Inappropriate/dangerous hiding spots

[+NeverSummer]

It has been a year or more since my last hides. Perhaps things have become more strict. I will say that the reviewer did ask for some information on my last couple of hides that I had never been asked for in the past.

Which one?

 

The one that lives closer to where I live. :ph34r:

Shoulda known.

 

Back OT, this is an example of where consistency is helpful, and developing trust with a Reviewer is also quite important. Also, this would serve as an example of where that trust is something that needs to be maintained--when one has earned trust which might allow a cache-placer to not "need" to provide nearly the level of assurances that a cache is not inappropriate or dangerous, it can be a quick flick of the wrist to use that trust to place caches which might not otherwise be published.

 

The only way Reviewers will know if a cache is "inappropriate" is to have other cachers report via NM/NA logs. And in those cases, Reviewers become 'cache police' who must then be somewhat consistent with enforcing things like "don't nail a cache to a tree" or "even 'pushed gently into the ground' is partially buried". Otherwise we see much more imitation, and the "this is how we do it here" or "that's how I saw it done there" mentalities develop. And I see that as problematic when one lives and caches in more than one community or region during their caching career; one doesn't see nearly the depth or breadth of inconsistency if they only cache in other areas or VR jurisdictions while on vacation, e.g.

 

Do cachers who came up caching near the Lilypad, for example, likely have a different perception of what is "inappropriate/dangerous" based on what their Reviewer(s) have allowed to stay active (published, and also not archived after a NA, e.g.). Then you bring someone up caching in a place like, say, Austria...and they already have a completely different idea of what is inappropriate or allowable under the guidelines. Until either of those people has actually moved and lived and then hidden caches in another region over time to develop an understanding, trust, and working relationship with another Reviewer, they really have no context to know that something might actually not be appropriate.

 

Groundspeak is, according to input I've heard from Reviewers and in other threads, more acutely aware of inconsistencies in review/publication of caches, and interpretations of their guidelines. I don't think that, however, they will be more in the business of "safety officer"--the submission forms and other information provided by Groundspeak plants the onus firmly on the cache owner to be "safe" and have permission. The "appropriate" aspect is a subjective variable, but there would still need to be some level of consistency under the guidelines for things like "buried" or "attached to a tree" no matter the region.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

I found a LPC which didn't have a skirt. The pole and its baseplate were offset from the concrete base by nuts.

 

In other words, concrete base on the bottom, with long bolts set into it, then a couple of nuts screwed down to the concrete, then the pole's baseplate on top of the nuts, then another set of nuts to hold the whole thing tight to the concrete base.

 

The pole and its baseplate were a single welded unit, so if it was resting right on the concrete base there wouldn't be any problem. The wires go up through the concrete base into the bottom of the pole. Just like EVERY LPC CACHE I've encountered except this one.

 

In this one, if you bent over and looked under the baseplate, you could see the wires come up out of the concrete and pass up into the pole.

 

AND, (and here it comes) the magnetic container was UP IN THE POLE!! You had to squitch your hand in there and turn your fingers up to feel it. The hint says "In the middle." Your fingers are brushing the wires.

 

Back then I wrote "Nice job" in my log, but now I'd, um, word it differently.

[Keystone]

I heard that Groundspeak sometimes has meetings of reviewers, don't things like this get discussed? I know some show up here because I know a few of them.

We have newsletters and our own forum and such. Mainly we talk a lot about beer, pie and hamsters. Just for fun, though, I ran a search in the reviewer forum.

 

[+spirothebudgie]

I've never seen a single LPC hide over here as we don't have the metal cover on the poles, they are just bolted straight into the ground, you can even see the bolts!

I have found a few which were simply a magnetic tin on the back of the post, and I have no problem with that.

However in general placing caches on electrical equipment in current service is a bad idea, you don't know that people are going to search for it in the way you intended and instead attempt to open things or push their fingers under covers.

I never put my hand into gaps/spaces that you cannot see what you are touching when searching for a cache, you just don't know what could be in there (live wires!)

 

I think the guidelines in place are fine, it's up to the hider to think about the placement carefully and the seeker to use common sense and not mess around with electrical equipment.

 

I have simply walked away from caches because they were too dangerous to search for in general or because of the conditions (bad weather) in which case I can come back another day. The problem is the temptation and urge to find the cache once you have gone to the trouble of getting there, but you have to recognise that no cache is worth your life!

Edited April 7, 2015 by spirothebudgie

[+ThePetrifiedWood]

I once found a cache right next to wires inside a light pole. Didn't like it.

 

I once had to unscrew what I thought was an electrical box (later realized it was a phone box) and was very uncomfortable with that.

 

I once started to unscrew an electrical thing for a puzzle final and decided I was just too uncomfortable and left with a DNF. I later found out the final wasn't in that electrical thing anyway.

 

I've found an awful lot of caches nailed or screwed to trees. I know of at least one that was reported and archived.

 

As time goes on, I've become better at walking away when I'm uncomfortable with a cache. I don't worry too much about caches that I don't like. I do make a point of hiding caches that I would enjoy finding and call it good. The only caches that really get under my skin (and not in a bad way) are the T4.5ish. Some of them are just on the edge of what I'm physically capable of doing. You know, rock climbing that's not really rock climbing (a real rock climber would call it wimpy, but to me it's Mt. Everest). Those ones are soooo tempting. I circle and circle and ponder the possibility of dying vs. getting to that cache. Those are hard to walk away from.

 

Those are the ones that bother me the most as well. There is a 4.5 terrain cache on a mountain top that I can see from my driveway. I did a 3.5 placed by the same CO and it was well outside my comfort zone, so a 4.5 listed by the same people is not one I am likely to attempt. If I were in my 20's I would probably try it, but not now. I have a kid that needs her dad.

Edited April 9, 2015 by ThePetrifiedWood

[+Spenny!]

Im thinking my next hide will be up a game trail in a patch of thorny bushes. Entitled. "This cache is not easy, this cache is not fun." but it will at least be a regular size

[+PlantAKiss]

I'm glad this topic came up. I've seen lampposts with wires showing underneath. I've seen many a cache on electrical boxes, electrical poles, areas near wiring. I always thought any electrical anything was off limits as a safety hazard and wondered how such a cache got approved. You've got newbies so frantic for a smiley that are prying open metal boxes to look inside even if the cleverly camo'ed nano is right under their noses, not actually INSIDE an electric panel. Not everybody realizes that. There are people who don't have a geo-sense yet and get very literal about where a cache might be hidden. I made the "note to self" to no longer hunt for a cache I felt uncomfortable about after going for a nano on electric sign in the middle of a busy shopping center. There were wires pulled out near GZ. I said that is IT! I would never seek a cache on an electrical device of ANY kind ever again.

 

I remember back in the day the mantra of "Do no harm!"--no nails or screws put in trees, no digging holes. Yet people seem to LOVE caches where they have to climb a tree! There is nothing will do AS MUCH damage to a tree as having many people scrambling up their limbs, breaching the bark and allowing in insects, pathogens and fungi that will bring a quick demise to a tree. Or tying a bison tube at the top of sapling so everyone is grabbing the young branches to bring the top lower thereby breaking off all the branches. That sapling will be dead of abuse in no time.

 

I just found out caches are no longer allowed on Wildlife Management Areas and VDOT has banned all guardrail caches (I assume safety reasons on both). But I just rescued 2 TBs out of a TB Prison on a WMA before I knew they were no longer allowed. All guardrails and WMA land caches are supposed to be archived.

 

I just went for 3 caches that are on land clearly marked No Trespassing but was assured it was OK if I went around to the other side where there are no NT signs. (Same land). And I've seen many a preforms 90% buried, particularly along the PT I found.

 

I think some of the caches are innocent mistakes and sometimes its just a cacher who think they can do whatever they want to because they don't give ALL the details about their listings to the reviewer, and it's not likely they'll get caught, or the reviewer is complicit; or some cachers just like to operate under the radar. I dunno. But I'm often shocked by some of the things I see. I know the reviewers don't have X-ray eyes or eyes in the back of their heads.

 

I mostly get upset seeing nature damaged. Thankfully not a lot.

[+Mn-treker]

Yesterday I went looking for a geocache that is a field puzzle. I got the needed info to open the container.

I had to search the net for the info. An encrypted combo lock. A word to open it.

I get there knowing it is in the corner of a yard with permission. I find a fire hydrant and a telecommunications

access cover. It was quite obvious the hydrant was not it, also illegal to hide on those. here when that is found it gets archived.

I lifted a side of the box to see if it was real and find yes it is. I close it and walk away.

This is a utility control device. Unlawful to open these, the general public may not open any utility boxes

or devices. One this is trespass and tampering with these devices. I called for an archive, so far nothing.

It now has 3 watchers I am one. MN.Fruitcake is the reviewer I am sure that he had no knowledge of the situation at time of publication.

I would expect him to see this soon. If not I will contact him. Our reviewers do get needs archive notices.

 

It should be common knowledge that any utility control box can not be accessed by a geocacher to hide or to seek.

[+bflentje]

There is nothing will do AS MUCH damage to a tree as having many people scrambling up their limbs, breaching the bark and allowing in insects, pathogens and fungi that will bring a quick demise to a tree.

 

This is the biggest lie I've read here in the forums in a long, long, time. You can discuss damage to property that isn't yours all you want but to insist such a thing that it's the early demise of the tree is totally ludicrous.

[+geodarts]

There is nothing will do AS MUCH damage to a tree as having many people scrambling up their limbs, breaching the bark and allowing in insects, pathogens and fungi that will bring a quick demise to a tree.

 

This is the biggest lie I've read here in the forums in a long, long, time. You can discuss damage to property that isn't yours all you want but to insist such a thing that it's the early demise of the tree is totally ludicrous.

 

Hardly ludicrous and definitely not a lie, although I suppose it depends on where you live. In my area, there is not an acre of oak forest and watershed that has not been affected by Sudden Oak Death, with pathogens carried by Bays and other trees, and spread to some extent by hikers. SOD has now infected trees in numerous counties in California and Oregon.

 

I have tried to convince people that bays and oaks are not appropriate spots to place a cache, that there are certain areas where park managers specifically ask people to stay on trail, and that climbing, poking around, and other activity can help spread the pathogen - at the very least, certain precautions should be taken. But fallen wood and Bays make for easy hiding spots. And bays are often easy to climb for a cache. So it goes.

 

Perhaps the battle is effectively lost where I live. But I do not want to be responsible for making it worse. Or for spreading it to other areas. If you do cache in places where pathogens are likely, please stay out of my neighborhood unless you have taken appropriate measures. There is an oak in my yard that I want to protect.

Edited April 13, 2015 by geodarts

[+Mn-treker]

There is nothing will do AS MUCH damage to a tree as having many people scrambling up their limbs, breaching the bark and allowing in insects, pathogens and fungi that will bring a quick demise to a tree.

 

This is the biggest lie I've read here in the forums in a long, long, time. You can discuss damage to property that isn't yours all you want but to insist such a thing that it's the early demise of the tree is totally ludicrous.

 

Hardly ludicrous and definitely not a lie, although I suppose it depends on where you live. In my area, there is not an acre of oak forest and watershed that has not been affected by Sudden Oak Death, with pathogens carried by Bays and other trees, and spread to some extent by hikers. SOD has now infected trees in numerous counties in California and Oregon.

 

I have tried to convince people that bays and oaks are not appropriate places to place a cache, that there are certain areas where park managers specifically ask people to stay on trail, and that climbing, poking around, and other activity can help spread the pathogen - at the very least, certain precautions should be taken. But fallen wood and Bays make for easy hiding spots. And bays are often easy to climb for a cache. So it goes.

 

Perhaps the battle is effectively lost where I live. But I do not want to be responsible for making it worse. Or for spreading it to other areas. If you do cache in places where pathogens are likely, please stay out of my neighborhood. There is an oak in my yard that I want to protect.

SOD never heard of it. But I do own property with many large Oaks on it. Age from 10 to 300 plus years old. We do have Oak wilt, caused by a fungus.

Which is spread by the root system and by squirrels and other animals. Squirrels like to eat the sweet bark of Oak wilt trees. People climbing trees spreading disease, Highly unlikely.

A wind storm will do it, due to Oak wilt making it weak. I have one tree about 150 years old that got hit by wind. Broke a large branch (about 200lbs)off. The rest of the tree was in good looking shape.

But that much damage killed the tree SOD. I have another, the 300 plus years old. Took some wind damage and broke off a 8,000 lbs. branch, that is the second one for it.

that tree is still alive. So you see it is not people but nature and the toss of the dice as to tree death.

[+narcissa]

So you see it is not people but nature and the toss of the dice as to tree death.

 

Because nature sometimes kills trees, humans can't kill trees?

[+geodarts]

SOD never heard of it. . . So you see it is not people but nature and the toss of the dice as to tree death.

 

Fortunately, for now there might be little need for you to have heard about it, unless you happen to visit my area. At this time it seems to be spreading primarily in coastal California and Oregon. On the other hand, I live at ground zero, where the disease has decimated many areas. Every single land manager here has recognized that humans can spread the pathogen. Some trails have been closed as a result. Warnings have been posted in other areas about not going off trail. Unfortunately, I have run across many cachers, letterboxers, and hikers in my area who also seem to know little about it.

Edited April 13, 2015 by geodarts

[+Mn-treker]

So you see it is not people but nature and the toss of the dice as to tree death.

 

Because nature sometimes kills trees, humans can't kill trees?

Well of course we can. Put a chain saw in my hand and I take a few down.

Did people cause the pine beetle problem in Colorado? No they pop up real bad about every 100 years or so. Can I spread Oak wilt? Sure but animals do it better. It is recomended not to do any pruning

of Oaks at this time of year. The Oak wilt will kill them. SOD only means sudden Oak death. They do not tell you why. I would bet it is Oak wilt in a broken Oak. That is what will kill them here that quickly.

The fungus enters the wound and spreads fast. Here in Minnesota we have much experience with it.

Also have ways to prevent it. Or to slow it's spread.

[+Tassie_Boy]

So you see it is not people but nature and the toss of the dice as to tree death.

 

Because nature sometimes kills trees, humans can't kill trees?

Well of course we can. Put a chain saw in my hand and I take a few down.

Did people cause the pine beetle problem in Colorado? No they pop up real bad about every 100 years or so. Can I spread Oak wilt? Sure but animals do it better. It is recomended not to do any pruning

of Oaks at this time of year. The Oak wilt will kill them. SOD only means sudden Oak death. They do not tell you why. I would bet it is Oak wilt in a broken Oak. That is what will kill them here that quickly.

The fungus enters the wound and spreads fast. Here in Minnesota we have much experience with it.

Also have ways to prevent it. Or to slow it's spread.

 

You will find that while pathogens like this and others like the Elm Leaf Beetle are primarily spread locally by animal vectors or the wind WE cause the greatest damage. Animal vectors provide for short distance spread but WE get mud on our boots and cars then drive 200k to an area which is currently unaffected.

 

Don't get cocky, WE are the main problem with many environmental issues as we have the ability to, and do, put things out of their natural balance.

[knowschad]

There is nothing will do AS MUCH damage to a tree as having many people scrambling up their limbs, breaching the bark and allowing in insects, pathogens and fungi that will bring a quick demise to a tree.

Worse than a chainsaw, even?

[+Mn-treker]

So you see it is not people but nature and the toss of the dice as to tree death.

 

Because nature sometimes kills trees, humans can't kill trees?

Well of course we can. Put a chain saw in my hand and I take a few down.

Did people cause the pine beetle problem in Colorado? No they pop up real bad about every 100 years or so. Can I spread Oak wilt? Sure but animals do it better. It is recomended not to do any pruning

of Oaks at this time of year. The Oak wilt will kill them. SOD only means sudden Oak death. They do not tell you why. I would bet it is Oak wilt in a broken Oak. That is what will kill them here that quickly.

The fungus enters the wound and spreads fast. Here in Minnesota we have much experience with it.

Also have ways to prevent it. Or to slow it's spread.

 

You will find that while pathogens like this and others like the Elm Leaf Beetle are primarily spread locally by animal vectors or the wind WE cause the greatest damage. Animal vectors provide for short distance spread but WE get mud on our boots and cars then drive 200k to an area which is currently unaffected.

 

Don't get cocky, WE are the main problem with many environmental issues as we have the ability to, and do, put things out of their natural balance.

Man is a part of the environment, just as any animal.

All spread any kind of so called alian species.

We have water bodies that man does not use, infected with eurasian milfoil and zebra muscles.

Only way to do that is Ducks and Geese. After they were brought in ballast of ships.

Deer ticks where they never were, vector is birds to spread them that far.

Muddy tires? man has had the wheel for a long long time.

Did man start Oak wilt? NO! it has always been here. But as with all in nature man has helped.

We prevent fires, this is what controled a lot of pathogens in nature. They got burned out.

Only now are we learning that we need to do controlled burns.

 

Yes we do need to be carefull, But man is not the enemy that some wack jobs like to make out.

Climb a tree! more animals do that than man. Do we hurt them? NO! unless you break a big live branch.

But you would have to weigh what that bear did that climbed one of mine and broke off the top 20 feet.

[+geodarts]

There is nothing will do AS MUCH damage to a tree as having many people scrambling up their limbs, breaching the bark and allowing in insects, pathogens and fungi that will bring a quick demise to a tree.

Worse than a chainsaw, even?

 

Well, I can't use a chainsaw in any of the state lands or local open space/watersheds that I frequent. I have been tempted a time or two when looking at a cache high in a tree. As mentioned above, though, I could walk off trail through California Bays, or climb one, to obtain a cache and end up taking Phytophthora Ramorum into a group of uninflected trees. This is not to say that it might not be carried there anyway through wind, deer, or the gradual spread following an increasingly rare storm. But I look at some of the devastated areas and would prefer not being the one responsible for spreading it. So where I live, there are certain hiding spots that could cause more damage than a chainsaw (assuming most catchers do not Lysol their shoes after a hike),

 

I also have seen areas after cachers have looked for a "needle in a haystack" type of hide - which is not to say that Sasquatch of other animals in my area do not break branches or cause similar damage. I just don't see any reason to be the cause of it looking for a container.

[+Mn-treker]

You are so very right, no need to break a tree to find a cache.

What will help is absolutely no micros in pine trees.

I have had to call for an archive due to a pine tree getting hit hard by people looking for that darn DNA tube.

The chainsaw is on my property, I live in a nice wooded spot.

I need to take some out due to crowding and death. I have three types of Oak and Pines.

As well as others, a nice variety in my little forest.

[+Harry Dolphin]

There is nothing will do AS MUCH damage to a tree as having many people scrambling up their limbs, breaching the bark and allowing in insects, pathogens and fungi that will bring a quick demise to a tree.

Worse than a chainsaw, even?

 

Certainly seems off the topic... But... We have a problem with Hemlock woolly adelgid around here. Introduced through the Port of Charleston in 1951. Native to eastern Asia. It kills the eastern hemlock and Carolina hemlock. In Japan it is kept under control by the Japanese black ladybug. Not sure how this compares to people climbing trees, or why this subject was brought up, being off-topic. But HWA has killed far more trees than all the people climbing trees.

Support ISPM-15 which requires heat-treatment of all wood used exporting/exporting freight to/from overseas.

[+Mn-treker]

There is nothing will do AS MUCH damage to a tree as having many people scrambling up their limbs, breaching the bark and allowing in insects, pathogens and fungi that will bring a quick demise to a tree.

Worse than a chainsaw, even?

 

Certainly seems off the topic... But... We have a problem with Hemlock woolly adelgid around here. Introduced through the Port of Charleston in 1951. Native to eastern Asia. It kills the eastern hemlock and Carolina hemlock. In Japan it is kept under control by the Japanese black ladybug. Not sure how this compares to people climbing trees, or why this subject was brought up, being off-topic. But HWA has killed far more trees than all the people climbing trees.

Support ISPM-15 which requires heat-treatment of all wood used exporting/exporting freight to/from overseas.

What brought it up is that some people think that we are spreading tree disease and killing trees, by climbing them.

Sort of like the time that I got an FTF way up the Gunflint trail. I found that a muggle had found it first.

They left a nasty note about this garbage in nature. That person was an environmental whack job. Humans are the enemy as far as they are concerned.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

There is nothing will do AS MUCH damage to a tree as having many people scrambling up their limbs, breaching the bark and allowing in insects, pathogens and fungi that will bring a quick demise to a tree.

Worse than a chainsaw, even?

 

Certainly seems off the topic... But... We have a problem with Hemlock woolly adelgid around here. Introduced through the Port of Charleston in 1951. Native to eastern Asia. It kills the eastern hemlock and Carolina hemlock. In Japan it is kept under control by the Japanese black ladybug. Not sure how this compares to people climbing trees, or why this subject was brought up, being off-topic. But HWA has killed far more trees than all the people climbing trees.

 

As I see it, it doesn't matter if HWA, the wind, natural disasters or rabid squirrels kill more trees than when people climb them. Comparing the number of trees killed due to people climbing tree to place or find a cache vs. other causes isn't the metric we should be looking at.

 

Just grabbing some random numbers out of a hat, suppose that the breakdown on the reason trees were kill was:

 

60% natural disasters

30% animal damage

10% people climbing trees

 

It seems to me that reducing the number of trees killed due to people climbing trees results in a net reduction of the number of trees killed. If that means, that we shouldn't hide caches in trees, is that really such a great sacrifice?

 

 

[+AustinMN]

Just grabbing some random numbers out of a hat, suppose that the breakdown on the reason trees were kill was:

 

60% natural disasters

30% animal damage

10% people climbing trees

 

It seems to me that reducing the number of trees killed due to people climbing trees results in a net reduction of the number of trees killed. If that means, that we shouldn't hide caches in trees, is that really such a great sacrifice?

 

More realistic numbers might be:

 

50% natural disasters

30% animal damage

19.99999999999990% lumberjacks

0.000000000000001% people climbing trees

 

That is how absurd your position is.

 

Austin

[+cerberus1]

Just grabbing some random numbers out of a hat, suppose that the breakdown on the reason trees were kill was:

 

60% natural disasters

30% animal damage

10% people climbing trees

 

It seems to me that reducing the number of trees killed due to people climbing trees results in a net reduction of the number of trees killed. If that means, that we shouldn't hide caches in trees, is that really such a great sacrifice?

 

More realistic numbers might be:

 

50% natural disasters

30% animal damage

19.99999999999990% lumberjacks

0.000000000000001% people climbing trees

 

That is how absurd your position is.

 

Austin

I'm sure arborists fit in there somewhere, and know of only one in my region who doesn't use rope to climb the tree.

[knowschad]

So you see it is not people but nature and the toss of the dice as to tree death.

 

Because nature sometimes kills trees, humans can't kill trees?

Well of course we can. Put a chain saw in my hand and I take a few down.

Did people cause the pine beetle problem in Colorado? No they pop up real bad about every 100 years or so. Can I spread Oak wilt? Sure but animals do it better. It is recomended not to do any pruning

of Oaks at this time of year. The Oak wilt will kill them. SOD only means sudden Oak death. They do not tell you why. I would bet it is Oak wilt in a broken Oak. That is what will kill them here that quickly.

The fungus enters the wound and spreads fast. Here in Minnesota we have much experience with it.

Also have ways to prevent it. Or to slow it's spread.

 

You will find that while pathogens like this and others like the Elm Leaf Beetle are primarily spread locally by animal vectors or the wind WE cause the greatest damage. Animal vectors provide for short distance spread but WE get mud on our boots and cars then drive 200k to an area which is currently unaffected.

 

Don't get cocky, WE are the main problem with many environmental issues as we have the ability to, and do, put things out of their natural balance.

Man is a part of the environment, just as any animal.

All spread any kind of so called alian species.

We have water bodies that man does not use, infected with eurasian milfoil and zebra muscles.

Only way to do that is Ducks and Geese. After they were brought in ballast of ships.

Deer ticks where they never were, vector is birds to spread them that far.

Muddy tires? man has had the wheel for a long long time.

Did man start Oak wilt? NO! it has always been here. But as with all in nature man has helped.

We prevent fires, this is what controled a lot of pathogens in nature. They got burned out.

Only now are we learning that we need to do controlled burns.

 

Yes we do need to be carefull, But man is not the enemy that some wack jobs like to make out.

Climb a tree! more animals do that than man. Do we hurt them? NO! unless you break a big live branch.

But you would have to weigh what that bear did that climbed one of mine and broke off the top 20 feet.

 

What you say is true, but we have no control over what ducks, or geese, or other birds or animals do. We do have control over what we, as humans, and as what we would like to think is the most intelligent species, does.

[knowschad]

There is nothing will do AS MUCH damage to a tree as having many people scrambling up their limbs, breaching the bark and allowing in insects, pathogens and fungi that will bring a quick demise to a tree.

Worse than a chainsaw, even?

 

Well, I can't use a chainsaw in any of the state lands or local open space/watersheds that I frequent. I have been tempted a time or two when looking at a cache high in a tree. As mentioned above, though, I could walk off trail through California Bays, or climb one, to obtain a cache and end up taking Phytophthora Ramorum into a group of uninflected trees. This is not to say that it might not be carried there anyway through wind, deer, or the gradual spread following an increasingly rare storm. But I look at some of the devastated areas and would prefer not being the one responsible for spreading it. So where I live, there are certain hiding spots that could cause more damage than a chainsaw (assuming most catchers do not Lysol their shoes after a hike),

 

I also have seen areas after cachers have looked for a "needle in a haystack" type of hide - which is not to say that Sasquatch of other animals in my area do not break branches or cause similar damage. I just don't see any reason to be the cause of it looking for a container.

 

SURE you can! Just don't get caught!

 

My response was in jest, of course.

 

I have seen the damage caused by Needle in a Haystack sorts of hides, and while I abhor them (I'm the sort of cacher that will replace leaves and pine needles and rocks that I move away) really, the damage in the long run it pretty tiny in the greater scheme of things. I prefer the next cacher to come along to see the site in the same condition it was when the cache was hidden... that is my style. But plants will regrow.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Just grabbing some random numbers out of a hat, suppose that the breakdown on the reason trees were kill was:

 

60% natural disasters

30% animal damage

10% people climbing trees

 

It seems to me that reducing the number of trees killed due to people climbing trees results in a net reduction of the number of trees killed. If that means, that we shouldn't hide caches in trees, is that really such a great sacrifice?

 

More realistic numbers might be:

 

50% natural disasters

30% animal damage

19.99999999999990% lumberjacks

0.000000000000001% people climbing trees

 

That is how absurd your position is.

 

Austin

 

As I said, I just made the numbers up. Since you consider your numbers accurate enough to characterize my position as absurd, perhaps you can provide a source for a study which will indicate that you just didn't make up numbers as well.

[+spirothebudgie]

I would think that overall the probability of a tree being climbed is fairly low compared to the probability of other things happening (fungus and logging) that can also cause damage to trees, so in a whole environment the impact would be quite low.

 

However just because most trees don't get climbed doesn't mean that there is no damage done to the ones that are.

I have seen the impact of geocaching before on areas where smaller plants have been pushed back and stepped on or branches broken because of the number of people searching for the cache.

 

Some of my caches get 30 or more visits in a year, so if a cache requires a climb up a tree, then the bark could be getting damaged too frequently without having the chance to repair itself.

 

People think it is ok to hide a cache high up in a tree because everyone has climbed a tree before at some point, but the impact of the tree getting climbed every week could cause quite a bit of damage.

 

Of course there is no problem with caches placed within reach from the ground as no climbing is needed, provided there are no nails used. I have never seen nails or screws cause damage to a tree but the guidelines are there for a reason and it looks bad for geocaching if a tree is left with holes and nails stuck in it from a geocache placement.

 

Besides there are plenty of ways to avoid using screws or nails, most caches can be gently wedged in or cable ties are fine as far as I know, have seen a few done like that.

Edited April 19, 2015 by spirothebudgie

[+Mudfrog]

Just grabbing some random numbers out of a hat, suppose that the breakdown on the reason trees were kill was:

 

60% natural disasters

30% animal damage

10% people climbing trees

 

It seems to me that reducing the number of trees killed due to people climbing trees results in a net reduction of the number of trees killed. If that means, that we shouldn't hide caches in trees, is that really such a great sacrifice?

 

More realistic numbers might be:

 

50% natural disasters

30% animal damage

19.99999999999990% lumberjacks

0.000000000000001% people climbing trees

 

That is how absurd your position is.

 

Austin

 

As I said, I just made the numbers up. Since you consider your numbers accurate enough to characterize my position as absurd, perhaps you can provide a source for a study which will indicate that you just didn't make up numbers as well.

 

Not going to try and make up any numbers but i too, think it's rediculous to equate geocaching tree climbers to the killing of trees. I agree, damage can occur but it would depend on some variables such as, number of climbers, age, and species of the tree. Honestly, from geocachers who actually climb a tree,,, nah.

 

What does seem absurd is bringing this up here. There are many thousands, probably millions, of trees taken out daily around the world in the name of progress, but we're gonna worry about a few geocachers.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Just grabbing some random numbers out of a hat, suppose that the breakdown on the reason trees were kill was:

 

60% natural disasters

30% animal damage

10% people climbing trees

 

It seems to me that reducing the number of trees killed due to people climbing trees results in a net reduction of the number of trees killed. If that means, that we shouldn't hide caches in trees, is that really such a great sacrifice?

 

More realistic numbers might be:

 

50% natural disasters

30% animal damage

19.99999999999990% lumberjacks

0.000000000000001% people climbing trees

 

That is how absurd your position is.

 

Austin

 

As I said, I just made the numbers up. Since you consider your numbers accurate enough to characterize my position as absurd, perhaps you can provide a source for a study which will indicate that you just didn't make up numbers as well.

 

Not going to try and make up any numbers but i too, think it's rediculous to equate geocaching tree climbers to the killing of trees. I agree, damage can occur but it would depend on some variables such as, number of climbers, age, and species of the tree. Honestly, from geocachers who actually climb a tree,,, nah.

 

What does seem absurd is bringing this up here. There are many thousands, probably millions, of trees taken out daily around the world in the name of progress, but we're gonna worry about a few geocachers.

 

Does the fact that thousands of non-geocachers throw litter all over the environment mean that we shouldn't worry if a few geocachers do it?

 

 

[+Uncle Alaska]

There is nothing will do AS MUCH damage to a tree as having many people scrambling up their limbs, breaching the bark and allowing in insects, pathogens and fungi that will bring a quick demise to a tree.

 

This is the biggest lie I've read here in the forums in a long, long, time. You can discuss damage to property that isn't yours all you want but to insist such a thing that it's the early demise of the tree is totally ludicrous.

 

Hardly ludicrous and definitely not a lie, although I suppose it depends on where you live. In my area, there is not an acre of oak forest and watershed that has not been affected by Sudden Oak Death, with pathogens carried by Bays and other trees, and spread to some extent by hikers. SOD has now infected trees in numerous counties in California and Oregon.

 

I have tried to convince people that bays and oaks are not appropriate spots to place a cache, that there are certain areas where park managers specifically ask people to stay on trail, and that climbing, poking around, and other activity can help spread the pathogen - at the very least, certain precautions should be taken. But fallen wood and Bays make for easy hiding spots. And bays are often easy to climb for a cache. So it goes.

 

Perhaps the battle is effectively lost where I live. But I do not want to be responsible for making it worse. Or for spreading it to other areas. If you do cache in places where pathogens are likely, please stay out of my neighborhood unless you have taken appropriate measures. There is an oak in my yard that I want to protect.

 

Just a little FYI about sudden oak death (SOD) as an addition to what geodarts has already stated. It is Phytophthora ramorum, and the particular strain on the West coast was introduced while attached to a rhododendron via a commercial nursery (the plant came from the UK). The disease is spread through water and mud/dirt (the disease has a flagella tail that aids movement in moist environments). The recent drought in California has hampered its spread, but it is still out there waiting in dormancy. Driving or walking to/from infected areas during the wet season would be the likely way to spread it.

 

I have been involved with tracking and watching the spread of this disease for several years now. It is not likely to spread much more than its current reach as it requires very wet environs (it seems to be staying in nearly the same geographic range as coastal redwood). Still a very real threat to dozens of tree species. The act of climbing a tree is not likely to cause damage, the mud carried on the soles of your boots might though.

[+Mudfrog]

Just grabbing some random numbers out of a hat, suppose that the breakdown on the reason trees were kill was:

 

60% natural disasters

30% animal damage

10% people climbing trees

 

It seems to me that reducing the number of trees killed due to people climbing trees results in a net reduction of the number of trees killed. If that means, that we shouldn't hide caches in trees, is that really such a great sacrifice?

 

More realistic numbers might be:

 

50% natural disasters

30% animal damage

19.99999999999990% lumberjacks

0.000000000000001% people climbing trees

 

That is how absurd your position is.

 

Austin

 

As I said, I just made the numbers up. Since you consider your numbers accurate enough to characterize my position as absurd, perhaps you can provide a source for a study which will indicate that you just didn't make up numbers as well.

 

Not going to try and make up any numbers but i too, think it's rediculous to equate geocaching tree climbers to the killing of trees. I agree, damage can occur but it would depend on some variables such as, number of climbers, age, and species of the tree. Honestly, from geocachers who actually climb a tree,,, nah.

 

What does seem absurd is bringing this up here. There are many thousands, probably millions, of trees taken out daily around the world in the name of progress, but we're gonna worry about a few geocachers.

 

Does the fact that thousands of non-geocachers throw litter all over the environment mean that we shouldn't worry if a few geocachers do it?

 

Huh? Not remotely the same. As said, i don't believe that a tree climbing geocacher will kill a tree in the first place. Yes, i realize that some damage could occur if said tree is in an area that gets, say, 10 cachers a week climbing it. But i honestly doubt there's any real tree climbing cache out there that gets this much action.

 

There are definitely more important things to worry about than a tree climbing geocacher.

[+Shop99er]

It boils down to one thing, really.

 

If you don't like what you're seeing, then walk away. No one is forcing you to open anything.

[+J Grouchy]

10% people climbing trees

0.000000000000001% people climbing trees

 

What percentage of EITHER of those numbers are geocachers? My kids climb trees because they are kids and they like to climb trees. People were climbing trees long before geocaching was invented and they'll continue to climb trees even if tree caches are banned.

 

[+PlantAKiss]

I didn't get to read all the thread. But I expected the cat-freak reaction to my comment about tree climbing. You can obfuscate the issue with tales about animals, wind, lightening, chainsaws, etc. but it's a fact--tree bark is armor to protect the more delicate "guts". 1 person, 1 raccoon, a few bird talons ...don't compare to possibly hundreds of cachers climbing up and then back down the same one tree over and over. Bark damage (ever heard of girdling a tree?) IS what allows "death" in, particularly fungus, "the Great Decomposer. I mentioned it because I believed GS had a Do No Harm policy. Now if GS chooses to see digging holes and hammering nails into trees as harmful acts but not tree climbing, so be it. I won't do it because I know better. (Pssst...the reason it's bad to put nails and screws in trees...is because.... it lets in pathogens, insects and fungus.) it's up to each cacher as to what they see as environmentally safe and sound. I mean REALLLLY is digging a hole all that bad?? Animals dig holes!

 

Anyhoo...I just wondered about rule breaking hides because I see them fairly often. Particularly caches hidden on electrical boxes, poles, areas. And half-buried caches. I wondered how they get published. Listers not giving full facts to reviewers or rules getting "flexed".?

[+PlantAKiss]

At one time it was not believed to be wrong to remove other people from their families and homes and make them slaves. Time and knowledge enlightened folks and it was realized this was a bad practice. As we increase our knowlege about what harms our environment, we adjust some of our practices. People learned to dump trash on the ground because it didn't matter. But geocachers know it DOES matter and thus a new practice was born--CITO. You (and Groundspeak) can continue to climb trees because you always have and by God you're not going stop! You can leave that harmless trash on the ground too! . Meanwhile I won't climb trees and me and other cachers who believe in protection for the environment that sustains the game will CITO and continue to "Do No Harm""...or as little as possible. You gotta answer your own caching and personal calling.

[+Seaglass Pirates]

Lol - oh dear.

 

Maybe there should be a new thread?

 

"Is the Groundspeak forum a force for good or evil in the world of geocaching"

 

I mean really? Does it seem to achieve anything other than bring up the same old sh ... stuff. Endlessly until someone gets the bit between their teeth and starts causing problems/contacting Groundspeak about this cache or that cache and the thread gathers momentum and some poor soul somehwere suddenly gets it in the neck. Never even knew it was coming or where it came from. Caches going 7 years and more ... bam ... the forum strikes again. Save the world ... kills caching a little bit at a time.

[+niraD]

1 person, 1 raccoon, a few bird talons ...don't compare to possibly hundreds of cachers climbing up and then back down the same one tree over and over.

Seriously? Few low-terrain caches get "hundreds of cachers" finding them. High-terrain caches like tree-climbing caches will get far fewer finds.

 

Bark damage (ever heard of girdling a tree?) IS what allows "death" in, particularly fungus, "the Great Decomposer.

I've cut entire branches off trees. I've drilled holes in trees. This was all done as part of the trees' maintenance, to keep them healthy.

 

I think you're overstating the risk of a few tree climbers to the trees' health. The Hungry Trees thread includes photographic evidence of trees surviving and thriving despite damage much worse than what a few tree climbers might inflict.

 

I wondered how they get published. Listers not giving full facts to reviewers or rules getting "flexed".?

This is a different topic, but rule-breaking caches are published when the rule violations are not made clear to the volunteer reviewers. When the rule violations are brought to the attention of the volunteer reviewers (e.g., via a Needs Archived log), the cache listings are archived.

 

At one time it was not believed to be wrong to remove other people from their families and homes and make them slaves.

Congratulations. Godwin would be proud.

[+Ambrosia]

Climbing trees in no way girdles them.

 

I don't understand what the issue is that people have with climbing trees. Besides something like a specific disease (as has been discussed in the thread), or younger trees that can't handle the weight, climbing trees multiple times shouldn't be that bad. I had trees in my back yard that I climbed almost every day for many years. They didn't get any damage (some of the bark got smoothed out). I know of a lot of trees that were climbed by kids over the years and they are fine.

[+wmpastor]

So you see it is not people but nature and the toss of the dice as to tree death.

 

Because nature sometimes kills trees, humans can't kill trees?

Well of course we can. Put a chain saw in my hand and I take a few down.

Did people cause the pine beetle problem in Colorado? No they pop up real bad about every 100 years or so. Can I spread Oak wilt? Sure but animals do it better. It is recomended not to do any pruning

of Oaks at this time of year. The Oak wilt will kill them. SOD only means sudden Oak death. They do not tell you why. I would bet it is Oak wilt in a broken Oak. That is what will kill them here that quickly.

The fungus enters the wound and spreads fast. Here in Minnesota we have much experience with it.

Also have ways to prevent it. Or to slow it's spread.

 

You will find that while pathogens like this and others like the Elm Leaf Beetle are primarily spread locally by animal vectors or the wind WE cause the greatest damage. Animal vectors provide for short distance spread but WE get mud on our boots and cars then drive 200k to an area which is currently unaffected.

 

Don't get cocky, WE are the main problem with many environmental issues as we have the ability to, and do, put things out of their natural balance.

Man is a part of the environment, just as any animal.

All spread any kind of so called alian species.

We have water bodies that man does not use, infected with eurasian milfoil and zebra muscles.

Only way to do that is Ducks and Geese. After they were brought in ballast of ships.

Deer ticks where they never were, vector is birds to spread them that far.

Muddy tires? man has had the wheel for a long long time.

Did man start Oak wilt? NO! it has always been here. But as with all in nature man has helped.

We prevent fires, this is what controled a lot of pathogens in nature. They got burned out.

Only now are we learning that we need to do controlled burns.

 

Yes we do need to be carefull, But man is not the enemy that some wack jobs like to make out.

Climb a tree! more animals do that than man. Do we hurt them? NO! unless you break a big live branch.

But you would have to weigh what that bear did that climbed one of mine and broke off the top 20 feet.

My takeaway from the discussion is to continue to climb trees carefully, minimizing and probably totally eliminating damage. Soft soled shoes, obviously, and don't twist your foot while it's bearing your weight and in contact with the bark. Also avoid trees that are more susceptible to damage (young, thin branches, smooth thin bark, etc.).

[+Seaglass Pirates]

Dont rise to it Nira you cannot win. Because you could do a presentation showing it makes no difference what so ever and you could be a tree scientist and various people would pull it to shreds.

 

My fear is that Groundspeak ever take that thinking as gospel in the community.

 

Nothing you can say will be acceptable. "Use a dead tree" ... health and safety troop out and start the ball rolling.

 

A living tree ... you are killing the planet and I am taking the moral high ground.

 

No matter that they were obliterating their back garden with a strimmer, or a mower. Had fireworks. Had a bonfire. Drove anywhere

 

You do wonder when these people bring up this stuff - Are they a competing company trying to erode this ones facilities or are they so narrow minded and hell bent on whittling away any hope of enjoyment, they cannot see the wood for the trees ...

 

Edit: You know what I just looked at the CO's caches. One is up a tree. All be it on string which is thrown over a branch ... but ... well whatever.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Seaglass Pirates

[+Ant89]

Things are different in the UK.

 

Cache is screwed into post. A member of staff of the organisation that owns the land finds cache. removes, and re- attaches a few meters away due to them removing the original hiding location as part of landscaping works.

 

Or, staff from same organisation finds similar cache. Removes cache from item due to item being replaced with brand new version. reattaches cache.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Ant89

[+ThePetrifiedWood]

There are many hundred+ year old oak trees in New Orleans' City Park that are used daily as jungle gyms by kids and have been since the park was created. Nearby Audubon park is the same. People crawling all over the trees. The same trees I crawled on a a kid are still alive decades later.

 

Certainly some trees might not do well. But I think most large well established trees can handle the occasional climber. How do trees survive all the chimps in the jungle climbing in them? Nature is far more resilient than you might believe. If you stopped mowing the lawn in your back yard, in 10 years it would be unrecognizable.

[+jellis]

10% people climbing trees

0.000000000000001% people climbing trees

 

What percentage of EITHER of those numbers are geocachers? My kids climb trees because they are kids and they like to climb trees. People were climbing trees long before geocaching was invented and they'll continue to climb trees even if tree caches are banned.

 

I cringed everytime I saw them drill a great big hole in the tree branches. Beside what it could do to the tree but how well can does branches stand the weight.

In our area anything can happed due to the long drought we are having. Just recently on a birding trip and placing a cache I was walking down a fire road. Looking in the trees for a certain Warbler. The bird was too high for me to photograph so I was heading back out. Before I could get about 100ft I heard a chopping, then a snapping sound. I walked back to see what could be making the sound. Then a creaking sound and then a trunk and attached branches of an Oak tree came down across the fire road just where I was standing just a minute before.tree