Defenders of Nature

October 31, 2012

My wife and I have been geocaching for about six months, really getting into it. It has really got us out of the house and having advnetures together in places we never knew existed. So I thought it would be cool to place our first geocache in honor of our anniversary. I really put a lot of thought into the planning and we both worked on the execution. Part of the presentation was carving our initials into a tree with a heart around it like teenagers are wont to do, which I have never done before. So we placed it in a DEAD tree trunk about five feet high with all the bark long gone and I lightly carved our initials and highlighted them with a sharpie.

To our surprise the reviewer said he had it on "good authority" that we had "DEFACED NATURE" and was pulling our cache. DEFACED nature? It was a dead tree stump about to fall over! The only way anyone could have this on "good authority" was if they ran out to the cache in the 24 hours after we placed it (during which it was NOT published) or seen a picture of the initials carved in the tree which my wife innocently posted on FACEBOOK!

Needless to say, I've made my point to her about the evils of Social Networking. But on the other hand, I don't see this as defacing anything. How many sting and wire contraptions have we already seen related to cache hiding that were done in live trees? Some body out there needs to be a little more sensitive about the feelings of their fellow human beings as well as their dead plant friends...

Anyway we wont' be deterred for long - look for the return of our cache in a new location without any carvings.

LVDJ

October 31, 2012

It's the same way I feel about people who carve their initials (or their entire name) into the soft sandstone cliffs/rocks we have around here: no, they're not alive, but graffiti is graffiti and there are far better ways to leave our mark on the world.

I also don't condone cache contraptions drilled/wrapped/poked into live trees either. It's all part of the same "unnecessary" continuum for me.

I hope you find another great spot for your anniversary cache! - it sounds like a very sweet idea and I like the sentiment... just without the carving.

8.6k · October 31, 2012

You may see it as "the evils of social networking"... but many others see it as it was put to you, as defacing.

It does not matter that the tree is dead, you defaced it. Admittedly, it may seem minor -- but where does one draw the line?

You see carving initials as nothing wrong, others see graffiti painting of bridge abutments or cliff faces and rock walls as being completely innocent.

Geocaching.com and Groundspeak's line is zero tolerance. To have such actions connected with geocaching is not a good thing.

Right or wrong, that is what it is.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Gitchee-Gummee

2k · October 31, 2012

I would agree carving your initials into a dead tree or stump is not as bad as a live tree, but that dead tree is still part of a forest and is probably not on your own property, so yes, I would call that a minor defacing. If it was associated with a geocache, it would be against the guidelines as I understand it.

That goes the same for hooks into trees, wires, screws, whatever. I have seen many nice caches that were able to do a pulley system without resorting to such things.

Course I have seen some on private property with permission and in one cache, the tree was literally bleeding sap, but the reviewers let it go because the owner had given permission.

I have seen another cache which has many favorite points that someone carved into a dead stump a troll or gnome house. It looks cool but its still defacing.

1.1k · October 31, 2012

Innocent mistake. The key here is the Geocaching community does come under scrutiny and therefore the zero tollerence for defacing no matter what the object. Glad to hear this has not deterred your caching plans moving forward.

October 31, 2012

Another problem is that a future cacher may not discern between a dead tree and a live tree. It's not just about damage, but the perception of damage as seen by the parks boards and landowners whom we ask to trust us when we ask permission to place a hide.

3.7k · October 31, 2012

We're supposed to do our best not to leave any trace when we place a cache i.e. if the cache is removed, what will the area look like after 2 years?

The biggest problems are: copycats and perception of the impact of geocaching. There are many areas geocaching has been banned. We have to be careful.

19k · October 31, 2012

In this case, I won't even say this is an issue of the "perception of damage". It is damage, period. When I'm out in nature, I don't want to see people's initials in trees, rocks, or anything. I don't care if the tree is dead... I don't want to see it. I've felt this way long before geocaching. I realize that you intended no harm, but that doesn't negate the fact that you did deface something in order to hide your cache. I side with your reviewer.

10.2k · November 1, 2012

Innocent mistake. The key here is the Geocaching community does come under scrutiny and therefore the zero tollerence for defacing no matter what the object. Glad to hear this has not deterred your caching plans moving forward.

I agree, the OP didn't come in here all Geocidal, and say they were going to quit. I will have to agree with most of the sentiments thus far, I would disagree with "grafitti" in the woods even if the tree was obviously dead, regardless if I had ever even heard of Geocaching. And certainly not to go along with Geocaching. Please don't get discouraged, hide that cache!

November 1, 2012

So I take it you don't bushwack at all to find a cache? Any step off the path does damage to the area so I hope you practice what you preach. A geocache no matter where it is placed is probably affecting the area around it. We can try to minimize our impact and even do some good with cleaning up the area but we all still do damage.

3.7k · November 1, 2012

So I take it you don't bushwack at all to find a cache? Any step off the path does damage to the area so I hope you practice what you preach. A geocache no matter where it is placed is probably affecting the area around it. We can try to minimize our impact and even do some good with cleaning up the area but we all still do damage.

Ideally a cache will be placed so it can be reached from the path. As far as bushwacking goes, no, this is not ideal, however, any geopath made will grow over once the cache is removed. And I have never seen a deer carve its initials in a tree.

22k · November 1, 2012

So I take it you don't bushwack at all to find a cache? Any step off the path does damage to the area so I hope you practice what you preach. A geocache no matter where it is placed is probably affecting the area around it. We can try to minimize our impact and even do some good with cleaning up the area but we all still do damage.

The county parks office here requires that I submit a request form so they can monitor for impact.

November 1, 2012

Actually deer can do a lot of damage to trees. Males will use them to remove the felt from their antlers and leave nice gouge marks. Bears also will claw a mark on a tree to show ownership of a territory. A lot of caches in my area there are no trails so your blazing your own trail and in some cases the geopath will take longer to recover in some environments then the dead tree with the engraving to decay.

November 1, 2012

After reading this thread I will make a point of going into the woods nearby and carving (with my chisel set) the Word "GEOCACHING" on to a very large and living tree. Some people just want to see the world burn. Photos to follow.

Defacing? No. Artistic? Yes.

November 1, 2012

Oh yeah, I also drill holes into Maple Trees every spring to get sap and make syrup. Pure evil. Sticky delicious evil.

8k · November 1, 2012

Caches are placed so that the surrounding environment, whether natural or human-made, is safe from intentional or unintentional harm. Property must not be damaged or altered to provide a hiding place, clue, or means of logging a find.

It is hard to tell from the OP why the reviewer thought this cache was in violation of the guideline. Had the cache page mentioned the carving, it might have been seen as a clue. Perhaps even without a mention, the existence of the carving would be seen as a clue. Perhaps the reviewer went too far and took their personal feeling about carving initials on a tree as reason to archive a cache that had no obvious connection to the carving other than what the OPs wife posted on Facebook?

Like many guidelines, TPTB don't tell us the rationale behind the guideline. However most of the speculation on the reason for this guideline deals with the perception of geocaching by others, particularly by managers of public parks and other public property where caches are placed. The guideline may exist to give land managers the perception that geocaching leaves no trace. One a cache is no longer viable, either the owner or someone else can remove it and there will be no sign it was there. To the extent that a geotrail was formed by people looking for the cache, the hope is that it too will soon disappear after the cache is removed. Many land managers have additional rules about placing off trail caches, that vary based on local conditions, to limit the damage caused by geotrails. If the reviewer was concerned that the initials could be realistically tied back to geocaching, and not just some silly thing the OP did while placing the cache that is not directly related to the cache, then I would think the guidelines apply.

I realize that, in this forum especially, some people like simplistic black and white rules. They will argue that you never carve your initials into a tree (geocaching or not) and that Groundspeak can archive a cache if someone saw you spit in the park because managers would ban geocaching if they found out geocachers spit. <_<

21.9k · November 1, 2012

After reading this thread I will make a point of going into the woods nearby and carving (with my chisel set) the Word "GEOCACHING" on to a very large and living tree. Some people just want to see the world burn. Photos to follow.

Defacing? No. Artistic? Yes.

Thanks for the heads-up. I have alerted the volunteer cache reviewers for your home area.

7.8k · November 1, 2012

After reading this thread I will make a point of going into the woods nearby and carving (with my chisel set) the Word "GEOCACHING" on to a very large and living tree. Some people just want to see the world burn. Photos to follow.

Defacing? No. Artistic? Yes.

If you're trying to be funny, you failed miserably.

6.1k · November 1, 2012

After reading this thread I will make a point of going into the woods nearby and carving (with my chisel set) the Word "GEOCACHING" on to a very large and living tree. Some people just want to see the world burn. Photos to follow.

Defacing? No. Artistic? Yes.

If you're trying to be funny, you failed miserably.

He won't give up his address, as he is fearful that others may come out and carve up the trees in his yard.

I've carved up dozens of trees in my time, some with my full name and others with large pictures. The impulse lasted unil I turned 16 or so. :rolleyes:

November 1, 2012

I am curious, did the cache page mention the carved initials? If it did not I think the reviewer overstepped their bounds, no mater how they found out about the carving. I don't think that the reviewer should be able pull a hid cache just because the hider did something they didn't agree with. What if the reviewer discovered I went over the speed limit on my way to the cache site or I drove off road and trampled some vegetation while I was parking at the cache site. Both things are wrong but it is not up to the reviewer to police wrong actions. BUT, if the cache page did mention the carving, even just in passing, then I think the reviewer was correct in pulling the cache because of the position of Geocaching.com in not defacing nature.

On a little bit of a side note, I have been thinking about a similar topic recently after visiting Independence Rock ( see also ) recently. So when does vandalism become historic or even art? Why was it OK for earlier generations to carve there names into a rock or sandstone cliff and not us? And if it isn't OK then why don't we use our modern tools and go out and take the names off these surfaces and leave them "natural". We wouldn't want to give any one else the idea that it is OK to carve our name into something.

Now I am not condoning defacing nature (at least nature that is not owned by you) it is just something to think about.

Edited November 1, 2012 by farrtom

8.6k · November 1, 2012

Oh yeah, I also drill holes into Maple Trees every spring to get sap and make syrup. Pure evil. Sticky delicious evil.

There is a measurable difference between using and abusing. I presume that you are tapping (and working just a wee bit more) to get the syrup. Besides, they are probably your maples or owned by somebody that graces you with their use.

Go for it on Provincial Lands without permission why not?

Carving into the tree for the fun of it, especially when connected to geocaching, is just plain .... well, not right.

This matter (the carving) was probably an innocent oversight on the part of the OP. But to whine about a cache archived over it probably is a lesson learned. Time to move along....

Edited November 1, 2012 by Gitchee-Gummee

2.8k · November 1, 2012

This matter (the carving) was probably an innocent oversight on the part of the OP. But to whine about a cache archived over it probably is a lesson learned. Time to move along....

Did the OP read the guidelines before setting up the cache?

November 1, 2012

We've had posts like this before. I agree that carving/ nailing into a dead tree (never ever a live one) isn't going to hurt a tree (it's going to rot anyway) and if you do it small enough no one just walking by is going to notice. But I see the point of those who are against it. It's best just to say no to the practice to avoid any posibility of someone abusing nature.

My family used to go camping in Filmore Glen state park. It was a beautiful little park. There's was a swimming hole fed by a waterfall. You could take the trail to the top of the waterfall to look out over the falls. When I got to the top of the trail by the waterfall I was taken aback. It seems it was the practice of visitors to carve their names into the trees. I don't know how long this had been going on (years and years by the looks of it), but every tree had something (well a lot of somethings) carved into it. All these scarred trees really destroyed the esthetic beauty of the place.

You can do something with your cache container to decorate it in celebration of your anniversary. I've seen containers covered in spray paint and glitter and well hidden (in a hole in a downed dead tree) so as not to be seen, or maybe you could carve something into the lid of a wooden box for your cache and put another more waterproof container inside. Maybe get crafty with the the underside of the lid of an ammo box so when you open it you see the display you've created.

November 1, 2012

What is kind of ironic is that we now protect areas where some ancient people engraved pictures in stone or trees and people come from all over to see this "damage". I guess a lot of people are glad there weren't any guidelines back then.

November 1, 2012

You may see it as "the evils of social networking"... but many others see it as it was put to you, as defacing.

It does not matter that the tree is dead, you defaced it. Admittedly, it may seem minor -- but where does one draw the line?

You see carving initials as nothing wrong, others see graffiti painting of bridge abutments or cliff faces and rock walls as being completely innocent.

Geocaching.com and Groundspeak's line is zero tolerance. To have such actions connected with geocaching is not a good thing.

Right or wrong, that is what it is.

"Geocaching.com and Groundspeak's line is zero tolerance. " -Unless of course they can sell it, which is the case with firetacks, huh.

November 1, 2012

I'm so flattered by the discussion prompted by my post! This is the most response I've ever gotten on an online forum. Makes me almost glad we got slammed.

Ultimately I agree with those who don't see the carving as a serious offense to nature. To me it's a matter of imposing man's will on a life form. I don't see carving initials in a dead thing any different than going into the woods, picking up some dead sticks and making something with them. As someone above said, it's just a matter of where you draw the line.

I also believe in the need for rules and regs to keep this world safe for everyone so I will abide by the current rules of geocaching. If I get the opportunity to change them I just might try.

In answer to one of the other posts, the only way anyone knew there was a carving was through Facebook. I thought that was an underhanded way of coming to a conclusion. Someone should have gone out and checked it out in person.

1.4k · November 1, 2012

After reading this thread I will make a point of going into the woods nearby and carving (with my chisel set) the Word "GEOCACHING" on to a very large and living tree. Some people just want to see the world burn. Photos to follow.

Defacing? No. Artistic? Yes.

People who feel grafitti is artistic never give us their address. If they would we could share our art with them. On their house, car or fence.

Why someone feels it is alright to deface someone else's property with their "art" I will never know. :mad:

3.3k · November 1, 2012

...On a little bit of a side note, I have been thinking about a similar topic recently after visiting Independence Rock ( see also ) recently. So when does vandalism become historic or even art? Why was it OK for earlier generations to carve there names into a rock or sandstone cliff and not us? And if it isn't OK then why don't we use our modern tools and go out and take the names off these surfaces and leave them "natural". We wouldn't want to give any one else the idea that it is OK to carve our name into something.

Now I am not condoning defacing nature (at least nature that is not owned by you) it is just something to think about.

I join you in confusion. It is a bizzar double standard... not just Groundspeak, but the world over.

Edited November 1, 2012 by Andronicus

7.8k · November 1, 2012

I'm so flattered by the discussion prompted by my post! This is the most response I've ever gotten on an online forum. Makes me almost glad we got slammed.

Ultimately I agree with those who don't see the carving as a serious offense to nature. To me it's a matter of imposing man's will on a life form. I don't see carving initials in a dead thing any different than going into the woods, picking up some dead sticks and making something with them. As someone above said, it's just a matter of where you draw the line.

I also believe in the need for rules and regs to keep this world safe for everyone so I will abide by the current rules of geocaching. If I get the opportunity to change them I just might try.

In answer to one of the other posts, the only way anyone knew there was a carving was through Facebook. I thought that was an underhanded way of coming to a conclusion. Someone should have gone out and checked it out in person.

3.1k · November 1, 2012

In answer to one of the other posts, the only way anyone knew there was a carving was through Facebook. I thought that was an underhanded way of coming to a conclusion. Someone should have gone out and checked it out in person.

Are you sure? I've heard of a Reviewer going out and seeing a cache they published and archiving it after they see, first hand, what is going on. Is your wife friends with the Reviewer on facebook?

November 1, 2012

I'm so flattered by the discussion prompted by my post! This is the most response I've ever gotten on an online forum. Makes me almost glad we got slammed.

Ultimately I agree with those who don't see the carving as a serious offense to nature. To me it's a matter of imposing man's will on a life form. I don't see carving initials in a dead thing any different than going into the woods, picking up some dead sticks and making something with them. As someone above said, it's just a matter of where you draw the line.

I also believe in the need for rules and regs to keep this world safe for everyone so I will abide by the current rules of geocaching. If I get the opportunity to change them I just might try.

In answer to one of the other posts, the only way anyone knew there was a carving was through Facebook. I thought that was an underhanded way of coming to a conclusion. Someone should have gone out and checked it out in person.

I will interject my own useless opinion in here (and probably get slammed for it no matter how I word it) but the issue, as with many issues discussed here is all a matter of subjectvity - and the reviewers are probably the must subjective types I have met in any part of my life. Bless their hearts, they want to be objective, but often their own personal beliefs play roles in how the review caches - this is no exception. "Defacing Nature" - if it were a live tree, there is no doubt. But I do not see carvings of initials into dead wood any different then whittling a doll out of dead wood. So I would let it stand. Personally, I leave all nature as best as I can find it, dead or not, but I surely would not rule this as a defacement of nature if I were a reviewer.

It is a moot point though - reviewers on Groundspeak are a touchy bunch - it all depends on the day of the week you get them on. They are very much, human.

November 1, 2012

"Are you sure? I've heard of a Reviewer going out and seeing a cache they published and archiving it after they see, first hand, what is going on. Is your wife friends with the Reviewer on facebook?"

The reviewer said He/She had it on "good authority". My wife was "facebook friended" with a pennsylvania geocaching club. Needless to say she cut that off.

2.8k · November 1, 2012

...but I surely would not rule this as a defacement of nature if I were a reviewer.

Sorry, but I don't want to walk in the woods seeing names and hearts etc carved in trees, living or dead. It's defacement, period.

(Edit: typo]

Edited November 1, 2012 by BBWolf+3Pigs

2.8k · November 1, 2012

"Are you sure? I've heard of a Reviewer going out and seeing a cache they published and archiving it after they see, first hand, what is going on. Is your wife friends with the Reviewer on facebook?"

The reviewer said He/She had it on "good authority". My wife was "facebook friended" with a pennsylvania geocaching club. Needless to say she cut that off.

Had the reviewer not seen the photo, would you have felt better if a cacher sent a photo of the carving to the reviewer, and *then* the reviewer archived it?

3.1k · November 1, 2012

"Are you sure? I've heard of a Reviewer going out and seeing a cache they published and archiving it after they see, first hand, what is going on. Is your wife friends with the Reviewer on facebook?"

The reviewer said He/She had it on "good authority". My wife was "facebook friended" with a pennsylvania geocaching club. Needless to say she cut that off.

Had the reviewer not seen the photo, would you have felt better if a cacher sent a photo of the carving to the reviewer, and *then* the reviewer archived it?

This.

I'm not convinced that "social networking" is the boogeyman here. The real issue, actually, is that there was some defacing of the surrounding area related to the geocache. This is something Groundspeak has no tolerance for. No matter how the Reviewer found out, it is still the case.

That said, has the OP considered that it might have been someone else that reported it? I mean, the way faceplace works is, that if I put a photo on my profile and have my privacy settings set up to "Friends", nobody but my friends sees it. So, unless the photo was posted to the Pennsylvania club's page, it had to be a friend that saw it. Either that, or the Reviewer dropped in, saw the cache themselves, and posted the notice.

November 1, 2012

...but I surely would not rule this as a defacement of nature if I were a reviewer.

Sorry, but I don't want to walk in the woods seeing names and hearts etc carved in trees, living or dead. It's defacement, period.

(Edit: typo]

Some peopke might say the same thing seeing a bison tube hanging off of a tree branch. As I said, it is all subjective.

3.1k · November 1, 2012

...but I surely would not rule this as a defacement of nature if I were a reviewer.

Sorry, but I don't want to walk in the woods seeing names and hearts etc carved in trees, living or dead. It's defacement, period.

(Edit: typo]

Some peopke might say the same thing seeing a bison tube hanging off of a tree branch. As I said, it is all subjective.

That kind of subjective won't last long in the geocaching community. I have a hard time thinking of anyone that is active in the game who would say a bison tube hanging off a tree branch is defacement. They're in the wrong hobby if that's how they feel... :huh:

3.3k · November 1, 2012

...but I surely would not rule this as a defacement of nature if I were a reviewer.

Sorry, but I don't want to walk in the woods seeing names and hearts etc carved in trees, living or dead. It's defacement, period.

(Edit: typo]

Some peopke might say the same thing seeing a bison tube hanging off of a tree branch. As I said, it is all subjective.

That kind of subjective won't last long in the geocaching community. I have a hard time thinking of anyone that is active in the game who would say a bison tube hanging off a tree branch is defacement. They're in the wrong hobby if that's how they feel...

There is a new(ish) law here in Calgary. We could face a $500 fine for haniging a bison tube off a tree branch. Our reviewer now asks every new cache to describe the hide (if it is on city land) to insure that the cache is not in a tree.

3.1k · November 1, 2012

...but I surely would not rule this as a defacement of nature if I were a reviewer.

Sorry, but I don't want to walk in the woods seeing names and hearts etc carved in trees, living or dead. It's defacement, period.

(Edit: typo]

Some peopke might say the same thing seeing a bison tube hanging off of a tree branch. As I said, it is all subjective.

That kind of subjective won't last long in the geocaching community. I have a hard time thinking of anyone that is active in the game who would say a bison tube hanging off a tree branch is defacement. They're in the wrong hobby if that's how they feel...

There is a new(ish) law here in Calgary. We could face a $500 fine for haniging a bison tube off a tree branch. Our reviewer now asks every new cache to describe the hide (if it is on city land) to insure that the cache is not in a tree.

Say wha?! Do you have a link to the law?

November 1, 2012

...but I surely would not rule this as a defacement of nature if I were a reviewer.

Sorry, but I don't want to walk in the woods seeing names and hearts etc carved in trees, living or dead. It's defacement, period.

(Edit: typo]

Some peopke might say the same thing seeing a bison tube hanging off of a tree branch. As I said, it is all subjective.

That kind of subjective won't last long in the geocaching community. I have a hard time thinking of anyone that is active in the game who would say a bison tube hanging off a tree branch is defacement. They're in the wrong hobby if that's how they feel...

There is a new(ish) law here in Calgary. We could face a $500 fine for haniging a bison tube off a tree branch. Our reviewer now asks every new cache to describe the hide (if it is on city land) to insure that the cache is not in a tree.

Say wha?! Do you have a link to the law?

http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Parks/Pages/Planning-and-Operations/Tree-Management/Tree-protection-bylaws.aspx

3.1k · November 1, 2012

http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Parks/Pages/Planning-and-Operations/Tree-Management/Tree-protection-bylaws.aspx

Wow. Did anything about this law start because of caches in trees?

It seems like this provides an opportunity to clarify geocaching policies with the City of Calgary tree program powers-that-be. I can't imagine that it will change the game that much in the end there in Calgary, but it certainly is quite the interpretation of the bylaw to say that a geocache was "attached". It reads more to me that trees shouldn't have unauthorized Christmas lights, signs or screwed-in bird houses (and the like...).

Getting a clarification from the city on that one might be helpful in the way of fostering good relationships with land managers.

3.3k · November 1, 2012

http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Parks/Pages/Planning-and-Operations/Tree-Management/Tree-protection-bylaws.aspx

Wow. Did anything about this law start because of caches in trees?

It seems like this provides an opportunity to clarify geocaching policies with the City of Calgary tree program powers-that-be. I can't imagine that it will change the game that much in the end there in Calgary, but it certainly is quite the interpretation of the bylaw to say that a geocache was "attached". It reads more to me that trees shouldn't have unauthorized Christmas lights, signs or screwed-in bird houses (and the like...).

Getting a clarification from the city on that one might be helpful in the way of fostering good relationships with land managers.

We (Calgary Area Cachers) have been in direct contact with the head of the parks department. They definitely intend to apply this law to geocaches.

Edited to remove erronious link

(And this, after we hid 100 caches for them to celebrate their 100th aniversery...)

Edited November 1, 2012 by Andronicus

3.1k · November 1, 2012

http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Parks/Pages/Planning-and-Operations/Tree-Management/Tree-protection-bylaws.aspx

Wow. Did anything about this law start because of caches in trees?

It seems like this provides an opportunity to clarify geocaching policies with the City of Calgary tree program powers-that-be. I can't imagine that it will change the game that much in the end there in Calgary, but it certainly is quite the interpretation of the bylaw to say that a geocache was "attached". It reads more to me that trees shouldn't have unauthorized Christmas lights, signs or screwed-in bird houses (and the like...).

Getting a clarification from the city on that one might be helpful in the way of fostering good relationships with land managers.

We (Calgary Area Cachers) have been in direct contact with the head of the parks department. They definitely intend to apply this law to geocaches.

Edited to remove erronious link

(And this, after we hid 100 caches for them to celebrate their 100th aniversery...)

Wow. That's quite the bylaw, then. I'm wading through the language, and it certainly is a broad bylaw. Sounds to me like the Parks directors aren't geocachers in the least :laughing:

3.3k · November 1, 2012

http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Parks/Pages/Planning-and-Operations/Tree-Management/Tree-protection-bylaws.aspx

Wow. Did anything about this law start because of caches in trees?

It seems like this provides an opportunity to clarify geocaching policies with the City of Calgary tree program powers-that-be. I can't imagine that it will change the game that much in the end there in Calgary, but it certainly is quite the interpretation of the bylaw to say that a geocache was "attached". It reads more to me that trees shouldn't have unauthorized Christmas lights, signs or screwed-in bird houses (and the like...).

Getting a clarification from the city on that one might be helpful in the way of fostering good relationships with land managers.

We (Calgary Area Cachers) have been in direct contact with the head of the parks department. They definitely intend to apply this law to geocaches.

Edited to remove erronious link

(And this, after we hid 100 caches for them to celebrate their 100th aniversery...)

http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Parks/Pages/Locations/Geocaching-in-parks.aspx

Here is a link to the cities new(ish) policy on geocaching. It specificaly references the new(ish) tree bylaw.

3.1k · November 1, 2012

http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Parks/Pages/Locations/Geocaching-in-parks.aspx

Here is a link to the cities new(ish) policy on geocaching. It specificaly references the new(ish) tree bylaw.

Well, a couple things.

Most importantly, this is an excellent arguement against anyone chosing to deface something natural in any way related to geocaches. All it would take is a land manager to see it, and we could face similar bylaws or restrictions elsewhere.

Secondly, I don't see language that says geocaches can't be placed in trees. You aren't supposed to "attach" them, distrub birds, or put caches in tree holes. That being said, I wouldn't push it to start placing caches in trees just to prove that you can.

1.2k · November 1, 2012

In regards to the "Tree Law"...

Some of the weirdest laws...start with the best of intentions...

November 1, 2012

After reading this thread I will make a point of going into the woods nearby and carving (with my chisel set) the Word "GEOCACHING" on to a very large and living tree. Some people just want to see the world burn. Photos to follow.

Defacing? No. Artistic? Yes.

Thanks for the heads-up. I have alerted the volunteer cache reviewers for your home area.

Special, just for you Keystone. And Art lives another day.

6.7k · November 1, 2012

After reading this thread I will make a point of going into the woods nearby and carving (with my chisel set) the Word "GEOCACHING" on to a very large and living tree. Some people just want to see the world burn. Photos to follow.

Defacing? No. Artistic? Yes.

Thanks for the heads-up. I have alerted the volunteer cache reviewers for your home area.

Special, just for you Keystone. And Art lives another day.

:drama:

1.1k · November 2, 2012

After reading this thread I will make a point of going into the woods nearby and carving (with my chisel set) the Word "GEOCACHING" on to a very large and living tree. Some people just want to see the world burn. Photos to follow.

Defacing? No. Artistic? Yes.

Thanks for the heads-up. I have alerted the volunteer cache reviewers for your home area.

Special, just for you Keystone. And Art lives another day.

AneMae, AneMae. still stiring the pot I see. LOL

6.5k · November 2, 2012

Sigh, you didn't even bother to scroll past the first page in the google image results? :rolleyes:

Defenders of Nature

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment