When there are physical geocaches in National Wilderness Areas, or places sensitive to vandalism?

[+The A-Team]

Instead, it's considered good etiquette to rather than telling someone the cave is, show them in person where it's at. Then that person to show the next in person, and so on down, as a way to limit cave vandalism to make it so future generations can enjoy these caves too!

I still don't get it. At any point down that line, someone who has been shown the cave may show or tell someone that has a lower level of morality and goes there to vandalise it. For example, dad gets shown by his buddy. Dad then takes the teenage kids to it. The teenage kids take their friends. Said friends, or their friends, vandalise it.

[+geodarts]

I have been into more abandoned buildings than caves but there seems to be a similar ethos: don't identify the building to prople who are have not established trust (or it is otherwise identified). For that matter, historians have refused to tell me where some structures could be found; wreck chasers have not wanted to reveal crash sites; hikers have secret locations on a nearby mountain, and petroglyphs are often protected through secrecy. In a way, this is inevitable. Wreck debris have been stolen, buildings compromised, rocks tagged. One of my favorite petroglyph sites is now behind bars, my favorite rusty whirley crane is now fenced in. So there are perfectly good reasons for limiting access to certain caves, which is why earthcaches require special Speleological approval at cave locations.

 

Still, leaving aside issues about boxes in wilderness, a cache that took me near a known cave but not into it does not seem problematic. I have found several caches that have led me to the hole in the fence or ancient rock art, I used the historical structure for a locationless cache without the area being impacted; and some of my caches have even brought people to crash sites (that were otherwise identified) or to other areas that people could surely abuse if they had a mind to do it.

 

Geocaching has its own impact, but this game is not the only way to find things. In fact, the secret about this one is already out. Its listed on topo maps. It is identified through other web sites with much better directions. Even the BLM identifies it so there cannot be an issue with that. And just to make it easier, the cave is identified with a sign and advertised as having excellent opportunities for caving and geological studies. Its described as being a "popular" spot for caving. I am sympathetic, but not seeing the issue about this particular spot.

Edited March 13, 2013 by geodarts

[Nick - Cacher]

Instead, it's considered good etiquette to rather than telling someone the cave is, show them in person where it's at. Then that person to show the next in person, and so on down, as a way to limit cave vandalism to make it so future generations can enjoy these caves too!

I still don't get it. At any point down that line, someone who has been shown the cave may show or tell someone that has a lower level of morality and goes there to vandalise it. For example, dad gets shown by his buddy. Dad then takes the teenage kids to it. The teenage kids take their friends. Said friends, or their friends, vandalise it.

 

Okay, maybe this will help. On many posts throughout these Groundspeak forums, cachers claim they'll often make premium member only geocaches, because they're so sick and tired of their caches being vandalized over and over again, or when cachers leave snails and rocks inside as their trading items. Since I'm a regular member, not a premium member, should I be offended that they seem elitist and that they're trying to make up a false excuse of not wanting their caches vandalized? Couldn't those searching for caches and registered as "premium member" show the found cache to a non-cacher, especially if they thought it was a "cool cache"? Is making a premium member cache really foolproof?

 

I also hear in these forums how many notice the higher the difficulty the cache, the better quality people trade swag, and less vandalism. Isn't that elitist? Shouldn't we make it fun for those beginner cachers who visit 10 caches and still can't find anything? Couldn't the 4/4 cache also be revealed to irresponsible friends by the responsible cacher? Why do many here explain that this is why they make premium member only caches or higher difficulty rating ones?

 

So why do cachers try these tactics to lower cache vandalism and increase the quality of trading, when it's not foolproof?

[+briansnat]

I used to think it was weird how they don't publish coordinates for caves, until I discovered that they're not actually against people knowing where caves are at. Basically, I emailed a caving group who has a large database of GPS coordinates for caves. I was told because of how common vandalism is, they're not actually against people knowing where they're at. Instead, it's considered good etiquette to rather than telling someone the cave is, show them in person where it's at. Then that person to show the next in person, and so on down, as a way to limit cave vandalism to make it so future generations can enjoy these caves too!

 

You've yet to establish a connection between geocachers and cave vandalism. If you have evidence please put it forth.

 

Otherwise I'm inclined to think the problem lies with cavers who bring friends who tell other friends, who tell other friends. CAVERS are the problem. Cavers have been vandalizing these caves long before geocaching was a gleam in Dave Ulmer's eye.

[+geodarts]

You've yet to establish a connection between geocachers and cave vandalism. If you have evidence please put it forth.

 

In all fairness, we can't even get people to agree about the connection between geocachers and certain problems encountered with some caches -- whether it be cache vandalism, geotrails, or the spread of sudden oak death.

 

So I tend to think that the issue is not whether there is empirical connection, but should a particular spot be listed on this site. I know of certain places that I would not use as a cache location because what you find there is not otherwise publicized or the cache itself would have potential for negative impact. As I stated in a previous post, the site identified by the OP is not one of these since the area is already quite well known apart from this game and the cache is away from the cave itself. In that situation, I do not think the game will increase cave vandalism. It does not appear to have done so at the Goshute site.

 

In any event, the problem appears to have been long since solved. Earthcaches at caves require special speleological approval. Caches in wildnerness areas (if permitted at all) require express permission. The few caches that were placed before an agency addressed the game could be archived upon the request of a land manager or the land managers could take it upon themselves to remove such caches (as the park service did in my area).

Edited March 13, 2013 by geodarts

[+cerberus1]

I also hear in these forums how many notice the higher the difficulty the cache, the better quality people trade swag, and less vandalism. Isn't that elitist? Shouldn't we make it fun for those beginner cachers who visit 10 caches and still can't find anything? Couldn't the 4/4 cache also be revealed to irresponsible friends by the responsible cacher?

Higher difficulty/terrain hides have nothing to do with being elitist. They're just found less often.

Heck, I have a hide that's only a two mile round trip and it only got hit three times last year.

It's simple numbers. The more people access a container, the faster swag degrades.

If we could get people to walk once in awhile, that hide would have the same swag as a peanut butter jar in a parking lot.

- Well, not really. I wouldn't let it get that way.

Edited March 13, 2013 by cerberus1

[+SwineFlew]

There are a handful here in Utah in Wilderness areas. Some cachers sought and got permission from the managing agencies, most were placed before Utah reviewers stopped publishing them, and others slipped in at some point.

 

We try and flag all of those that now appear. Conversations with some of the managing agencies have the "we don't care, just don't publish more without our permission, and we may ask you to remove them at any time"

 

They are left alone, and in place. If and when managing agencies contact us, they are dealt with. I have dealt with a few frauds wanting caches removed, including someone claiming to be from a National Park Service. However I had just spoke with the land manager by phone the day before about some Earthcaches. Most wilderness caches get visited less than 2-3 times per year, unless they are on trails. There are just not enough in the area that want to put that much work into finding a remote cache.

So... If you have a concern, feel free to contact your reviewer (me). If you have visited it and it appears there are specific issues, let me know.

We got one here and its a 14 miles round trip from the nearest trailhead and only get 2 to 3 visit a year. Its really back in the woods that I dont see any damage being there. The horses on the trail(s) in the area does more damage than cachers going back there. I found the cache a while back and there is no damage at GZ and no geotrail to it as well. Its an ammo can hanging from a tree. If I saw damage, I would got very concern but this isnt the case here. I am sure there are people out there that would love to see that cache archived.

[4wheelin_fool]

There are several sites that trespass and have a following of vandals, and it would be a disaster to have them list the cave locations. Weird NJ and abandoned underground are a few that I can think of right now. But, this isn't one of those sites that encourage illegal behavior, or put up locations of posted areas. If it does become like that, then I would agree with the OP. However, I have noticed a few caches that have drifted in that direction, but they have been removed, such as the one in central jersey that was located in the yard of a house that recently burned down. The only reason that I think of for that, was to use it as a handy excuse for being there while ripping out the copper piping, or grabbing other stuff.

 

This thread should actually be a reminder that illegal caches can ruin the reputation of the site and cause many legal ones to get archived, due to negative impressions.

 

There was a house around here featured on several of those other sites, known as the Purgatory house. It was abandoned haunted house with illegal access on Purgatory road. The story was that a girl that lived there died in a car accident, and the family suddenly fled, leaving all of their possessions in place. It was broken into repeatedly for about 20 years with several sites posting videos, and the new owner looking the other way, as the posted signs were really just a legal way for him to keep from getting sued if something happened. He knew that kids went in there, and did not tear it down because he was superstitious, but did revel in the publicity.

 

Then one day a few relatives of the former inhabitants discovered the rumors of what supposedly happened. They contacted one of the sites and said that it was all a lie. The girl died in 1978, and that the family lived there well into the 90s. I noticed that they had also spelled her last name wrong. They wanted this one site to take down all of the BS about it, but they refused, saying that there were many other sites with the same info.

 

The following week after the postings, it suddenly burned down. Only then, after the fact, did the owners of the site take down the info. However, the rumors are currently still up on other sites, but without a house in place they will eventually fade away.

 

This is not one of those sites, as I'd personally give it a 90% responsibility rating. However, there are still unanswered questions about those illegal hides in Germany with a delay in archival of over a year, as well as a few other illegal hides that seemingly were ignored, but we'll see what happens.

[+hzoi]

Perhaps we need to take a collective breath here before things get out of hand.

 

Let's not beat up on Nick - Cacher because he voiced a legitimate concern.

 

And since the evidence seems to bear out that this isn't exactly the most highly trafficked geocache in the world, let's also stop worrying about whether it is the cause of cave vandalism, as it does not appear to be.

 

Let's do take this, and 4wheelin_fool's example, and maybe also the recent vandalism of Mill's End Park, as a note to think about the impact our geocaches actually have, or can be perceived to have, on the places we hide them, and take that into account when planning a hide.

 

Sound good?

[+Spunkie92]

All coordinates for caves are published somewhere, just not where the public can access them. When they've gotta do a search and rescue, they pull a list of the nearby caves. If you get lost and find a nice dry cave, one would think to not leave that spot.

[Nick - Cacher]

I used to think it was weird how they don't publish coordinates for caves, until I discovered that they're not actually against people knowing where caves are at. Basically, I emailed a caving group who has a large database of GPS coordinates for caves. I was told because of how common vandalism is, they're not actually against people knowing where they're at. Instead, it's considered good etiquette to rather than telling someone the cave is, show them in person where it's at. Then that person to show the next in person, and so on down, as a way to limit cave vandalism to make it so future generations can enjoy these caves too!

 

You've yet to establish a connection between geocachers and cave vandalism. If you have evidence please put it forth.

 

Otherwise I'm inclined to think the problem lies with cavers who bring friends who tell other friends, who tell other friends. CAVERS are the problem. Cavers have been vandalizing these caves long before geocaching was a gleam in Dave Ulmer's eye.

 

You asked if the real issue is just cavers, and if it really does matter if coordinates are published online? The reason why it's better for someone to be brought to delicate caves "in person" by someone who has "cave conservation" in mind, and in return asks them to do the same for any future people they may show:

 

1. The mindset created. It is a lot more likely that people will be in the mindset of leaving the cave exactly how one found it, versus when the coordinates are published freely online so people can anonymously visit. In earlier posts I believe we established how common cave vandalism or even carelessness is, and how it takes thousands of years for these cave formations to form.

 

2. Weeding a lot of the careless people out. The people who are looking for a thrill but don't actually care if the cave gets damaged in their pursuit of fun, are likely to not have the patience to wait around to have someone in person show them where the cave is at, and often just end up finding other not so delicate places to visit instead which will give them the excitement they seek.

 

3. Limits caves from being permanently closed because of when people get killed. Although this concern would be much less applicable to this specific cave, there have been many caves in the past which had their entrances sealed off with so many feet of cement because someone just had to ruin it for everyone else by dying inside. It would seem better to visit a cave in person with someone else who already has been inside before and has been taught in cave safety, versus having random people show up.

 

As far as the seriousness of what has already happened to this specific cave, I emailed the Utah Cave Survey on the border of Nevada where the cave is, asking them about this cave, vandalism, and people posting locations online. In their email response I was told, "Goshute was once a highly decorated cave. Because of the availability of information pertaining to it, Goshute Cave is currently only a shadow of its former self. The day will soon arrive when there will be nothing in there worth seeing."

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that sound sad that in the future people may not be able to enjoy this cave because of vandalism which adds up over time?

[Nick - Cacher]

You asked me specifically about geocachers, and trusting them with an ungated cave with delicate stalactites and cave formations inside?

 

Although there's a Cache in Trash Out Forum here and in the guidelines they say not to do anything destructive to the environment, I've personally had quite a bad few experiences with geocachers with no concern for how they treat the places they visit. I am not so sure I would trust those individuals to go anonymously into a cave with formations which took thousands of years to form, that could easily be accidentally damaged just by rubbing up against them, let alone look tempting for the average person to break off to take as a souvenir, just like people enjoy picking strawberries.

 

For example, I hid a cache in a park specifically having in mind kids going with their parents to visit. Later, I visited the cache and looking at the logbook someone had signed "Child Predator" as their log name. I found all this pornography in my cache container, which had to be removed before another parent and their kids came along. Correct me if I'm wrong, are these the type of geocachers which are responsible enough to go to a delicate, non-replaceable cave like Goshute Cave? Additionally as far as many geocachers out there not caring about how they leave the place looking, often when I go check on that cache of mine there is litter all over the ground right next to the container, and I know it was from someone visiting the cache, because often I'll refill the trade items inside with stuff from the store, and I'll find the plastic packaging for these items just left out all over the ground. It's like they're thinking, "Me! Me! Me!", without any concern for how they leave the place. Correct me if I'm wrong, but many geocachers just don't seem to care about treating places they visit nicely, even if there are good cachers out there?

 

I've also multiple times found that people wrote swear words inside of the cache container, and of course I had to remove that. In the Groundspeak forums, I've seen others complain that people have gone to the bathroom in their caches, after writing something on the container with the intent to devastate the cache owner! One forum member's response to that was geocaching is mostly an anonymous activity, so it happens. You don't believe we need to bring those types of cachers to a place where they're free to break off as many stalactites as their heart's content?

Edited March 14, 2013 by Nick - Cacher

[+JL_HSTRE]

I wonder how many cache vandals have caching accounts to seek caches to defile and how many are malicious muggles who stumbled across the container not knowing in advance it was there?

 

First one can mostly be solved by a PMO cache. Second is essentially unavoidable and I suspect the real cause of about 95% of cache vandalism.

[Nick - Cacher]

I wonder how many cache vandals have caching accounts to seek caches to defile and how many are malicious muggles who stumbled across the container not knowing in advance it was there?

 

First one can mostly be solved by a PMO cache. Second is essentially unavoidable and I suspect the real cause of about 95% of cache vandalism.

 

Well, this cache is not a PMO cache, so it could turn into a delicate place to advertise on Geocaching.com.

 

Second, with the experience I gave of my cache where people throw litter on the ground using the plastic packaging for the trade items I place inside, I'll move that cache around and make sure it's hidden in vegetation, but yet people still continue to do the litter, which tells me some of the culprits are logging onto Geocaching.com to find the cache.

[+sparklefingers]

There are bad apples everywhere. You will get bad cachers. But to tar every cacher with that is wrong.

[+wimseyguy]

You asked me specifically about geocachers, and trusting them with an ungated cave with delicate stalactites and cave formations inside?

 

<snip>For example, I hid a cache in a park specifically having in mind kids going with their parents to visit. Later, I visited the cache and looking at the logbook someone had signed "Child Predator" as their log name. I found all this pornography in my cache container, which had to be removed before another parent and their kids came along. Correct me if I'm wrong, are the <snip>

 

Huh? Really? Maybe life is different in Utah? I've been caching for over 10 years, found a few more caches than the OP has in 14 different states and 36 states so far, and have never seen porn inside a cache container. I've seen a few vandalized caches, I've seen porn stashes in the woods near caches, I've seen sex toys in the woods. But nothing was ever inside the cache. You are painting the entire geocaching community with a very broad brush based on very limited experiences.

[Clan Riffster]

I used to think it was weird how they don't publish coordinates for caves, until I discovered that they're not actually against people knowing where caves are at. Basically, I emailed a caving group who has a large database of GPS coordinates for caves. I was told because of how common vandalism is, they're not actually against people knowing where they're at. Instead, it's considered good etiquette to rather than telling someone the cave is, show them in person where it's at. Then that person to show the next in person, and so on down, as a way to limit cave vandalism to make it so future generations can enjoy these caves too!

 

You've yet to establish a connection between geocachers and cave vandalism. If you have evidence please put it forth.

 

Otherwise I'm inclined to think the problem lies with cavers who bring friends who tell other friends, who tell other friends. CAVERS are the problem. Cavers have been vandalizing these caves long before geocaching was a gleam in Dave Ulmer's eye.

 

You asked if the real issue is just cavers, and if it really does matter if coordinates are published online? The reason why it's better for someone to be brought to delicate caves "in person" by someone who has "cave conservation" in mind, and in return asks them to do the same for any future people they may show:

 

1. The mindset created. It is a lot more likely that people will be in the mindset of leaving the cave exactly how one found it, versus when the coordinates are published freely online so people can anonymously visit. In earlier posts I believe we established how common cave vandalism or even carelessness is, and how it takes thousands of years for these cave formations to form.

 

2. Weeding a lot of the careless people out. The people who are looking for a thrill but don't actually care if the cave gets damaged in their pursuit of fun, are likely to not have the patience to wait around to have someone in person show them where the cave is at, and often just end up finding other not so delicate places to visit instead which will give them the excitement they seek.

 

3. Limits caves from being permanently closed because of when people get killed. Although this concern would be much less applicable to this specific cave, there have been many caves in the past which had their entrances sealed off with so many feet of cement because someone just had to ruin it for everyone else by dying inside. It would seem better to visit a cave in person with someone else who already has been inside before and has been taught in cave safety, versus having random people show up.

 

As far as the seriousness of what has already happened to this specific cave, I emailed the Utah Cave Survey on the border of Nevada where the cave is, asking them about this cave, vandalism, and people posting locations online. In their email response I was told, "Goshute was once a highly decorated cave. Because of the availability of information pertaining to it, Goshute Cave is currently only a shadow of its former self. The day will soon arrive when there will be nothing in there worth seeing."

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that sound sad that in the future people may not be able to enjoy this cave because of vandalism which adds up over time?

Brian, I'll try to translate this for you, with a bit of parsing:

 

No, there is no connection between cave vandalism and caching.

Yes, cavers are the real problem here, not cachers.

[+geodarts]

No, there is no connection between cave vandalism and caching.

Yes, cavers are the real problem here, not cachers.

 

The two are not necessarily exclusive. A cacher who goes into a cave after finding a cache is a caver.

 

I know people who have used this site to discover the location of places they were trying to find for urban or rural "exploration" -- locations that they were able to identify through cache listings even if our game does not involve actual trespassing. I suppose the same could be done with caves. Again, I believe that this is one reason why earthcaching requires speleological approval before inviting people to cave locations.

 

Although I don't think the examples cited by the OP (cache vandalism, swear words, etc) show that cachers are responsible for damage, I have seen areas frequented by cachers that have been impacted or caches placed in areas that increase the risk of environmental damage or the spread of sudden oak death. For the most part, though, I think that those who chose to play this game in the back country (including wilderness areas) take responsibility and try to tread lightly.

 

More to the point is the nature of Goshute Cave itself. The OP states it has already suffered damaged and certainly going into caves without knowing what you are doing can result in unintended damage. But again, this is a very well publicized site. The BLM maps show its location and describe it as a great spot for caving. There are signs pointing the way. Under these circumstances, I do not think the cache in question would affect this one way or the other. You do not need the cache listing to get there and this site is probably not the first place that you would use if you have a mind to visit there apart from caching.

 

The container is placed away from the cave and I do not get a sense from the logs that caving is the major draw for those who seek the cache. If I went into the cave after finding the cache, I would describe the adventure or post photos in the log. It just is not happening. Even if some did, there is no indication that the few cachers who do that are any less experienced at caving or cause any more damage than others who come here.

 

And again, any problem has already been solved by working with land managers. Earthcaches in caves require special approval. Traditionals in wilderness areas are either banned or subject to express approval. The BLM is very aware of caching and could easily contact Groundspeak if they think there is an issue with a cache that is grandfathered into this site. Other land managers have done so. Is the OP proposing that any other thing be done?

 

So I think the better question for the OP is not whether there is a link between caching and problems with caves, but is there any reason to believe that the cache at the cave that he mentions has caused any problems or is likely to cause additional problems. I am sympathetic to the concern, but given the pre-exisiting popularity of the Goshute site, I do not see it here.

Edited March 15, 2013 by geodarts

[Clan Riffster]

A cacher who goes into a cave after finding a cache is a caver.

I agree with everything except this.

I've been in a cave. (Several, actually) But I don't consider myself a caver.

In my eyes, a caver is a hobbyist who focuses on those locations.

During my visits, I would rate myself somewhere around cautious tourist.

I had no idea what I was doing, so I took exceptional care to leave no trace.

[+redwoodkestrel]

For example, I hid a cache in a park specifically having in mind kids going with their parents to visit. Later, I visited the cache and looking at the logbook someone had signed "Child Predator" as their log name. I found all this pornography in my cache container, which had to be removed before another parent and their kids came along. Correct me if I'm wrong, are these the type of geocachers which are responsible enough to go to a delicate, non-replaceable cave like Goshute Cave? Additionally as far as many geocachers out there not caring about how they leave the place looking, often when I go check on that cache of mine there is litter all over the ground right next to the container, and I know it was from someone visiting the cache, because often I'll refill the trade items inside with stuff from the store, and I'll find the plastic packaging for these items just left out all over the ground. It's like they're thinking, "Me! Me! Me!", without any concern for how they leave the place. Correct me if I'm wrong, but many geocachers just don't seem to care about treating places they visit nicely, even if there are good cachers out there?

 

I've also multiple times found that people wrote swear words inside of the cache container, and of course I had to remove that. In the Groundspeak forums, I've seen others complain that people have gone to the bathroom in their caches, after writing something on the container with the intent to devastate the cache owner! One forum member's response to that was geocaching is mostly an anonymous activity, so it happens. You don't believe we need to bring those types of cachers to a place where they're free to break off as many stalactites as their heart's content?

 

This sounds a lot more like actions of muggles/teenagers/etc. who accidentally stumble upon a cache rather than geocachers.

[+TheWeatherWarrior]

Are you suggesting that encouraging people to place geocaches on National Wilderness Areas after a federal law was passed is good publicity for Geocaching.com?

99% of the population still doesn't know what geocaching is, and never will. Don't worry about "publicity". There is ZERO of it to begin with...good, bad, ugly, or otherwise!

[Nick - Cacher]

A cacher who goes into a cave after finding a cache is a caver.

I agree with everything except this.

I've been in a cave. (Several, actually) But I don't consider myself a caver.

In my eyes, a caver is a hobbyist who focuses on those locations.

During my visits, I would rate myself somewhere around cautious tourist.

I had no idea what I was doing, so I took exceptional care to leave no trace.

 

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with the previous two statements of Clan Riffster and geodarts.

 

"Cavers" are not what are causing the vandalism. First before you object, let me explain. The media usually uses the word "spelunking" to describe going into caves. So, caving clubs, especially members of the National Speleological Society, like to call themselves "cavers" in order to let other "cavers" know they're not the same people who call themselves "spelunkers", so that they don't have to worry. Cavers see spelunkers as those who only care about having a thrill, but not cave conservation. When the Sheriff's Office gets called out for Search and Rescue to caves, a lot of counties will call out cavers from local grottos. So apparently there's a phrase "Cavers Rescue Spelunkers"! They often see spelunkers as tourists going into caves and causing damage along the way (Clan Riffster, notice that I did not accuse you of being one of those, since you called yourself a "cautious tourist"). Apparently, this distinction between words only applies to the U.S.

 

Anyway, as far as "cavers" causing the damage, many caving clubs will have cave service projects, where they'll help out the BLM or other agency with removing graffiti from a cave, or help a National Park/Monument with lint cleanup. That's why I'm doubting that it's cavers causing the damage.

 

Although I'm not a grotto member, all this talk is making me want to join one of their clubs. I've been to some meetings for different groups, just out of curiosity.

[+briansnat]

For example, I hid a cache in a park specifically having in mind kids going with their parents to visit. Later, I visited the cache and looking at the logbook someone had signed "Child Predator" as their log name. I found all this pornography in my cache container, which had to be removed before another parent and their kids came along. Correct me if I'm wrong, are these the type of geocachers which are responsible enough to go to a delicate, non-replaceable cave like Goshute Cave? Additionally as far as many geocachers out there not caring about how they leave the place looking, often when I go check on that cache of mine there is litter all over the ground right next to the container, and I know it was from someone visiting the cache, because often I'll refill the trade items inside with stuff from the store, and I'll find the plastic packaging for these items just left out all over the ground. It's like they're thinking, "Me! Me! Me!", without any concern for how they leave the place. Correct me if I'm wrong, but many geocachers just don't seem to care about treating places they visit nicely, even if there are good cachers out there?

 

I've also multiple times found that people wrote swear words inside of the cache container, and of course I had to remove that. In the Groundspeak forums, I've seen others complain that people have gone to the bathroom in their caches, after writing something on the container with the intent to devastate the cache owner! One forum member's response to that was geocaching is mostly an anonymous activity, so it happens. You don't believe we need to bring those types of cachers to a place where they're free to break off as many stalactites as their heart's content?

 

This sounds more like the work of non geocachers vandalizing geocaches.

[Clan Riffster]

"Cavers" are not what are causing the vandalism

it sounds like a battle of semantics from over here in the cheap seats.

By Geodarts definition, anyone who enters a cave with the intention of checking it out, becomes a caver.

By his definition, I would be a caver.

Yet, you tell us there are levels of distinction which must be observed.

Since I identify myself as a tourist with little to no knowledge of caves, I would more closely resemble a spelunker.

Perhaps the label changes from spelunker to caver when a degree of respect for caves is reached?

If I worked my way to the level of caver, then broke off a stalagmite, would I then revert to spelunker?

 

Regardless of the self important labels you seem so intent on applying, three things are pretty clear.

1 ) The cache you questioned is not responsible for bringing folks to that wildly publicized cave.

2 ) Damage to caves is unlikely to come from cachers, who rate fairly high in the respect nature matrix.

3 ) Damage to caches is unlikely to come from cachers.

 

Your whole thread is much ado about nothing.

[+cerberus1]

Your whole thread is much ado about nothing.

I agree.

When the nearby cache hasn't been logged in two years, there's really no issue.

With only two logs actually saying they were at the cave, both said that they were in the area for it and the cache was pretty-much an afterthought.

 

"Some friends brought us to the cave so we had to get the cache while we were in the area."

- Answering the "how do people find out ?" question.

 

"Been in the area a few times going to the cave. Nice area and hide."

- Been to the cave, now there's a cache nearby.

[+geodarts]

Your whole thread is much ado about nothing.

 

That seems to be the case. So that my questions are not lost in a debate over semantics, I would again ask the OP two questions

 

1. What should this site do that it is not doing? Requiring National Speleological Society approval for earthcaches indicates awareness of special issues affecting North American caves. Respecting land managers rules for wilderness areas (whether it be requirements for express permission or blanket bans) helps ensure that this game will be played in appropriate areas. Giving land managers and other agencies access to this site helps ensure they can monitor the game. Removing older cache listings (or even ones that have been previously approved) upon the request of land managers allows problems to be addressed directly. What are you asking?

 

2. What do you identify as the problem with this particular listing? The cache is not in the cave. The BLM identifies the Goshute Cave and points the way to it. Information about the cave is widely available on the net through more direct sources than caching. Wikipedia even has it listed. We are not giving away any secrets.

 

If you still have concerns you could politely ask the CO to add a sentence or two advising people to enter the cave only if they are with experienced people, to plan approately, and to leave no trace. That is more than the BLM does, but the NPS has asked for "leave no trace" wording on some of my earthcaches.

 

With a little more research I have solved at least part of the mystery. Identified problems at Goshute have not been linked to either cachers, cavers, or cautious tourists. It seems that the Boy Scouts have been blamed. But I also suspect mineralogists, given the sample from a private collection listed at this database.

Edited March 16, 2013 by geodarts

[+NeverSummer]

Woah, hold it.

 

Here is the thing. I am very familiar with US designated Wilderness Areas. The policy that agencies (should) follow is that geocaches are not allowed in designated Wilderness areas.

 

The problem is, some field stations are not aware of the game, or that there is a policy against placing geocaches on federally designated Wilderness areas.

 

Visit Wilderness.net for a summary description of geocaching in Wilderness.

 

I have it on good authority that geocaches are not allowed in designated Wilderness areas. I also have it on good authority that some field station managers (read: the people we geocachers most commonly assume can approve/deny a geocache on "their" lands) are not aware of federal policies dealing with geocaching.

 

Federal agencies are not run by field station managers, regional office managers, etc. These agencies are large, cumbersome beasts that have control starting at the top. Problem is, the messages from the top aren't always clearly passed along, especially with items deemed low priority in regard to overall missions of the agency.

 

So, no, no, no. Geocaches should not be placed within federally designated Wilderness areas.

[+geodarts]

So, no, no, no. Geocaches should not be placed within federally designated Wilderness areas.

 

That has not always been the case. The most recent (2012) policy manual on wilderness management classifies them as prohibited installations. A 2005 BLM memo on geocaching, howver, allowed them subject to special approval. Without getting into whether either of these documents are legally binding or enforceable under the administrative procedures act, it at least appears that there has been a change in policy.

 

When the NPS banned caching in my area existing caches remained listed on this site. Eventually the park service removed all but two or three. They could have also requested that Groundspeak archive the existing listings, but so far they do not appear to have done so and the remaining caches on NPS land continue to be listed. It seems that Groundspeak is doing the same with BLM wilderness caches, such as this one. Which brings us back to whether Groundspeak should take a proactive approach to older listings.

Edited March 21, 2013 by geodarts

[+learnincurve]

In the UK we are taught "look but don't touch" I can see how there might be a problem with hiding a cashe in a place where stalagmites/stalactites could be accidentally broken during the search for it could be a problem, but that's a placement not a location issue. It's staggering to me that you have your caves blocked off and hidden for a select few, over here the big ones are tourist destinations and the little ones are just despised by mountain rescue (any blocked ones will be blocked because they are unsafe). I can understand fears about vandals, although it must be quite a determined vandal if a cave is 10 miles away from the nearest road, but a CCTV camera would be far less damaging to the rocks than metal gates, but unfortunately although the law is an a** it's still the law - although if you are giving coordinates to a cashe and not the cave then there's your loophole.

 

edit: just remembered, environmentalists in the UK don't like gates because of the negative impact on bats

Edited March 21, 2013 by learnincurve

[+humboldt flier]

Dear OP.

 

You seem most willing to throw rocks at your fellow cachers without proof that they are indeed the culprits.

 

Every clown on the planet with a smartphone and an app can locate a cache. Further, folks with a Geomate or one of the preloaded Magellan units can wander the "Geocaching Playground".

 

As has been pointed out your location of concern is available on a myriad of other sites and map systems. Which begs the question, who really visited the area.

 

What really chips my concrete is that you seemed to quickly paint the Geo-Caching Community at large with a very large brush.

 

I hate to see a cache go, however, if you are so filled with bilious rhuem ... take the cache down and crawl back under your bridge with your paintbrush.

Edited March 21, 2013 by humboldt flier

[+humboldt flier]

Geeeeeeeee,

 

I sure woke up on the wrong side of the bed.

[Nick - Cacher]

Dear OP.

 

You seem most willing to throw rocks at your fellow cachers without proof that they are indeed the culprits.

 

Every clown on the planet with a smartphone and an app can locate a cache. Further, folks with a Geomate or one of the preloaded Magellan units can wander the "Geocaching Playground".

 

As has been pointed out your location is available on a myriad of other sites and map systems.

 

What really chips my concrete is that you seemed to quickly paint the Geo-Caching Community at large with a very large brush.

 

I hate to see a cache go, however, if you are so filled with bilious rhuem ... take the cache down and crawl back under your bridge with your paintbrush.

 

And you're getting mad at me?

 

What I don't understand is on the Geocaching.com Guidelines:

 

"Wildlife and the natural environment are not harmed in the pursuit of geocaching.

Geocaches are placed so that plant and animal life are safe from both intentional and unintentional harm. In some regions geocaching activity may need to cease for portions of the year due to sensitivity of some species."

Geocache Placement Guidelines Link

 

I'm sorry, but wildlife Geocaching.com is concerned about doesn't take tens of thousands of years to come back after being damaged, many cave formations do! That just sounds quite inconsistent to me!

 

Before you say that I'm throwing rocks at geocachers, isn't Geocaching.com doing the same exact thing, by saying they don't think geocaches should be placed in areas where it could be a potential problem? It's okay for you to get upset at me, but not Geocaching.com for suggesting that caches shouldn't be placed in areas where wildlife could be harmed in their guidelines? I never said most cachers are destructive, and have cleared up that misconception many times, that most are good but there are always a few individuals out there who may cause problems. It just irks me that Geocaching.com goes around saying that wildlife can't be harmed, but if I say delicate stalactites which take tens of thousands of years to form, that automatically means I'm accusatory?!!! You said just anyone can Google cave locations even if they aren't geocachers? Well, I'm sorry but people can do the same for areas with delicate wildlife. So then why does Geocaching.com even need guidelines to protect wildlife?

Edited March 21, 2013 by Nick - Cacher

[+NeverSummer]

Real quick:

The answer to the "When there are physical geocaches in National Wilderness Areas" question lies here:

As set forth in Section 2© (“Definition of Wilderness”) of the Wilderness Act, wilderness character is composed of four mandatory qualities and a fifth, optional, quality. These are:

i. Untrammeled. The Wilderness Act states that wilderness is “an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man.” A “trammel”

is literally a net, snare, hobble, or other device that impedes the free movement of an animal. Here, used metaphorically, “untrammeled” refers

to wilderness as essentially unhindered and free from modern human control or manipulation. This quality is impaired by human activities or actions that control or manipulate the components or processes of ecological systems

inside wilderness.

ii. Natural. The Wilderness Act states that wilderness is “protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions.” In short, wilderness

ecological systems should be as free as possible from the effects of modern civilization. Management must foster a natural distribution of native

wildlife, fish, and plants by ensuring that ecosystems and ecological processes continue to function naturally. Watersheds, water bodies, water

quality, and soils are maintained in a natural condition; associated ecological processes previously altered by human influences will be allowed to return to their natural condition. Fire, insects, and diseases are allowed to play their natural role in the wilderness ecosystem except where these activities threaten human life, property, or high value resources on adjacent nonwilderness lands. Additional guidance on this is provided in section 1.6.C of this manual, which addresses the management of specific activities in wilderness. This quality may be affected by intended or unintended effects of human activities on the ecological systems inside the wilderness.

iii. Undeveloped. The Wilderness Act states that wilderness is an area “of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence,

without permanent improvements or human habitation,” “where man himself is a visitor who does not remain,” and “with the imprint of man’s

work substantially unnoticeable.” Wilderness has minimal evidence of modern human occupation or modification. This quality is impaired by the

presence of structures or installations, and by the use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport that increases people’s ability BLM Manual 6340—Management of BLM Wilderness 1-6 to occupy or modify the environment. More detail on the activities that

impair this quality is found in Section 1.6.B of this policy.

iv. Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation. The Wilderness Act states that wilderness has “outstanding opportunities for solitude or a

primitive and unconfined type of recreation.” Wilderness provides opportunities for people to experience: natural sights and sounds; remote,

isolated, unfrequented, or secluded places; and freedom, risk, and the physical and emotional challenges of self-discovery and self-reliance. Any

one wilderness does not have to provide all these opportunities, nor is it necessary that they be present on every acre of a given wilderness. Where

present, however, the preservation of these opportunities is important to the preservation of wilderness character as a whole. This quality is impaired by settings that reduce these opportunities, such as visitor encounters, signs of modern civilization, recreation facilities, and management restrictions on visitor behavior.

v. Unique, Supplemental, or Other Features. The Wilderness Act states that wilderness areas “may also contain ecological, geological, or other features

of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.” Though these values are not required of any wilderness, where they are present they are part of that area’s wilderness character, and must be protected as rigorously as any of the four required qualities. They may include historical, cultural,

paleontological, or other resources not necessarily considered a part of any of the other qualities. These values are identified in a number of ways: in the area’s designating legislation, through its legislative history, by the original wilderness inventory, in a wilderness management plan, or at some other time after designation.

 

Installations are describes as:

j. installations. Anything made by humans that is not intended for human occupation and is left behind when the installer leaves the wilderness.

 

“Installations” can be stationary (including, but not limited to: weather stations, physical geocaches, and trail signs) or mobile (including, but not limited to, radio collars or other remote tracking devices when they are installed in the wilderness). Installations include things that remain on the landscape such as trails and bridges. They do not include non-motorized devices that are carried by people in the wilderness and leave with them (including, but not limited to:

GPS units, emergency location transmitters, cell phones, watches, and computers). It may be appropriate to regulate the length of time an installation may be unattended without requiring a special permit (e.g., water caches in desert areas or food caches on long trails) in an individual wilderness area.(Also see C.13.c.i and C.21.c.ix.A.II) Installations may only be allowed in wilderness areas if they are associated with a valid existing right (as noted in 1.6.B.3.B ), if necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of the Wilderness Act (as noted in 1.6.B.3.c), including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area, allowed under a special provision of Section 4(d) of the Act, or explicitly identified in the legislation designating a particular wilderness.

 

This comes from definitions and descriptions from the Wilderness Act and is supported in US Department of Interior publications regarding Wilderness and Wilderness Character.

 

As in the other thread currently going on about Wilderness, the problem is that geocachers and station managers for agencies may not be familiar with the contents of the Wilderness Act and how geocaches are handled in that context. Add in that some station managers do not know the game of geocaching, and the excited geocacher that wants to place a cache there, and you get a story that sounds good in theory. Problem being, it isn't up to the station manager to place caches in Wilderness Areas. The federal government would have to address geocaching in light of the Wilderness Act, and its impact on Wilderness Character. Each agency would have to monitor, report, and open public comment for an allowance.

 

This all is moot, however. The Wilderness Character and Wilderness Act already include activities such as geocaching as those that are not allowed. Memos exist that include (especially specific in DOI memos and policy) geocaching as an improper use of Wilderness due to the clear examples of how the game impacts Wilderness Character.

 

So, rather than sitting here and arguing over who has allowed it and who hasn't, we should be talking about who is going to go and remove those caches which clearly go against federal law. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but this is the case, and it would be hard for Groundspeak to deny.

[4wheelin_fool]

The people who would be for removing them, are the same who allowed them with their permission. The Wilderness Act is not set in stone, as there is always the case for revisions. Perhaps there are Geocachers working with land managers to see how the sport impacts those areas. If the geocache can be removed without any permanent impact, it can be argued that it does not truly fall under the definition of an installation.

 

Installations include things that remain on the landscape such as trails and bridges. They do not include non-motorized devices that are carried by people in the wilderness and leave with them (including, but not limited to:

GPS units, emergency location transmitters, cell phones, watches, and computers).

 

If it is not abandoned, and removed after a certain time period with the permission of the field managers, it should be fine. Without their knowledge, it would be not

[+NeverSummer]

The people who would be for removing them, are the same who allowed them with their permission. The Wilderness Act is not set in stone, as there is always the case for revisions. Perhaps there are Geocachers working with land managers to see how the sport impacts those areas. If the geocache can be removed without any permanent impact, it can be argued that it does not truly fall under the definition of an installation.

 

Installations include things that remain on the landscape such as trails and bridges. They do not include non-motorized devices that are carried by people in the wilderness and leave with them (including, but not limited to:

GPS units, emergency location transmitters, cell phones, watches, and computers).

 

If it is not abandoned, and removed after a certain time period with the permission of the field managers, it should be fine. Without their knowledge, it would be not

The Wilderness Act has provisions for review of new activities, yes. (Believe me, I'm very familiar with it) But you can't just slide a personal definition of geocaching into the intended use or allowable installation definitions to make it "ok".

 

You left out a key part of the definition in your quote:

“Installations” can be stationary (including, but not limited to: weather stations, physical geocaches, and trail signs) or mobile (including, but not limited to, radio collars or other remote tracking devices when they are installed in the wilderness). Installations include things that remain on the landscape such as trails and bridges.

 

This isn't just about "installations". The whole idea here is that the Wilderness Character is altered with geocaching. Altering the wilderness in any way by human impact is not allowed, and Leave No Trace policies are to be followed for allowed activities (camping, hiking, hunting, etc). However, you are not allowed to leave things behind. I highly doubt that a geocache owner has gone through the complete and proper channels to get permissions for a geocache on Wilderness lands. That would require specific monitoring, reporting, and a public comment period.

 

In addition, Wilderness areas are generally not easily accessed. In these cases, how can you honestly tell me that the geocache owner has been regularly checking in to see if the cache is affecting Wilderness Character? Add to that, most geocachers are not able to identify Wilderness Character and when or how their geocache might affect it. The methods that we've all seen or become accustomed to all are methods that alter Wilderness Character. Unless the geocache is laid out in the open without anchor or attachment, it is going to affect the Character. The search itself--especially in areas with poor reception--will fit under the Section 2.i issue of "trammeling" the vegetation.

 

I'm not trying to take away a hiding location for geocaching. I'm simply trying to raise awareness about Wilderness Areas, and the requirements of the law. All it takes is a geocache that wasn't placed by going through the proper channels, and we can easily sully the reputation of the game on the whole.

 

The other issue is that we have definitions that exclude geocaching from use in Wilderness Areas on record. Why bend the law to allow them? Can't it just be ok to not have geocaches in Wilderness, and follow the law?

[+NeverSummer]

To counter the "installations" line of thought:

Installations may only be allowed in wilderness areas if they are associated with a valid existing right (as noted in 1.6.B.3.B ), if necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of the Wilderness Act (as noted in 1.6.B.3.c), including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area, allowed under a special provision of Section 4(d) of the Act, or explicitly identified in the legislation designating a particular wilderness.

 

For example, special use permits are issued by the agency through an "up the ladder" process for things like study sites that might use a weather station, or other telemetry equipment.

 

If you can get some legislation for a new or existing Wilderness to contain language stating that geocaching would be explicitly identified as an allowable use, that's great news. Until then the existing legislation for Wilderness, as outlined in the 1964 Act and more recent relevant revisions and additions, does not allow for a myriad of activities.