Jump to content

Is it okay to put screws into trees?


Recommended Posts

I always thought this was against the guidelines, but there was a cache recently that got an N/A on it for that, and the reviewer said it was okay to do it. GC4HPJ2

 

So it is okay now?

 

I always thought it wasn't okay to put things into trees. I'm one of those tree huggers who loves trees and doesn't want to harm them, but maybe this doesn't really harm them. Does anyone know? I'm not a botanist.

 

If screwing into trees is okay, then posts must certainly be okay. That would make a lot of caches possible that weren't before. I don't think personally I'd actually screw into a tree, but I certainly would love to put some caches on some posts. That would open up some great possibilities.

 

Can anyone answer these questions for me?

Thanks

Link to comment

I've always found it interesting that the general rule is no screws or nails in trees, but land/park managers use this same method to attached trail markers all the time.

 

I suppose the reason behind the dim view of fasteners in trees is that we should do nothing that defaces anything, not so much that it will harm the tree.

Link to comment

I've always found it interesting that the general rule is no screws or nails in trees, but land/park managers use this same method to attached trail markers all the time.

 

I suppose the reason behind the dim view of fasteners in trees is that we should do nothing that defaces anything, not so much that it will harm the tree.

 

Two good points. Thank you Bill.

 

I forgot about the defacing idea because I'm so protective of trees. I'm still not sure about the tree damage part. I've seen trees grow around bicycles and other things and they seem just fine. But maybe that's different because it doesn't break their "skin", I don't know.

Link to comment

I've always found it interesting that the general rule is no screws or nails in trees, but land/park managers use this same method to attached trail markers all the time.

 

I suppose the reason behind the dim view of fasteners in trees is that we should do nothing that defaces anything, not so much that it will harm the tree.

Yes the general rule is no nails or screws in trees. But you can cut a deal with your reviewer and then it is okay. I suppose if you cut a deal you can even bury a cache.

Link to comment

The cache listing is an interesting read. 4W placed the NA log, & Keystone okayed the cache. It appears that the specific means of attachment was specifically okayed by the land manager. Of course most of us have not seen the actual cache.

 

There have been debates here about whether some practices set a bad example. Thus, even if the land manager sends you a letter saying you can bury the cache, I understand it won't be approved because then others will think it's okay.

 

I was forced to remove a screw from a dead, fallen tree by the local reviewer!

 

In the same park, the landowner attached trail signs to live healthy trees!

 

To me it's amazing how common it is for homeowners and organizations to use trees for every possible purpose, like mounting outdoor light fixtures on the tree, attaching mailboxes, etc. That stuff definitely risks harming a live tree. It also can look tacky.

Link to comment

I always thought this was against the guidelines, but there was a cache recently that got an N/A on it for that, and the reviewer said it was okay to do it. GC4HPJ2

 

So it is okay now?

Your summary contains a false statement (I never said "it was okay to do it") so your question is flawed. Therefore, I won't participate in your "discussion"

Link to comment

I always thought this was against the guidelines, but there was a cache recently that got an N/A on it for that, and the reviewer said it was okay to do it. GC4HPJ2

 

So it is okay now?

Your summary contains a false statement (I never said "it was okay to do it") so your question is flawed. Therefore, I won't participate in your "discussion"

 

Um... you just did.

 

I appreciate you checking in on this. I seem to have an incorrect assumption in my original post.

 

So then did the land manager really approve of a screw being put into a tree? And if so, then why was it still allowed, because we all know that others would then think that it's okay to do it when they see one example of it?

 

But this is more than a discussion of just that one incident. Some people are bringing up some excellent points here, including the fire tact angle, which I hadn't thought of, and other incidents where inconsistency seems to be the norm.

 

So perhaps I am mistaken by thinking that there should be a consistent norm. Perhaps I am being too much of a "cache nazi" for thinking there should be one norm. When one submits a cache for review that is turned down for a guideline violation it makes it seem like there is just one norm, but in fact, it doesn't appear that there really is.

Link to comment

Another cacher, just told me that damage isn't done to trees with screws. They said that maple trees are tapped for syrup every year.

 

Interesting.

 

Actually I've seen a lot of old signs put up on trees by the forest service, many years ago, before they quit doing that. Those trees are fine, but are just "eating" the signs.

 

I'm sure no damage is done to wooden posts. I still wouldn't do it to a tree, just in case, but it certainly wouldn't do any damage to a post.

 

what about a public wooden post that has no land manager to ask?

Link to comment

I guess it depends on the length of screw. Apparently the length of a fire tack http://shop.geocaching.com/default/geo-tacks-25-pack-black.html, is perfectly acceptable.

Believe it or not that could be relevant. I understand that a tack that doesn't extend all the way through the bark is far less likely to harm the tree.

 

That it doesn't extend all the way through the bark, is depends entirely on the type of tree.

Edited by M 5
Link to comment

This subject has been discussed before in this forum. As mentioned earlier in this thread, it is an issue of defacement, and of perceptions by land managers.

 

It may be true that in most cases, a screw in a tree will not hurt it (although there can be exceptions - a hole can introduce something that can damage the tree). Also true, a screw in a fencepost will not hurt it.

 

But, Groundspeak has a guideline about defacement so that property is not damaged in any way to support a geocache, so that no ill will comes towards geocaching by land managing agencies, or private citizens.

 

It is also true that there have been some exceptions when it comes to private property. If a land manager gives their express permission, a reviewer or Groundspeak may make that exception. This, of course, can bring up the worry that even though there is permission, seeing something "defaced" can be confusing and make other cache hiders and land managers think that Groundspeak is alright with defacement.

 

Personally, as a reviewer, I do not publish caches like these. If I see something that defaces land or property even with permission, I will bump it up to Groundspeak and let them make the decision. Also, in the cases where there is permission, I think that it should at least be stated so on the cache page. But ever reviewer deals with these exceptions differently.

 

And yes, fire tacks have been deemed alright, since they are so small and don't go very far in (they fall off all the time, as they aren't really permanent).

 

I hope that this helps the discussion in this thread.

Link to comment

<snip>

Also, in the cases where there is permission, I think that it should at least be stated so on the cache page.

<snip>

 

That bit of wisdom should go in the guidelines to reviewers. Absolutes are hard to come by in this life and I don't expect them in a game. But the application of the appropriate disclaimer, when necessary, might lower the angst level around here!

Link to comment

<snip>

Also, in the cases where there is permission, I think that it should at least be stated so on the cache page.

<snip>

 

That bit of wisdom should go in the guidelines to reviewers. Absolutes are hard to come by in this life and I don't expect them in a game. But the application of the appropriate disclaimer, when necessary, might lower the angst level around here!

 

+1

 

If a cache appears to violate the guidelines, and an exception has been granted for any reason, it should be a requirement that the cache list contain language explaining that permission has been granted. I can't think of any negative consequences for including something on the cache page about permission or any other apparent guideline issues. I also think it's risky to assume that permission granted at the time a cache was published several years ago still applies today.

 

Link to comment

I always thought this was against the guidelines, but there was a cache recently that got an N/A on it for that, and the reviewer said it was okay to do it. GC4HPJ2

 

So it is okay now?

Your summary contains a false statement (I never said "it was okay to do it") so your question is flawed. Therefore, I won't participate in your "discussion"

Instead of simply explaining the circumstances, everyone is left to their imagination, and we are to guess the scenario. So far we have that the cache has explicit permission, so it won't be archived, but the reviewer seemed surprised and it's not "okay", with a legalistic, courtroom like final reply. Didn't know there was a trial going on here, just some unanswered questions.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

As far as damage to the tree goes, I've been in the timber/lumber/homebuilding/woodworking field now for 50 years. A nail or screw no matter how long does no more damage to a tree than pierced earrings does to a person. Now the damage at the sawmill, that's another matter, although metal detectors have all but eliminated that problem.

As far as the nails/screws "defaces land or property" the mere act of placing a cache in the woods does the same. Geotrails, cachers turning over rocks and deadfalls, breaking tree limbs and trampling the terrain around GZ does far more damage.

Edited by Poker70
Link to comment

Here in Brazil I´ve found caches that the CO put screws and nails on the trees and others that CO crafted a G symbol on the tree with a knife.

 

In both cases I always say that on my log and alert the reviewers about this. Those caches were all archived or modified so no tree would be hurt.

 

Putting a nail or a screw on a tree can expose the tree to virus or other organisms and create an infection that can kill the tree in the long run, my opinion is that no living being should be harmed in the propose of geocaching!

Link to comment

I always thought this was against the guidelines, but there was a cache recently that got an N/A on it for that, and the reviewer said it was okay to do it. GC4HPJ2

 

So it is okay now?

Your summary contains a false statement (I never said "it was okay to do it") so your question is flawed. Therefore, I won't participate in your "discussion"

Instead of simply explaining the circumstances, everyone is left to their imagination, and we are to guess the scenario. So far we have that the cache has explicit permission, so it won't be archived, but the reviewer seemed surprised and it's not "okay", with a legalistic, courtroom like final reply. Didn't know there was a trial going on here, just some unanswered questions.

 

How about it has 12 favorite points but I'm not giving it it's 13th because it's a guideline violation? That'll show 'em. Even though I published it myself. Is that legalistic enough for you? :ph34r:

 

BTW, the whole screwing things into live trees thing is totally overblown. But rules are rules. Or as they like to say around here in legalistic terms, guidelines are guidelines.

Edited by Mr.Yuck
Link to comment

As far as damage to the tree goes, I've been in the timber/lumber/homebuilding/woodworking field now for 50 years. A nail or screw no matter how long does no more damage to a tree than pierced earrings does to a person. Now the damage at the sawmill, that's another matter, although metal detectors have all but eliminated that problem.

As far as the nails/screws "defaces land or property" the mere act of placing a cache in the woods does the same. Geotrails, cachers turning over rocks and deadfalls, breaking tree limbs and trampling the terrain around GZ does far more damage.

 

Thank you, I've said this many times.

 

This is actually a topic for every other Tuesday alternating with buried caches. These are really non issues with the general caching community and thousands cover the U.S., I found a couple today. A very few cachers like to attempt to micro manage the game as self appointed cache detectives and you'll see these topics come up in the forums.

Where the rubber meets the road creative caches are appreciated.

Link to comment

I always thought this was against the guidelines, but there was a cache recently that got an N/A on it for that, and the reviewer said it was okay to do it. GC4HPJ2

 

So it is okay now?

Your summary contains a false statement (I never said "it was okay to do it") so your question is flawed. Therefore, I won't participate in your "discussion"

Instead of simply explaining the circumstances, everyone is left to their imagination, and we are to guess the scenario. So far we have that the cache has explicit permission, so it won't be archived, but the reviewer seemed surprised and it's not "okay", with a legalistic, courtroom like final reply. Didn't know there was a trial going on here, just some unanswered questions.

 

How about it has 12 favorite points but I'm not giving it it's 13th because it's a guideline violation? That'll show 'em. Even though I published it myself. Is that legalistic enough for you? :ph34r:

 

BTW, the whole screwing things into live trees thing is totally overblown. But rules are rules. Or as they like to say around here in legalistic terms, guidelines are guidelines.

 

I actually don't care much about the situation, but just wanted to clarify exactly what was happening. When someone becomes less than forthcoming about details it gives the impression that something is being hidden. I don't like playing guessing games, or using a NA log to get info.

 

Many years ago I used small nails to hide a cache. I first tried small tacks, but they would not cooperate. It was a puzzle cache in which someone had to go to a specific location and find clues to go a certain distance and make the find. I placed several tree faces and used the eyes to indicate the direction, as well as the final location. I really didn't think the small nails would cause any issue as long as they were not removed, plus they were 10 feet up common scrawny pine trees. One cacher thought it was great! Then a week later he bored a large hole in an oak tree which was over 100 years old to hide a film can behind a tree face. It was one of the largest trees in that forest. When I told him I didn't think it was a good idea, he got a bit indignant and said it was "only a tree", and he owned a few hundred acres around here, so he didn't care what the township thought. I then thought my hide was a really bad idea, so eventually I archived it. Today there is a cacher nearby who apparently watches YouTube videos and has copied nearly every defacement cache idea out there. Now if the reviewer finds them and they stay active, how many more do you think will sprout? People are followers, and the favorite points only encourages it. Reviewer apathy goes a long way.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

<snip>

Also, in the cases where there is permission, I think that it should at least be stated so on the cache page.

<snip>

 

That bit of wisdom should go in the guidelines to reviewers. Absolutes are hard to come by in this life and I don't expect them in a game. But the application of the appropriate disclaimer, when necessary, might lower the angst level around here!

 

 

Well said Michael!

 

Yes, we need clarity where there are exceptions. It would help a whole lot to have that written on the cache page.

 

that will help newcomers who don't know about any guidelines that might indicate it is not okay, but also it would help those who have caches denied because of the same issues. If that cache was deemed okay, how come other caches have not? That would clear that up.

Link to comment

I always thought this was against the guidelines, but there was a cache recently that got an N/A on it for that, and the reviewer said it was okay to do it. GC4HPJ2

 

So it is okay now?

Your summary contains a false statement (I never said "it was okay to do it") so your question is flawed. Therefore, I won't participate in your "discussion"

Instead of simply explaining the circumstances, everyone is left to their imagination, and we are to guess the scenario. So far we have that the cache has explicit permission, so it won't be archived, but the reviewer seemed surprised and it's not "okay", with a legalistic, courtroom like final reply. Didn't know there was a trial going on here, just some unanswered questions.

 

How about it has 12 favorite points but I'm not giving it it's 13th because it's a guideline violation? That'll show 'em. Even though I published it myself. Is that legalistic enough for you? :ph34r:

 

BTW, the whole screwing things into live trees thing is totally overblown. But rules are rules. Or as they like to say around here in legalistic terms, guidelines are guidelines.

 

I actually don't care much about the situation, but just wanted to clarify exactly what was happening. When someone becomes less than forthcoming about details it gives the impression that something is being hidden. I don't like playing guessing games, or using a NA log to get info.

 

Many years ago I used small nails to hide a cache. I first tried small tacks, but they would not cooperate. It was a puzzle cache in which someone had to go to a specific location and find clues to go a certain distance and make the find. I placed several tree faces and used the eyes to indicate the direction, as well as the final location. I really didn't think the small nails would cause any issue as long as they were not removed, plus they were 10 feet up common scrawny pine trees. One cacher thought it was great! Then a week later he bored a large hole in an oak tree which was over 100 years old to hide a film can behind a tree face. It was one of the largest trees in that forest. When I told him I didn't think it was a good idea, he got a bit indignant and said it was "only a tree", and he owned a few hundred acres around here, so he didn't care what the township thought. I then thought my hide was a really bad idea, so eventually I archived it. Today there is a cacher nearby who apparently watches YouTube videos and has copied nearly every defacement cache idea out there. Now if the reviewer finds them and they stay active, how many more do you think will sprout? People are followers, and the favorite points only encourages it. Reviewer apathy goes a long way.

 

+1

 

Thanks for writing this.

 

I know this type of thing must happen a lot.

Link to comment

Taps for maple syrup is a good example of how this practice doesn't damage trees. Farmers have nailed barbed wire to trees for years. They also attach insulators to those trees for an electric fence. If this were a problem you would not see trees in fence rows on farms.

 

I watched a This Old House segment once about a tree with a split branch. The repair to save the tree (by a tree surgeon) was to drill several 1/2" holes all the way through the tree and then insert all thread rod with washers and nuts on both sides and then tighten them down to bring the tree back together. Extra all thread rod is cut flush with the nuts. The tree eventually covers the the rod and you never see it again.

 

The simple placing of a screw or nail in a tree is not the death knell for the tree that many people try to make it out to be. That said, I wouldn't want to see this becoming accepted practice. Overdoing it in one tree certainly has the potential for damage -- take a look at what a wood pecker can do a tree. But while one guy is happy with one screw to mount his cache another is going to want to drill a large cavity to hide it.

Link to comment

Taps for maple syrup is a good example of how this practice doesn't damage trees. Farmers have nailed barbed wire to trees for years. They also attach insulators to those trees for an electric fence. If this were a problem you would not see trees in fence rows on farms.

 

I watched a This Old House segment once about a tree with a split branch. The repair to save the tree (by a tree surgeon) was to drill several 1/2" holes all the way through the tree and then insert all thread rod with washers and nuts on both sides and then tighten them down to bring the tree back together. Extra all thread rod is cut flush with the nuts. The tree eventually covers the the rod and you never see it again.

 

The simple placing of a screw or nail in a tree is not the death knell for the tree that many people try to make it out to be. That said, I wouldn't want to see this becoming accepted practice. Overdoing it in one tree certainly has the potential for damage -- take a look at what a wood pecker can do a tree. But while one guy is happy with one screw to mount his cache another is going to want to drill a large cavity to hide it.

So, now we are comparing what Humans do for food, with what Humans do as a hobbie?!?!?!? :blink:

 

There are many more examples on what Humans extract from trees or damage trees to take benefit. For you to do geocaching HAVE TO put a nail or a screw in a tree for your cache to be "perfect"... I think not! There are so many creative ways to put a cache, why harm a tree with the soul propose of putting up a geocache?

Link to comment

All these extra guidelines/rules are created because the main rule "have permission for placing the geocache by the owner/manager of the land" has been broken many times. There wouldn't have been a guideline about burying caches, if nobody had ever buried a cache where he/she wasn't supposed to do that.

 

If you place a cache you discuss with the people who own/take care of the land what they think is the best solution for your ideas with respect to placement of waypoints and caches. They are not your enemies but your friends, they often make it even possible to hide a cache in a better place you originally might have had in mind. If you discuss with them that you would like to hang something onto a tree, they can give advice how this should be done. Sometimes they say not to use screws and sometimes they'll say it's okay, sometimes they prefer a cache to be buried, sometimes they prefer you to use a no longer used rabbit hole; it all completely depends on the specific situation.

 

So if the rule "have permission for (before!) placing the cache" would be followed nobody would have to act like geocaching police, no reviewer would have to wonder if its okay to publish a certain cache and no sentence is needed on the cache page other than "Of course this cache is placed with all necessary permissions, like every cache should be!".

 

The guidelines are there because the most important rule about permission is often "forgotten", but these guidelines are guidelines, they are not a set of rules or laws. Guidelines are there to make you think twice about how you hide something, since there might be a better solution. With guidelines it is (and should it be) possible to have something placed that does not comply with every guideline, but still can be totally in the spirit of geocaching, respecting nature and for everybody to enjoy.

Do not try to kill nice hides by wanting extra rules/guidelines, but make sure everybody knows and respects the most important rule of all: permission.

Link to comment

As far as damage to the tree goes, I've been in the timber/lumber/homebuilding/woodworking field now for 50 years. A nail or screw no matter how long does no more damage to a tree than pierced earrings does to a person. Now the damage at the sawmill, that's another matter, although metal detectors have all but eliminated that problem.

As far as the nails/screws "defaces land or property" the mere act of placing a cache in the woods does the same. Geotrails, cachers turning over rocks and deadfalls, breaking tree limbs and trampling the terrain around GZ does far more damage.

 

Yeah, you know, the first thing I thought of was the show "Treehouse Masters" where they regularly tap in giant bolts into enormous oaks or redwoods and talk about how it's perfectly fine to do so and how much they love and appreciate these beautiful giant trees. I know it's a television show and these folks earn a living from building structures high in the trees...but it seems like there'd be quite a bit of blowback from environmentalists if this was such a big deal. A small screw or nail in a 60 year old tree just doesn't seem like that big a deal to me. I've seen several birdhouse caches and nobody has ever brought this us as a concern in any form.

Link to comment

The off-shoot discussion (pun intended) regarding injury to a tree is a fair one... and will be debated for eternity -- or at least, for as long as there are trees and humans that do such to trees -- hopefully a very long time.

 

However, the defacement issue does exist in this instance.

 

I recall a some time ago, there was a thread in these forums about a cache placed in memory of the CO's anniversary.

They had carved into an large stump the typical "Heart and Initials" type of tree carving, intended as a "beacon" for geocachers to locate and find the cache. This somehow passed the reviewer -- perhaps they didn't mention it in their submission.

Once discovered though, it was promptly archived. A rather long and sometimes heated discussion here followed this archival, here in the forums. Arguments of "what harm caused?" and defacement abounded within.

 

Now admittedly, an old stump is not a living tree, and obviously carving a stump didn't harm a living tree.

The issue was defacement -- 1] It was not their land, or their stump to do so as they pleased; and 2] The subliminal "message" to others that is was OK to do such -- even if they had obtained permission (they had not).

 

Just sayin'.... it's not the harm caused to the tree, but rather the defacement, not even considering the "monkey see, monkey do" effect.

Link to comment

I've always found it interesting that the general rule is no screws or nails in trees, but land/park managers use this same method to attached trail markers all the time.

 

I suppose the reason behind the dim view of fasteners in trees is that we should do nothing that defaces anything, not so much that it will harm the tree.

 

Two good points. Thank you Bill.

 

I forgot about the defacing idea because I'm so protective of trees. I'm still not sure about the tree damage part. I've seen trees grow around bicycles and other things and they seem just fine. But maybe that's different because it doesn't break their "skin", I don't know.

Yes they do but they are not hiding a cache. Woodpeckers poke holes in trees too but they are only creating them for their food cache.

I thought Groundspeak was all into not leaving evidence a cache was there when it's gone.

Link to comment

I always thought this was against the guidelines, but there was a cache recently that got an N/A on it for that, and the reviewer said it was okay to do it. GC4HPJ2

 

So it is okay now?

Your summary contains a false statement (I never said "it was okay to do it") so your question is flawed. Therefore, I won't participate in your "discussion"

 

Um... you just did.

 

I appreciate you checking in on this. I seem to have an incorrect assumption in my original post.

 

So then did the land manager really approve of a screw being put into a tree? And if so, then why was it still allowed, because we all know that others would then think that it's okay to do it when they see one example of it?

 

But this is more than a discussion of just that one incident. Some people are bringing up some excellent points here, including the fire tact angle, which I hadn't thought of, and other incidents where inconsistency seems to be the norm.

 

So perhaps I am mistaken by thinking that there should be a consistent norm. Perhaps I am being too much of a "cache nazi" for thinking there should be one norm. When one submits a cache for review that is turned down for a guideline violation it makes it seem like there is just one norm, but in fact, it doesn't appear that there really is.

A friend of mine took me into the Pack Forest near Eatonville. He showed me the damage a bear can do when they claw a tree. He pointed out the dead trees and the claw marks.

Link to comment

 

Many years ago I used small nails to hide a cache. I first tried small tacks, but they would not cooperate. It was a puzzle cache in which someone had to go to a specific location and find clues to go a certain distance and make the find. I placed several tree faces and used the eyes to indicate the direction, as well as the final location. I really didn't think the small nails would cause any issue as long as they were not removed, plus they were 10 feet up common scrawny pine trees. One cacher thought it was great! Then a week later he bored a large hole in an oak tree which was over 100 years old to hide a film can behind a tree face. It was one of the largest trees in that forest. When I told him I didn't think it was a good idea, he got a bit indignant and said it was "only a tree", and he owned a few hundred acres around here, so he didn't care what the township thought. I then thought my hide was a really bad idea, so eventually I archived it. Today there is a cacher nearby who apparently watches YouTube videos and has copied nearly every defacement cache idea out there. Now if the reviewer finds them and they stay active, how many more do you think will sprout? People are followers, and the favorite points only encourages it. Reviewer apathy goes a long way.

 

+1

 

Thanks for writing this.

 

I know this type of thing must happen a lot.

 

It does unfortunately. Every nail hide that has permission will garner favorite points and inspire another ten which don't have any permission. Then after finding enough of them, someone will come to the conclusion that boring a hole in a redwood tree located in a National park is fine. If the line is drawn at defacement, then it should never go that far. But it does.

 

We reported one that someone drilled a hole in a redwood tree in a national forest in Tahoe, with pictures and it went down fast. The CO was lucky he didn't get fined big time.

 

I'm willing to bet that the park rangers don't know about that one. Once the damage is done, archival isn't enough to fix that. It has taken a lot of work to get National Park land managers to trust us, and I'm absolutely certain that they don't want any defacement, period. I don't think trading respect for creativity is very smart or wise. And if its not creative enough to leave no trace, what good is it?

 

I see favorite points on these types of hides and for some reason it reminds me of a crackhead who gets their fix and doesn't care about anything else, or tomorrow.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

Taps for maple syrup is a good example of how this practice doesn't damage trees. Farmers have nailed barbed wire to trees for years. They also attach insulators to those trees for an electric fence. If this were a problem you would not see trees in fence rows on farms.

 

I watched a This Old House segment once about a tree with a split branch. The repair to save the tree (by a tree surgeon) was to drill several 1/2" holes all the way through the tree and then insert all thread rod with washers and nuts on both sides and then tighten them down to bring the tree back together. Extra all thread rod is cut flush with the nuts. The tree eventually covers the the rod and you never see it again.

 

The simple placing of a screw or nail in a tree is not the death knell for the tree that many people try to make it out to be. That said, I wouldn't want to see this becoming accepted practice. Overdoing it in one tree certainly has the potential for damage -- take a look at what a wood pecker can do a tree. But while one guy is happy with one screw to mount his cache another is going to want to drill a large cavity to hide it.

So, now we are comparing what Humans do for food, with what Humans do as a hobbie?!?!?!? :blink:

 

There are many more examples on what Humans extract from trees or damage trees to take benefit. For you to do geocaching HAVE TO put a nail or a screw in a tree for your cache to be "perfect"... I think not! There are so many creative ways to put a cache, why harm a tree with the soul propose of putting up a geocache?

 

You seem to have totally missed my point. Placing a screw or nail in a tree is not death to the tree as way too many people choose to believe. You also obviously missed where I said I would not like to see the rule get changed. See the bold print where I noted that some will go to extremes to hide the cache which I do agree is to no particular purpose.

Link to comment

Everyone has been writing some great stuff here.

 

I'm seeing that probably the most important thing is the fact that people will copy one bad cache.

 

There are many parks and places that caching is no longer allowed because of one bad cache.

 

There's a big park in Seattle that took years of CITO and working with land managers there to finally have them let caches return to the park. It's on a trial basis last I heard. I don't know how that's going.

 

I think when exceptions are made, and I don't think they should be made, but if they are, then it needs to be clearly printed on the cache page so there's less chance of it being copied. A lot of people never read the cache page, so I think it's a bad idea to make exceptions, permission or no permission.

 

Why do we have the guidelines? What's the purpose? Then why are we letting caches go through that break them?

 

Permission or no permission, if there are rules they need to be adhered to.

Link to comment

You seem to have totally missed my point. Placing a screw or nail in a tree is not death to the tree as way too many people choose to believe. You also obviously missed where I said I would not like to see the rule get changed. See the bold print where I noted that some will go to extremes to hide the cache which I do agree is to no particular purpose.

 

I got your point, I think I did. The fact that Humans sometimes use trees as forms of food or materials gathering is clear that doesn´t kill the trees. You can fix a swing on a tree with some crews and some braces and it will not kill the tree in most cases.

 

The thing is we are talking about a game, a hobbie that doesn´t need to put nails or screws in the trees to be played. We want to leave no trace other than footprints and preferably to leave it cleaner that it was originally, right?

 

Bears, woodpeckers and other animals do it for some reason: Bears to clean and sharp the claws and Woodpeckers to build their home...

 

Do we NEED to put nails and screws on a tree to geocache? Do we NEED to harm another form of life to play our game?

Link to comment

Here are 2 examples of caches that I found here in Brazil and warned the reviewers, that promptly disable the caches.

 

examples_zps608d70f4.jpg

 

Do you like to see things like this?

 

I really don´t... so I am against anything that would encourage people to do things like this to the trees...

Link to comment

 

Why do we have the guidelines? What's the purpose? Then why are we letting caches go through that break them?

 

Permission or no permission, if there are rules they need to be adhered to.

 

You already know my personal opinion on them. Reviewers do not know how a cache is hidden, more often than not, when its published....so its up to the community to let the reviewers know if they see a cache that they deem is against the guidelines. There is a cache with over 100 favorite points in Washington that has something drilled inside a stump. Definitely leave no trace is honored there. Course a stump is different than a live tree but its still leaving a trace and permanently changing that spot. I have seen some caches archived due to nails or screws in trees and sometimes I see reviewers give favorites to said caches. I never know what to do if I see one. If I do a NA on every one of these I see, I would considered a cache cop, so I just do it on the worst ones. And no, I try to never favorite such a cache.

 

Also, if a cache does have permission to do so, there is a Goblindust cache in Washington that was given permission to be hung on a nail. Tree is constantly (well at least was) sap but was told since they had permission, its okay to leave. I wish in those cases, the cache page said it was okay.

Link to comment

Here are 2 examples of caches that I found here in Brazil and warned the reviewers, that promptly disable the caches.

Do you like to see things like this?

I really don´t... so I am against anything that would encourage people to do things like this to the trees...

 

Spray paint doesn't hurt a tree at all, yet it is not allowed for some odd reason either.

Link to comment

Here are 2 examples of caches that I found here in Brazil and warned the reviewers, that promptly disable the caches.

Do you like to see things like this?

I really don´t... so I am against anything that would encourage people to do things like this to the trees...

Spray paint doesn't hurt a tree at all, yet it is not allowed for some odd reason either.

This topic is about nails and screws... let´s not put the paint on it too... :D

Link to comment

I have see a mutli Cache with number stamped on a stump.(reviewers, the cache is long archived) So far I havent see one on a live tree.

 

Does nail or screw hurt a tree? In general speaking, no. But most land owners dont want you to do them in fear you might put them in the wrong place or use a wrong size nail or screw. I know a CO that nail a bunch of his caches on prime timber trees but here is the catch, his family own the timber. If you know his last name, its a dead gave away. (he did it in a way they wont harm the tree or the faller (the guy that cut the tree down)

 

Why we have the guideline against nailing caches to trees or whatnot? To keep peace with land owners and still be able to cache on their land. I would like it if the reviewers stick with this guideline in all cases because I would really hate not be able to cache on their private timber land.

 

If there is any permission to do so, that info should be on the cache page.

 

I found a cache at a old 850 to 900 years old tree along the Oregon coastal two weeks ago. Thank god it wasnt nailed to the tree. :ph34r:

Link to comment

.

 

This discussion offers a perfect illustration of a point made in another thread regarding unnecessary guidelines that have the effect of diminishing quality hides.

 

It is said we cannot put nails in trees because it harms trees. As noted by another poster, this is not true. If trees may be cut down for our use, what is the logic that we cannot put in a nail?

 

It is said that nails will cause land manager to look upon Geocaching in a negative way. Huh? Land managers put nails in trees. Clearly nails are not a problem. As for the reputation of the game, what type of image do you think lamp post and guard rail caches create? How about a cache on a bridge? How about urban micros in close proximity to businesses? How about rock walls that are broken apart. How about Geotrash? By its very nature, you could argue Geocaching is litter of the woods ... or you could just use some common sense.

 

When you walk into most woods, you will often find a sign NAILED TO A TREE that tells you what you may not do. Ever see a sign telling hunters they may not use nails?

 

There is no sensible logic train of discussion to support this guideline, yet the rule persists. Arbitrary, illogical, and limiting, a perfect recipe to throw cold water on the flame of creativity.

 

By the way, the woods exist for our pleasure and enjoyment, not the other way around. Yes, we are to serve as caretakers, but let's not get irrational.

 

.

Link to comment

By the way, the woods exist for our pleasure and enjoyment, not the other way around. Yes, we are to serve as caretakers, but let's not get irrational.

Can I quote this line... :blink:

 

Woods existed way before human kind!!!!

And we are destroying most of them, like we are in almost everything that surrounds us. Maybe some ecological notions wouldn´t be bad...

Link to comment

.

 

 

Do we NEED to put nails and screws on a tree to geocache? Do we NEED to harm another form of life to play our game?

 

 

Do we NEED to put containers full of junk in the woods to enjoy the outdoors. Obviously not. So applying your logic, let's ban geocaching since we really do not NEED it.

 

Let's see if I understand this, it is OK to kill a tree to make paper but not OK to put a harmless nail in a tree in order to expand the creativity of the game. Some of the best caches I have seen have incorporated nails, screws and/or pins somehow. So, yes, we need nails so that the game can be better than it is without them.

 

And please ... "another form of life." Really? IT'S A TREE!!! It's only a tree. Wonderful, sometimes majestic, but still just a tree. By the way, do you cut your lawn or trim your bushes or use flowers as decorations .... Think about how many "forms of life" you harm and now you want to ban something that actually does not cause real harm. Where is the logic in that?

 

.

Link to comment

By the way, the woods exist for our pleasure and enjoyment, not the other way around. Yes, we are to serve as caretakers, but let's not get irrational.

Can I quote this line... :blink:

 

Woods existed way before human kind!!!!

And we are destroying most of them, like we are in almost everything that surrounds us. Maybe some ecological notions wouldn´t be bad...

When you take the long-term view, that IS an ecological statement. The woods won't stay around for our enjoyment if we ruin them.

Link to comment

 

Woods existed way before human kind!!!!

 

 

That is your belief, not a fact. Just saying ...

 

I am sure may want to quote a scientist - but make sure it's not one related to another who was sure the Earth was flat, or another who just a few decades ago predicted a coming ice age, or one who now predicts the terror of global warming, or the many who will say your ancestors were monkeys.

 

BTW, I will agree my statement that woods exist for our pleasure, though true, is somewhat incomplete. Woods also exist as part of God's design of the eco-system. Quite an amazing thing really when you think about the complexities involved. Nevertheless, I think it is safe to say a few nails here and there are OK.

 

.

Link to comment

 

Woods existed way before human kind!!!!

 

 

That is your belief, not a fact. Just saying ...

 

I am sure may want to quote a scientist - but make sure it's not one related to another who was sure the Earth was flat, or another who just a few decades ago predicted a coming ice age, or one who now predicts the terror of global warming, or the many who will say your ancestors were monkeys.

 

BTW, I will agree my statement that woods exist for our pleasure, though true, is somewhat incomplete. Woods also exist as part of God's design of the eco-system. Quite an amazing thing really when you think about the complexities involved. Nevertheless, I think it is safe to say a few nails here and there are OK.

 

 

Whew, the floodgates are open, but I'm not going in or out! A little, maybe....

 

Don't mock scientists for being wrong. The scientific method ADMITS it can be wrong. Theories are developed and tested and replaced if wrong.

 

By contrast, traditional religion never admits it can be wrong. Each traditional religion claims a monopoly on truth.

 

The evidence points toward global warming now. Suppose in 20 years we conclude otherwise. Does that disprove the scientic method?? Of course not! Do you suggest we continue polluting just because there is a 1% chance that maybe it's not related to global warming??

 

And by the way, what about the aesthetics of "carp" nailed to trees (which is what some caches are)?

Link to comment

<_< The Pitcher is on the Mount, the throw is a curve ball dead center across the Plate. STRIKE 3!!!

 

:) Leave No Trace! :)

 

Sure some of the Bunny Hugging Tree Lovers have placed Spikes into trees the cause damage to Lumbermen saws cutting tree, but that does not mean its right because those chains coming into contact with those Spikes has also done damage to those men.

 

Look at the victim and say to yourself... Would I want this object in me?

 

Is there another way to approach this? :unsure:

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...