourism at that time, and there is time for it to be done.

 

Big question is why US maple syrup is so runny?

 

Doug 7rxc

[jholly]

Correct. More precisely, it's against what reviewers call the "defacement" guideline. A geocache hider cannot deface a natural or man-made object, whether to provide a hiding place or a clue.

But the frog can. 12 seconds in there it is. When pointed out the frog said they will be sure to follow the guidelines in the future. Right, but leave this out there for the whole world to see.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

 

Big question is why US maple syrup is so runny?

 

Doug 7rxc

 

'Cuz they don't 'finish' it. Although not all US maple syrup is runny.

One geared for quality is most always good. One geared for the almighty dollar, well... nuf sed.

[+popokiiti]

I felt bad for three trees in our yard when we put up nesting boxes for the birds.

We saw a tree near a cache we did on the weekend that was 'eating' the rope attached to the support pole it no longer needed. We also did a multi that was very clever, but at stage one, the item was attached to a live tree with at least 4 or 5 plastic holders that were screwed or nailed in place. The final had one pointy object holding the item there.

I do prefer not to see this sort of action....if a cache is archived, and the items removed, is there anything that can be put over/in the holes to allow the area to 'heal?'

[+jellis]

There is no "Leave No Trace" guideline, and true-blue "Leave No Tracers" think that geocachers are the devil incarnate. But yeah... hooks, screws, nails in trees are considered bad things. Not that most of us believe that they will really harm the trees (see the 'Hungry Trees" thread here) but that land managers tend to frown on such things. I saw that happen in my own area a few years back. Bad idea.

I wouldn't blame them. We saw a cache where someone drilled a hole in a Redwood tree to hide a container on National Park land.

Yes the cache is now archived, only because of cache cops not by the ones saying how great the cache was.

[+jellis]

There is no "Leave No Trace" guideline, and true-blue "Leave No Tracers" think that geocachers are the devil incarnate. But yeah... hooks, screws, nails in trees are considered bad things. Not that most of us believe that they will really harm the trees (see the 'Hungry Trees" thread here) but that land managers tend to frown on such things. I saw that happen in my own area a few years back. Bad idea.

 

KnowerofChad is correct. In reality, stuff like this is never going to hurt the tree (not that I'm an arborist or anything, and speak for every species in the world), but nope, we can't do it. I've never seen it, but if he says there has been one where a land manager didn't like it, I believe him, and it's a black eye on Geocaching everywhere.

 

I admit to finding dozens of caches or legs of multi's on small hooks in/on live trees. I may have even found a leg of a multi "stapled" to a tree the other day.

Im not arborist either but I am sure if you just hit the bark it's fine because that part of the tree is dead, like flaking skin. But past that you are not only hurting the tree but it makes it easy for insects and diseases to enter.

But just doing anything to mark a tree will send a bad message to others and a cycle will start.

[+power69]

Correct. More precisely, it's against what reviewers call the "defacement" guideline. A geocache hider cannot deface a natural or man-made object, whether to provide a hiding place or a clue.

 

I would imagine that most hiders only mention that the cache is hidden "in a tree" without specifying that it will actually be screwed into the tree. Not really lying, just not telling the whole story.

 

A little screw isn't going to hurt a tree. Deer and woodpeckers do way more damage to trees and I don't see anybody up in arms over it.

look at the hungry trees thread. even a bicycle can't hurt a tree.

[+jellis]

As with other guidelines (e.g., "buried caches"), the focus of the defacement guideline is not actual damage to the tree or other object, but rather the perception of a land manager who finds out that (1) there's a geocache on their land they didn't know about, and (2) it's screwed into a live tree.

 

Here is a good, simple self-check when you are thinking of a way to hide a cache: "When I archive this cache and remove the container, will there be any evidence left that it was once hiding there?"

Let's bring up what he said again. What some of you are talking about like deer, woodpeckers, bicycles, maple trees and tree trimmers. What do these have in common? They are not geocachers trying to hide a cache!

[+BAMBOOZLE]

We've found quite a few hooks screwed into trees.......they've always been inside a hollow void in a partially rotten tree . Both the hook and container out of sight. I can't see how these would be a problem.

[+SwineFlew]

As with other guidelines (e.g., "buried caches"), the focus of the defacement guideline is not actual damage to the tree or other object, but rather the perception of a land manager who finds out that (1) there's a geocache on their land they didn't know about, and (2) it's screwed into a live tree.

 

Here is a good, simple self-check when you are thinking of a way to hide a cache: "When I archive this cache and remove the container, will there be any evidence left that it was once hiding there?"

Let's bring up what he said again. What some of you are talking about like deer, woodpeckers, bicycles, maple trees and tree trimmers. What do these have in common? They are not geocachers trying to hide a cache!

 

So you are saying that Geocachers cant be trusted with a tree?

[+GeoBain]

As with other guidelines (e.g., "buried caches"), the focus of the defacement guideline is not actual damage to the tree or other object, but rather the perception of a land manager who finds out that (1) there's a geocache on their land they didn't know about, and (2) it's screwed into a live tree.

 

Here is a good, simple self-check when you are thinking of a way to hide a cache: "When I archive this cache and remove the container, will there be any evidence left that it was once hiding there?"

Let's bring up what he said again. What some of you are talking about like deer, woodpeckers, bicycles, maple trees and tree trimmers. What do these have in common? They are not geocachers trying to hide a cache!

 

So you are saying that Geocachers cant be trusted with a tree?

 

No. What's being said is that it is all about perception.

 

It is futile to argue about what damage a nail or screw actually does to a tree. The only thing that matter is what the land owner is going to think when he sees your geocache hanging by a nail on one of his trees.

[perdidochas]

IMHO, if the cache is on your own land, you can do what you wish in terms of nails and screws. If it's not on your own land, you should avoid them.

[4wheelin_fool]

In this thread I asked if defacing large items of litter was allowed (hot water heater, abandoned car, ect) and was told it wasn't. I though that was a little extreme, but I abided anyhow.

 

I suppose if nobody reports guideline violations it only encourages more of the same, and when someone does they are viewed as being the bad guy.

[+GeoBain]

IMHO, if the cache is on your own land, you can do what you wish in terms of nails and screws. If it's not on your own land, you should avoid them.

 

The perception issue is moot if you own the trees, except for the copycat hiders.

[+catsnfish]

IMHO, if the cache is on your own land, you can do what you wish in terms of nails and screws. If it's not on your own land, you should avoid them.

The perception issue is moot if you own the trees, except for the copycat hiders.

 

How would the Entmoot perceive this issue? It might take a long time to be considered, unless you could find a hasty Ent to give you an opinion...in a month or two.

[+Sven.]

wish there was a better procedure to report these types of hides.

 

[knowschad]

As with other guidelines (e.g., "buried caches"), the focus of the defacement guideline is not actual damage to the tree or other object, but rather the perception of a land manager who finds out that (1) there's a geocache on their land they didn't know about, and (2) it's screwed into a live tree.

 

Here is a good, simple self-check when you are thinking of a way to hide a cache: "When I archive this cache and remove the container, will there be any evidence left that it was once hiding there?"

Let's bring up what he said again. What some of you are talking about like deer, woodpeckers, bicycles, maple trees and tree trimmers. What do these have in common? They are not geocachers trying to hide a cache!

 

So you are saying that Geocachers cant be trusted with a tree?

 

No. What's being said is that it is all about perception.

 

It is futile to argue about what damage a nail or screw actually does to a tree. The only thing that matter is what the land owner is going to think when he sees your geocache hanging by a nail on one of his trees.

 

Thank you!

 

There are really two distinct issues being discussed here, and they seem to run together sometimes. Do nails, hooks, etc. harm trees? Probably not. Is that the point of the guideline? No.

[AZcachemeister]

Screwing or nailing into a tree isn't likely to cause any real damage to the tree.

It certainly isn't a 'natural' thing to have happen...or is it? Lots of creatures do things to trees that may cause damage or even the death of the tree. Humans are the only creature that is concerned with the results of their activity.

I wouldn't screw or nail into a tree to hide a cache, but I don't FREAK OUT when I see that someone did.

[+Team Pixos]

Dutch Elm Disease; pine Beatles, can all use an open wound to infect a tree.

 

I'm of the opinion don't do it to live trees.

 

Love the LOTR analogy

[+GeoBain]

The last 2 posts are great examples of why the guideline exists. You don't know if the landowner feels like this:

 

Screwing or nailing into a tree isn't likely to cause any real damage to the tree.

It certainly isn't a 'natural' thing to have happen...or is it? Lots of creatures do things to trees that may cause damage or even the death of the tree. Humans are the only creature that is concerned with the results of their activity.

I wouldn't screw or nail into a tree to hide a cache, but I don't FREAK OUT when I see that someone did.

 

or this:

 

Dutch Elm Disease; pine Beatles, can all use an open wound to infect a tree.

 

I'm of the opinion don't do it to live trees.

 

Love the LOTR analogy

[+Hypnopaedia]

wish there was a better procedure to report these types of hides. I feel newbies in our areas get their share of archive requests or reports behind the scenes, but there are some experienced cachers who hide this way repeatedly and kinda get free passes. Probably just a local thing, but we have quite a few of these in our area and I never know what to do about it. Its like, I have heard they are against the guidelines, but I do not want to be the one tattling to mommy and being called the geo-cops, ya know? If its an egregiously bad nail, where its really stuck deep in the tree, I at least report those.

 

 

When I saw this thread I thought the same thing, there is an experienced cacher in our area whom I only know of because they have many of these. I've always been conflicted about it as it would mean dozens of caches archived. And everyone in our area knows about it, and it sort of makes us complicit in a sense.

[+jellis]

wish there was a better procedure to report these types of hides. I feel newbies in our areas get their share of archive requests or reports behind the scenes, but there are some experienced cachers who hide this way repeatedly and kinda get free passes. Probably just a local thing, but we have quite a few of these in our area and I never know what to do about it. Its like, I have heard they are against the guidelines, but I do not want to be the one tattling to mommy and being called the geo-cops, ya know? If its an egregiously bad nail, where its really stuck deep in the tree, I at least report those.

 

 

When I saw this thread I thought the same thing, there is an experienced cacher in our area whom I only know of because they have many of these. I've always been conflicted about it as it would mean dozens of caches archived. And everyone in our area knows about it, and it sort of makes us complicit in a sense.

I also feel that way. A semi experienced cacher who should have known better, drilled holes in posts and trees so they could make a small power trail. A majority of them are on private property and I don't mean like a parking lot. I mean on a farmers property. One is on his mailbox. I know your going to ask and no he did not get permission. Like always cachers are either afraid to report them or just turn a blind eye.

[the3gmen]

I came across this cache in the woods a few weeks ago. No nails, no screws. Just rope and carbiners attaching the container to the tree.

 

[+bruno-b]

what I always find a bit odd is people worried about a nail in a tree... but not being concerned about the polution they generate by driving around to find all the caches....

 

whats the carbon footprint of cachers with let's say more than 1000+ caches? They might be responsible for a lot of pollution...no matter how much trash they carry out!