Oregon Wilderness Caches

[PaL]

Hello

 

[This message was edited by PAL on July 18, 2002 at 06:48 PM.]

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

I know here in southwestern Oregon we've had problems with Federal Wilderness areas. They don't want us placing caches in those areas. Now a virtual cache would not be a problem there I'm sure.

 

Is it different with Oregon Wilderness caches? Are you doing just virtuals or what?

 

Never Squat With Yer Spurs On

[+Peanuthead]

Let me see if I have this right ??

 

In NO way am I to put anything man-made in a Federally Designated Wilderness area, but the Oregon Wilderness Coalition is asking me to put caches in Proposed Wilderness Areas...

 

Is the Oregon Wilderness Coalition working on State of OREGON Wilderness Designation(if there is such a thing), or are they trying to expand on FEDERAL Wilderness Designations ??

 

 

 

[This message was edited by Peanuthead on June 04, 2002 at 05:24 PM.]

[PaL]

I say high

[This message was edited by PAL on July 18, 2002 at 06:47 PM.]

 

[This message was edited by PAL on July 18, 2002 at 06:49 PM.]

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

dont twist your shorts over it.

 

quote:

---

22 special areas in Oregon which they hope will be added to existing wilderness areas.

---

so all Peanuthead and I are asking is for a few details. Your second message leaked out a couple of more details, such as no roads.

 

You ask for help yet give out very little information. Then get upset when we ask for a detail or two. Feel free to fill us in. Both Peanuthead and myself are avid hikers. In fact I'm going on a 5 day backpacking trip in southwestern oregon next week.

 

Never Squat With Yer Spurs On

[+MattandLaura]

ouch..before this gets out of hand here's the link to the cache. The description seems to explain a bit better

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=23783

 

[PaL]

Owwwww my shorts are too tight.

 

PaL

 

[This message was edited by PAL on July 18, 2002 at 06:49 PM.]

 

[This message was edited by PAL on July 18, 2002 at 06:50 PM.]

[+joedohn]

Boy, this represents a dilemma. I've looked at some of these locations as prime cache sites, particularly because they're public land. Yet, knowing I'd have to retrieve my cache when or if they became wilderness. I respect the no caching in wilderness and think it's a good idea. However, I agree with PAL that increased visitation and appreciation will help further the chances of these areas being protected. Maybe virtual caches are the way to go. They certainly wouldn't hurt. Maybe physical caches would be fine if it was understood by the cache owner that they must be removed if wilderness designation was established (I think this would be my preference).

 

Here's a link for those who want to see the areas in question.... Oregon Wild

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

Well funny thing is PAL is that is where I'm going backpacking next week. So I'll be able to log that cache. But it will take me a few days to get back to the computer. I should have it logged by the 15th although I'll actually be at the cachesite by the 10th.

 

Get good sattelite reads down in there?

 

I had planned to place either a micro or a virtual cache along the route. I'll put mine a day or two farther down the trail. Wonder if it will ever get hit.

 

There is a cache on the other side of the river called Rainie Falls and it's only been hit 4 times in over a year. Actually only 3 legally as the first cacher never really found the cache. One of those things you know??

 

 

Never Squat With Yer Spurs On

[PaL]

I had a lock on 7 satellites when I placed this cache. Good luck to all cache seekers....

 

 

PaL

 

[This message was edited by PAL on July 18, 2002 at 06:50 PM.]

[+joedohn]

Hey PAL, you can cross another one of the list. This just got posted, Lookout Summit Cache

[+Gloom]

Why would they want to attract people to an area that they want to turn into wilderness? Aren't designated wildernesses off-limits to any type of activity, including hiking?

Maybe I'm just confused on that point, but it seems backwards to me to want to attract people to a place only to tell them later that you can't enter it.

 

----

Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side and a dark side, and it holds the universe together.

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

You can enter a wilderness, just can't plow through it on your 4X4. Of course if it were to be changed to Wilderness the caches would probably have to go. But nothing happens fast around here so I'm sure the caches will be fine for a long time.

 

Never Squat With Yer Spurs On

[+joedohn]

What makes Wilderness Designation contradictory to geocaching is the 'leave no trace' ethic.

 

Visiting wilderness is encouraged. Some of the reasons Wilderness 'set asides' were first introduced was the belief that access to pristine nature is essential to human health and to preserve for our rapidly urbanizing society access to genuine wilderness experience.

 

Generally, they're open only to foot traffic (including pack animals). And 'leave no trace' is the order of the day (hence, no geocaches).

[+Byron & Anne]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gloom:

Why would they want to attract people to an area that they want to turn into wilderness? Aren't designated wildernesses off-limits to any type of activity, including hiking?

Maybe I'm just confused on that point, but it seems backwards to me to want to attract people to a place only to tell them later that you can't enter it.

 

----

---

 

 

There's a saying amongst backpackers, "if you want solitude don't go to designated wilderness area." Some of the heaviest hiking traffic is in designated wilderness areas.

 

If you want to find our more about a designated wilderness area close to you go to http://www.r5.fs.fed.us/klamath/vvc/wilderness/marbles/

 

Byron

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

Well it looks like the Rogue Cache was already hit but I'll do it this week on our backpacking trip. Seems there is a short route into it but I won't be taking that.

 

It is a bit curious though. Placing a cache in an area you hope will become designated wilderness where then you will be forced to remove it. That does appear to be a bit of an oxymoron to me.

 

Never Squat With Yer Spurs On

[+Mr. Snazz]

There are several caches in the Badlands area southeast of Bend, OR. Recently the city council endorsed a proposal for changing this area into a "wilderness area". The so-called "only issue" was that it would then exclude offroading.

 

Does anybody know if this is going to affect the caches in the area? Will this be a Deschutes County "wilderness area", or a federal one?

 

A copy of a local article is here...

Bend.com - Council backs Badlands wilderness

[+makaio]

quote:

---

You can enter a wilderness, just can't plow through it on your 4X4

---

 

I was proactively avoiding this thread to avoid turning it into a political debate and I'll refrain from such with the exception of stating that IMO, this cache is no different than a commercial cache in that it 'advertises' the cache owners organization and attempts to recruit geocachers into joining their ranks. While there's nothing wrong with recruiting folks for one's cause, I don't believe geocaching is the place for it.

 

Also, as an avid motorized recreationalist, I am compelled to respond to LazyBoy's quote. Unfortunately, our friendly SUV marketing reps portray 4x4ing as people tearing down dirt roads and throwing dirt and rocks everywhere when this couldn't be further from the truth. Most offroaders are responsible family oriented law abiding citizens who enjoy nature as much as anyone else and drive their vehicles as slow as possible along trails built for such activities. The beer drinking mud slinging yahoo image is a false stereotype portrayed by certain organizations to benefit their cause. If anyone would like to see what offroading is really about, I'd be happy to take them for a ride anytime.

 

Also, as an avid hiker, I enjoy remote areas and the serenity they provide. And as the area where PAL placed his/her cache is designated Roadless Area, I'm all for their attempt to have this area included as official wilderness should it qualify. If it doesn't, the area shouldn't be closed to OHVs.

 

There is a place for both types of activities and as a free american I intend to ensure both types of areas remain for my children to enjoy as they grow up.

 

-

 

[This message was edited by makaio on June 17, 2002 at 09:26 PM.]

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

I have a couple of 4X4's myself and two quads. I enjoy that aspect of recreation myself.

quote:

---

Most offroaders are responsible family oriented law abiding citizens who enjoy nature as much as anyone else and drive their vehicles as slow as possible along trails built for such activities.

---

I don't think we disagree on this at all. Now my middle son is an idiot that sees nothing wrong with tearing up a meadow. The good news about this is he drives his rig so hard it's broken more than it's running.

 

And I find him in the minority.

 

I did do that cache and only hikers are allowed in the area now. Not even pack animals can be used. It is a wonderful hike and I encourage all who backpack to do this cache.

 

With all the debate about commercial caches (and I like commercial caches) I also thought that this would qualify in that area. Although there isn't an entry fee like many parks with caches have, it was pushing for his political agenda.

 

Maybe the mods will approve a locationless cache if I make it of someone registering to vote???? J/K kids.

 

Sorry if my post ticked you off, it wasn't intended to do that. Usually I only tick people off when I post about locationless or marry them.

 

Never Squat With Yer Spurs On

[PaL]

I placed the Timothy Lake Bike Cache 6-24. Oil up the chains and get pedeling.

 

PaL

 

[This message was edited by PAL on July 18, 2002 at 06:51 PM.]

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

Well PAL in all honesty you haven't made much of a case for wilderness. I traveled the Rogue Trail and it's pretty much wilderness anyway. Nothing is allowed on the trail except foot traffic (no animals or bikes) and only rafts can use the river. There is a resort half way down with no road access.

 

You've made a political statement here with no facts or even information to back it up. Don't expect everyone to jump on the bandwagon.

 

Never Squat With Yer Spurs On

[+makaio]

Your comment didn't upset me. I just have a hard time remaining silent when I see offroading mentioned in a negative light. Granted, there are those who do not take our sport responsibly and give the majority of those involved a bad name. Those are the folks we need to educate.

 

Again, I'm all for preserving areas which need preserving. If that means no motorized vehicles, so be it. I just don't subscribe to the "close everything, then only open up small areas" philosophy.

 

-

[+oregone]

quote:

---

Originally posted by makaio:

 

If anyone would like to see what offroading is really about, I'd be happy to take them for a ride anytime.

 

---

 

Count me in!!! Is there a waiting list?

 

I've always wanted to do that, and some of the pictures i've seen of you and your jeep have always intrigued me.

and actually making it out to places like Lost Forest, Crack in the Ground, and China Hat without losing a muffler or an undercarriage sounds like heaven on oregon.

 

all rights reserved, all wrongs reversed

[+makaio]

There's a run planned this Saturday along a section of the historic Barlow Road near Mt. Hood, but this won't be "offroading", per se. It's more like an easy cruise along a dirt road. Any stock 4x4 can run it and you might not even need to use 4WD.

 

I can certainly let you know the next time I go up to TSF if you like.

 

-

[+Logscaler and Red]

The Badlands area that is being talked about near Bend is not roadless at all. Lots of old roads, I was even on them just before the signs went up a while back. It seems to me that this roadless thing is adjusted as the need fits for those looking to get what - and where - they want. All of Pine Mountain should be Wilderness Area except for the Observatory(sp) and the road from Millican up except that those same enviros who want the Badlands hang glide from there. They even got a spacial raod built fot them to the top. End of rant

[+Logscaler and Red]

The Badlands area that is being talked about near Bend is not roadless at all. Lots of old roads, I was even on them just before the signs went up a while back. It seems to me that this roadless thing is adjusted as the need fits for those looking to get what - and where - they want. All of Pine Mountain should be Wilderness Area except for the Observatory(sp) and the road from Millican up except that those same enviros who want the Badlands hang glide from there. They even got a spacial raod built fot them to the top. End of rant

[+makaio]

As an avid offroader and member or various clubs/organizations dedicated to keeping our public lands open to the public, I've been well versed in this whole "Roadless" issue.

 

In a nutshell, the USFS decided it couldn't/shouldn't maintain miles and miles of "roads" within national forests due mostly to costs, among other things. As such, the areas which contained roads which they decided would not be maintained would be deemed "roadless". The green factions are attempting to make the term "roadless" synonymous with "wilderness" which implies no motorized access. As a motorized recreationalist, we'd like to ensure these areas, while unmaintained by the USFS, remain open for use by those who own the land - U.S. taxpayers - to use. Hence, practically every designated "Roadless" area contains roads.

 

See http://roadless.fs.fed.us/ for more information on the Roadless issue.

 

As an offroader, we have no problem if the roads are left unmaintained - we prefer them that way. We work with the USFS in other areas to perform routine trail maintenance (strictly volunteer - no cost to the govt) and will continue to do so in these areas provided our rights to use them are not taken from us.

 

Keep in mind, as I said earlier in this thread, that there are certain areas that even we agree should be kept pristine and closed to motorized traffic, but not all roadless areas should be designated as wilderness.

 

-

[PaL]

Happy Geocaching!!!

 

[This message was edited by PAL on July 18, 2002 at 06:53 PM.]

[+Mr. Snazz]

Does anybody here have an answer to my question? Will the conversion of the Badlands to a wilderness area create a no-caching policy in the area? Is that the case for all Federal wilderness areas, due to the 'leave no trace' "ethic"?

[+Navdog]

The Badlands is a fascinating area and one of our favorite places to explore. Two of our caches are located in the area. Walkabout and Badlands. It will be disappointing if the area is ever designated a wilderness area. I am a believer that caches should not be in federally designated wilderness areas and I know they have pulled some caches in wilderness areas in southern Oregon. Hopefully the city of Bend will follow through on their proposal for a wilderness and we will be able to work with them when the time comes to do so. The BLM designated this a study area over two years ago and I am sure it will be several years before anything occurs if at all.

 

The adventures of Navdog, Justdog, and Otterpup

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

There is a middle ground between clear cutting and wilderness that is seldom discussed. Proper logging methods are very healthy for a forest. Clear cutting removes a forest for generations.

 

Ive seen some very unheathly old growth forests that are being saved to death. Some thinning in those areas would do wonders.

 

So it's hard for me to jump on anyones bandwagon. Both sides are so extreme. Remember back in Yellowstone (yes not a wilderness) where it was felt that allowing forest fires to rage out of control was beneficial? Opps. Our managment sucks.

 

Never Squat With Yer Spurs On

[PaL]

It amazes me that the forests managed to manage themselves so well for so many thousands of years.

 

[This message was edited by PAL on July 18, 2002 at 06:53 PM.]

[PaL]

A measured response to LOGSCALER's message just for the record

 

1. I have not received any E-mails from Logscaler up to and including this date.

 

2. I have no idea what "challenge" he is talking about....hmmmmm log felling contest???

Who can destroy a forest more rapidly, an illegal camper or a logger??? hmmmm identify the multiple use concepts in a clearcut???

 

3. Although I have an inkling of what "my kind" is from considering the source, I don't know for sure.

 

Maybe LOGSCALER will inform me through the forum???

[+Logscaler and Red]

Pal, I deleted my earlier comments due to on reflection, this is not the forum to discuss this style of topic. This forum is for geocaching, not personal vendettas against the very people who, with their sweat and blood and lives, created the living environment now enjoy by the people of the Northwest region. I sent you an e-mail through your profile on the forum page, which is the same one you sent me through geocaching, and if you did not get it, or the next one, then I will assume your word is good and give you the benefit of doubt and assume something is wrong in the system. You can try and reach me at my on the road e-mail address at if you so choose.

 

[This message was edited by logscaler on July 07, 2002 at 05:08 PM.]