Is it okay to put screws into trees?

[+cheech gang]

"Woods existed way before humankind" is a belief, not a fact? Hmmm, that one has me puzzled. Meet over in Off Topic.

[+emmett]

"Woods existed way before humankind" is a belief, not a fact? Hmmm, that one has me puzzled. Meet over in Off Topic.

 

Where?

 

.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

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.

 

Deja Vu:

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=290942&view=findpost&p=5201867

Edited August 5, 2014 by Gitchee-Gummee

[+Sol seaker]

All religious discussion aside (which, by the way, do not belong in this thread, check the title)

 

 

The main problem I see is the copy-cat thing where someone else thinks it's a great idea and bores a huge hole into a 100 year old tree as someone mentioned actually happened earlier in this thread.

 

I like caching in public parks. I hate city caches, so I need all the park caches I can get, including in state parks or open space preserves. The only way we're going to be able to keep those places open to caching is if the guidelines that have been established are adhered to. That's why they were created.

 

Someone didn't sit down and say, "gee I think we should not bury caches" it's that it happened and it had bad consequences so the guidelines were created to preserve the game.

 

There are a lot of places that don't allow caches because some of the earlier practices of geocaching. I think the guidelines are there for a reason.

 

I do not agree with selective enforcement of the guidelines, permission or no permission. That's just my take on it.

[4wheelin_fool]

I do not agree with selective enforcement of the guidelines, permission or no permission. That's just my take on it.

 

It seems that the cache mentioned in the OP should be a pretty straightforward archival. Reading the note carefully it doesn't really say for certain that it has explicit permission anyhow, but that possibly it is assumed. I'm aware of several caches which have been archived for being buried and for defacement, and despite having permission. There is no note on the page, and a hide anywhere under similar circumstances is certainly ripe for a NA log. By playing selective semantics, the reviewer is contributing to an environment in which both geocachers and land managers may feel uncomfortable.

[4wheelin_fool]

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...

 

Yes, but the argument for nails is based on whether the tree is being hurt. It may be, or not be the case. Spray painting a tree doesn't hurt it either.

 

Q: Why do geocachers place instructive stash notes in their hides?

A: Because we expect muggles to respect our property, as we would respect theirs.

 

Q: Why do we rehide geocaches carefully and close them up?

A: Because we expect other geocachers to respect our property, as we would respect theirs.

 

Q: Why do we not hide Geocache containers on top of Letterboxes and Munzees, or steal them?

A: Because we expect others to respect our property, as we would respect theirs.

 

Q: Why do we not steal game cameras and hunting equipment?

A: Because we expect others to respect our property, as we would respect theirs.

 

Q: Why do we not place geocaches on posted, private property?

A: Because we expect others to respect our property, as we would respect theirs.

 

Q: Why do we not sign the outside of geocache containers with a Sharpie?

A: Because we expect others to respect our property, as we would respect theirs.

 

Q: Why do we not deface trees with nails, and paint on stationary objects such as buildings and rock faces?

A: Because we expect others to respect our property, as we would respect theirs.

 

Seems pretty simple to understand. Respect is the glue holding everything together. Yes, I could urinate on your front lawn and it would probably not hurt anything either.

Edited August 5, 2014 by 4wheelin_fool

[Cascade Reviewer]

As most of the forum regulars understand, Groundspeak made "guidelines", rather than "rules", so that there was room for leeway. Instead of being rigid, Groundspeak wanted to make sure that there was a little wiggle room as a nice accommodation towards cache owners and cachers.

 

I, for one, have always been glad for that, and I appreciate that courtesy. And it seems that people are glad for that when exceptions are made for things like saturation, etc. But then people aren't happy when other exceptions are made, like allowing a person on private property to screw a container to their tree.

 

I think at this point, in this thread, everyone should stop pushing against reviewers, and specifically against Keystone. If you don't like that guidelines are there to allow reviewers to have some flexibility, then please complain directly to Groundspeak.

 

I'm afraid that I'll need to shut this thread down if there is anymore specific picking against reviewers making exceptions, which we have been told by Groundspeak that we are allowed to do.

[+GeoBain]

Generally speaking, explicit permission to place a cache such as this goes a long way towards receiving an exemption from the guidelines.

 

I planned a buried cache a while back where we planned to put a 50 gallon drum in the ground. The land owner actually preferred it to be buried. We ran it by the reviewer and got it ok'd. However, after more consideration about how it might be perceived by the geocaching community as a whole, we nixed the project. It really wasn't worth any potential backlash we would have had to deal with from some more, umm, legalistic cachers.

 

Since screwing a bird house to a tree isn't going to harm the tree, the only question left is whether or not it will upset the land owner. If the landowner is on board with it, what's the problem?

 

I personally don't buy the "if you let cacher X do this, then cachers Y and Z are going to copy it" argument. EVERYONE is expected to read the guidelines. You check a box stating that you have done so. It follows that if you have read the guidelines then you should know this type of cache is outside of the guidelines and thus you should do your due diligence just as the cache owner did in order to get the same type of explicit permission for your cache.

 

And as far as placing the explicit permission on the listing goes, you might as well go ahead and say the cache is in the bird house. What fun is that?

[+MI_CO]

For me, I am OK with the reflective tacks hunters use, and cachers use for night caches, as long as they are used on mature trees. These tacks are thin and short so they do not penetrate past the bark and damage the tree. I am not a fan of nails used by cachers. Of course, a landowner can do whatever they like on their private property, I just don't have to agree with it.

 

Back in my consulting days, I worked with a major electrical utility client and it was illegal to put a nail into a wood utility pole. The reason was for the safety of the utility repair workers. They need to quickly and safely scale the pole and if there are nails in the pole, their cleats cannot grip and it can cause an injury. It also was for when old poles needed to be replaced. The poles were put through a tree shredder and shredding a pole filled with nails turns the poles into weapons!

[4wheelin_fool]

I'm afraid that I'll need to shut this thread down if there is anymore specific picking against reviewers making exceptions, which we have been told by Groundspeak that we are allowed to do.

 

So we are prohibited to question the reasoning behind unevenly applied guidelines? Or even talk about it? If you put up a dam, the water doesn't stop flowing, it just goes places that perhaps you may not intend or have control over. I spoke to the town manager on the phone of the city that the cache in the OP was published just yesterday. He stated that they don't want people nailing trees and that he doesn't have any idea who may have gave permission to do so. Since the permission was not mentioned on the page and the details are being kept secret, then we are all left wondering about it. I suppose I'll have to ask Groundspeak. None of this would be necessary if everyone was being transparent and on the level.

 

 

http://www.richland.pa.us/contact.aspx

 

724-443-5921

Richland Township

Edited August 6, 2014 by 4wheelin_fool

[+JPreto]

I'm afraid that I'll need to shut this thread down if there is anymore specific picking against reviewers making exceptions, which we have been told by Groundspeak that we are allowed to do.

None of this would be necessary if everyone was being transparent and on the level.

I have to agree with this statement... Sometimes reviewers disable caches that may not comply with the guidelines and just say: "An email was sent to the onwer explaining the reason why this cache was disabled". Why can´t it be public, the reason why the cache was disable? Maybe others can see the reason and learn with it... and the communication could be reviewer-community and not reviewer-Owner-community... We all know that COs won´t always tell the story has it was and most of the times put some dots in the story.

 

Another issue is GS guidelines leaving space for reviewer critics... This is actually something that if the guidelines would be clearer less options would be given to reviewers and they would be more of a "compliance" reviewer and less of a "opinion" reviewer.

 

So, if you want to stop the critics on reviewers, in my opinion, just put clearer guidelines not open to interpretation...

[+niraD]

So, if you want to stop the critics on reviewers, in my opinion, just put clearer guidelines not open to interpretation...

"Good grief! Have you seen how LONG the guidelines are now?! How can they expect us to read all that legalese?!"

[+BulldogBlitz]

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

 

please don't screw the tree, you might get splinters.

 

 

sorry... it had to be said.

[+Ben0w]

Some facts:

• A tree is someones property. He might want to make money from that - to feed himself, his family and his employee's families.

• Nails in trees are not necessarily directly affecting the tree's life, but:

• Metal objects in trees may harm machinery and people while processing the tree.

• At the sawmill there are very sensitive metal detectors for protecting machinery (and people), they will sort out the whole tree, thus making it worthless. Further inspecting costs time & money.

• Objects in the wood cause alternations (coloring, holes) that may get sorted out for further processing. Which is a loss in earning money.

• If the owner of the tree puts nails in them, that's entirely his decision - or maybe ordered by authorities (way marks?). Most probably he won't do that for fun (allthough I know at least two artist paths through forests, but again, that's the owners decision on selected trees - selected by him). He will take trees, he won't use for further processing or at least is able to identify them before processing.

• There are special nails/screws for trees available.

• There are modern glues for fixing signs on trees meanwhile, getting more and more used. Because tree owners don't like nails/screws.

 

As pointed out before: if you don't have explicit permission, don't put nails or screws in trees. If you won't serve as example for others, don't put nails or screws in trees. Summarized: don't put nails or screws in trees.

 

And to address another aspect often brought up in discussions: violating guidelines does not equal building creative caches. It's far more creative to build good caches which respect the guidelines (and property of others).

 

Could be so easy.

 

I'm just in the same discussion regarding a buried cache. It has a lot of favorite points - not for beeing buried, but for the more or less creative puzzle and the large logbook. So the line of arguments by the owners is rather boring:

• it slipped through the review process! (no wonder, there is nothing mentioned about it beeing buried)

• no muggle will notice! (until the first does)

• has a lot of FP, so cachers like it much! (the FPs are not because it's buried)

• it's not true that it may serve as bad example! (well, see next argument)

• others are buried too! (makes them not better)

• didn't know the guidelines! (you accepted them by clicking "submit")

• it's not a rule but a guideline! (nevertheless, it sets borders and is rather strict on several topics)

• other geocache listing services don't have such rigid guidelines! (then list the cache there, maybe until they have to develop them)

• if every cache is according to the guidelines, there will be only film canisters and no creative caches anymore! (that insults a lot of good/creative guideline conform caches)

• Cache-Cop! (out of arguments? thank you for talking!)

 

Always the same. Reviewers agree that it's against guidelines and supported me in having a direct talk first - result see above, no change with the cache. Took me a lot of time. Next time I'll post an instant NA. If my experience is, that reviewers/Groundspeak isn't really interested in enforcing the guidelines for the sake of the game, I may tend to ignore such violations, even if geocaching gets a bad reputation (another cache already was topic of a town council meeting here).

 

Geocaching has changed - it's in the eye of the public, no hidden game any more. If authorities see our own "guidelines" don't work, we will face far more strict regulations and real laws. Evidence exist already.

Edited August 14, 2014 by Ben0w