Jump to content

Litter or not?


element14

Recommended Posts

Just a point about whether a geocache is technically litter.

 

Litter is a form of flytipped waste.

 

The definition of waste is one of the most vexed questions in UK law, but DoE Circular 11/94 provides guidance that states waste includes materials that are discarded, disposed of or required to be got rid of by the holder such that they are no longer part of the "commercial cycle or chain of utility".

 

Thus, material will still be classed as waste even where it has value to other persons, such as recyclers, as it is the original holder's intention to discard which is relevant.

 

This suggest that a geocache might be regarded as litter, however the guidance also says If the material has been illegally disposed of (flytipped) or abandoned then it is waste.

 

Geocaches are not abandonded as they have an owner, so should not be regarded as waste.

 

Also a court case in 1999 involving the Environment Agency and a large scrap metal merchant clarified the definition by stating that if the producer of the material had a use for the material then it should not be regarded as waste. There are further court cases going on between these two parties so the law is not yet clarified.

 

My view is that they are not litter, as they have not been dumped as such.

 

Just my 2p worth - I don't often post here but read a lot of the posts, to avoid being flamed, but this MOD Ant thing is very sad.

Link to comment

If I'm completely honest, I can see how caches can be construed as litter.

 

But I would say that, IMHO, they are not. I went dog walking earlier today around a country park, with this argument playing on my mind. I had startd to think that the other side icon_wink.gif were right. Caches are technically litter, whatever way you look at it.

 

As I walked, I noticed bits of paper, and crisp packets (yes, I did pick them up) and old beer cans lying all over the place. These were in plain view, cluttering up the park.

 

These are most definately litter... and cleared up as such.

 

Caches, on the other hand, are strategically placed, and maintained by the owner. He/she checks back regularly to make sure that finders don't leave it too open for the general to consider it an intrusion. If anyone happened to come across them (as does happen on rare occasions, they are often left, as the finder realises that they serve a purpose. I'm sure if you read the forums a little further down, you'll find out about a cache that was discovered by a maintenence worker rebuilding a fence, who took it home, wrote in the log, and then returned it to its spot.

 

I'm not sure if we've had the need for it over here yet or not, but in the US, they regularly debate on the forums about being able to "adopt" a cache when a cacher leaves the sport.

 

Geocaches seem to me to do no more harm to the countryside than roads that run past it, footpaths leading through it, visitors that walk over it, and certainly far less damage than visitors who drop crisp packets, beer cans, and paper all over the place, leaving it to people like us - Mod Ant's and Geocachers - to clear up.

 

------

An it harm none, do what ye will

Link to comment

Went out this afternoon and picked up a bin bag of litter in a half mile stretch of countryside - crisp packets, cans, bottles, pizza cartons, fish and chip boxes, bits of plastic and other odds and ends and unmentionables (didn't include the sofa in the wood - too big for the bin bag) and didn't see a single cache.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by element14:

Just a point about whether a geocache is technically litter.


 

Surely if a cache is planted with the landowner's permission, it cannot be construed as litter?

 

Am I missing something?

 

[edit: should I say 'placed' rather than 'planted' to avoid 'digging a hole' connotations?]

 

[This message was edited by Stu & Sarah on January 24, 2003 at 01:53 PM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Stu & Sarah:

Surely if a cache is planted with the landowner's permission, it cannot be construed as litter?

 

Am I missing something?

 


Don't think so - unless of course my house is litter. Mind you that's not a very good analogy as it's not that tidy (too busy caching) icon_biggrin.gif

 

Chris

 

Bear rescues a speciality!

London & UK Geocaching Resources: http://www.sheps.clara.net

Link to comment

To really be seen as litter they would have to have been abandonned by the original owner with no intention of removing the item, and no longer be of use to said owner eg empty can or dead sofa.

 

If we have the landowners explicit permission then it cannot be litter.

Just my 1.29 pence worth (Exchange rates may vary)

 

quote:
How about underwater caches? Are they subject to marine salvage?

 

I think they would be treasure trove icon_wink.gif

 

I woke this morning and my boat was not rocking...for one horrid moment I thought I lived in a house!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by The Merman:

 

quote:
How about underwater caches? Are they subject to marine salvage?

 

I think they would be treasure trove icon_wink.gif

 

I woke this morning and my boat was not rocking...for one horrid moment I thought I lived in a house!


 

Nah... it'd just be another box full of rusty key rings and soggy cardboard crayon boxes icon_wink.gif

 

John

Wild Tupperware Hunter

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by jeremyp:

My definition of litter:

 

"The person who put it there was trying to get rid of it".


Exactly! If someone tosses a gum wrapper, they dont want it. They are not going to care if someone else comes along and picks it up, they do not want it back. And they sure will NOT be coming back to check on it...

 

Now, if the cache is no longer being maintained, I might agree about it being litter.

 

waypoint_link.gif22008_1700.gif37_gp_logo88x31.jpg

Link to comment

To some people, any man made object placed in the countryside is litter.

 

To me, caches are like signboards, fenceposts, and those little knobbly bits of wood that tell you where you're supposed to be walking... They're man made items that have been *deliberately* placed in the countryside to enhance our use and enjoyment of it. A very different kettle of fish!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by jeremyp:

quote:
Originally posted by The Good Shepherds:

To some people, any man made object placed in the countryside is litter.


 

By that definition, Stone Henge is litter.

 

-------

jeremyp

The second ten million caches were the worst too.

http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

 

And Slough - though you might be right there icon_biggrin.gif

 

Bear rescues a speciality!

London & UK Geocaching Resources: http://www.sheps.clara.net

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by jeremyp:

quote:
Originally posted by The Good Shepherds:

To some people, any man made object placed in the countryside is litter.


By that definition, Stone Henge is litter.

 

jeremyp


I was going to write a deep and meaningful reply, but gave up!

 

But there are many people who are of the opinion that the world must be wrapped in cotton wool, and kept exactly like it is. You may not plant trees nor cut them down. You may neither build buildings nor knock them down....

 

Unfortunately, time continues to pass, and things DO change. One day, that precariously balanced stone on top at Stonehenge WILL fall down, for one reason or another. To be really honest, WOULD it REALLY matter if it did?

 

What *IS* the *real* effect if an "important site" *does* get destroyed? Not to you or me, but in comparison the 15 billion years of the universe?

 

Hey, when they built the Newbury Bypass, they built it over some fields.... fields where the "Battle of Newbury" took place ("battle of where?" you ask...) SO WHAT?... it was a field where some people walked.....

 

I have 2 trees in my front garden. I shall cut them down one day.... it will be *my* decision, noone else will stop me (already checked, no preservation order!!). It may change the landscape.... but they already did that when they planted it, back when they ruined the landscape by building my house.

 

So what is the effect of hiding a small ammo box? And that of a few dozen people enjoying a walk to find it?

 

I'd better shut up now........

 

Paul

 

Team Blitz

 

White gravel? What white gravel? I can't see any.... heck, who cares!

Link to comment

Too me I would not class a cache as litter unless it was left open and the contents were being blown to the 4 corners by the wind. Litter is something that for any number of reasons is causing harm to the environment. Be it an eysore all the way up to causing widespread death to animals and plants. Those plastic bits that hold 6 packs of beer together are litter, do you know how many birds and animals get strangled by those things? Why not try cutting all the loops before you put them in the bin or for recycling. Seagull's pick them up at landfill sites and get stuck.

I have never heard of a bird getting strangled by a cache! And they are certainly not eyesores, although maybe some virtuals may be classed as an eyesore to some people.

I am surprised nobody else has mentioned the animals and plants instead of all the worry about big rocks they are tough enough to withstand a lot more than little living creatures.

 

Hear about the 2 blondes that walked into a bar?

You would of thought at least one of them would of seen it!!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Naefearjustbeer:

I am surprised nobody else has mentioned the animals and plants instead of all the worry about big rocks they are tough enough to withstand a lot more than little living creatures.


 

Yeah, some birds and animals do TERRIBLE things to ancient monuments (which we have to be careful not to step into!)... the effect of such "littering" over very long periods can have a hugely detrimental effect to the site.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by The Good Shepherds:

To some people, any man made object placed in the countryside is litter.


 

 

quote:
Stonehenge is litter

 

Many of your houses are litter if you look at it like that. You said it ... knock 'em down! icon_smile.gif

 

Actually great concern has been expressed about the effect putting a poisonous plastic box in the wild can have on the fauna around it. I believe on post on a forum here mentions an attack on a cache where it had been chewed.

 

By the way, surprisingly I agree that if a farmer/landowner agrees to allow you to 'plant' (yes it would be good tactics to stop using that ... it could save mix ups you know icon_smile.gif) a cache that it is not 'technically' litter. It is not illegal in that case. But ask yourselves this .....

 

Is it morally right to deposit a congealed lump of oil in the wild where it can be chewed by wildlife?

 

And please don't say that there's only one known incident, because one is too many.

Link to comment

I've spent the last couple of days - Call me sad if you like - reading all the posts on here and on the TMA site about 'you know what'. After lengthy consideration of all the points of view aired (and let me say right now that I can appreciate both sides of the argument) I can't help feeling that if no-one had ever left _anything_ lying about in the landscape, and had ritually tidied up after themselves, then there wouldn't be any 'archaeological remains' around to dig up in the present.

 

Perhaps I'm being sentimental, but I kind of like the idea that we might leave _some_ kind of trace of our everyday lives for future generations to dig up and postulate on.

 

Note, however, that this doesn't mean that I think we should be littering the place left, right and centre - just that it would be a shame for everyone to be _too_ clinical with the planet... Way off in 3003 AD, what will they be able to tell about 20/21st century building techniques - there might be some evidence of the foundations, but G*d only knows what they'll make of the landfill sites where the rest of the building rubble has been dumped! What will the 'Time Team'of the Fourth Millennium do with no 'stratified finds' to help them icon_biggrin.gif

 

Still trying to decide between a GPS76 and a 12XL..

 

Regards

 

G

Link to comment

Syllogism (think that's how its spelt)

Premise 1

all plastic is toxic to creatures in small amounts. (it *is* but amounts etc are the problem)

Premise 2

There are huge amounts of plastic lying across the countryside

Conclusion

There are huge numbers of dead creatures lying around the countryside.

 

The problem here is that observation and assosciation do not always work e.g.

There are more badgers dead on the roads now than at any time in the last 10 years- conclusion badgers are getting more stupid.

 

Spot a flaw in this logic?

It's either in the toxicity or the volume...which one?

 

I dont disagree that plastic is just processed oil, and I don't disagree that animals do not live when they eat oil, it's just the reduction of the arguement to stop planting geocaches=save the animals doesn't really hold up against "stop littering".

In terms of improving things in the countryside litter in general would be the better target and return greater benefits in terms of environmental improvements. There are 1.3 Million bits of litter per year dropped on UK roads alone.

Along side the geocaching sticker on my car there is a litter reduction sticker. Looking at the inside of my car it's pretty obvious where all the daily detritus goes- the back seat!

 

Although it may be possible to eventually persuade a dedicated bunch of cachers to give up the "way of the tupperware" in terms of return on effort it might be better to stop a casual litterer and point out the error of their ways.

Mick when he was 8 kindly gave a fast food bag back to the man who was in the process of leaving it casually behind. The embarrasment was painful- the message undeniable.

I felt proud and humbled, since then I'm as rabid as Mick about litter, but caches- sensitively placed- are not litter.

 

Cache the Bug-Geocaching

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Team Blitz:

quote:
Originally posted by Naefearjustbeer:

I am surprised nobody else has mentioned the animals and plants instead of all the worry about big rocks they are tough enough to withstand a lot more than little living creatures.


 

Yeah, some birds and animals do TERRIBLE things to ancient monuments (which we have to be careful not to step into!)... the effect of such "littering" over very long periods can have a hugely detrimental effect to the site.


 

That's a very good point... has anyone seen the damage that birds have done to my car?

 

OK, my car's not an ancient monument, but it's certainly getting that way... icon_wink.gif

 

------

An it harm none, do what ye will

Link to comment

quote:
The problem here is that observation and assosciation do not always work

 

I was just looking over at one of the Megalithic wotsits site, to find a site that I recently visited (coz there is a cache nearby).

 

It is interesting that some will claim the site (a turf maze) is prehistoric, some claim it is maybe roman, and others (including the sign at the site) that claim it was made about the 1800's, possibly by a local farmer! Given the likelihood of erosion / overgrowth, I would find it difficult to believe anything other than the latter myself!

 

But, all you have to do is keep saying "it IS prehistoric" loud enough, and long enough, and it will BECOME prehistoric.

 

It is obviously such a seriously important prehistoric site that it is 3 ft away from a main road, it is protected by just a few railings (which are more likely there to make it visually appealing and stop kids running into the road!), and people can freely walk all over it.

 

Whilst thinking about the thread title: I saw no litter up at that site.... ok, it was dark, so it would be difficult to see. And it gets windy there, so maybe it blew away....

 

paul

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by geomania:

 

Perhaps I'm being sentimental, but I kind of like the idea that we might leave _some_ kind of trace of our everyday lives for future generations to dig up and postulate on.

 


 

I've just spent the last ten minutes writing an eloquent message that went absolutely nowhere, so I've deleted it, and replaced it with this...

 

I don't want anyone to wonder what my life was like. I'd far prefer that they actually spend some time enjoying theirs.

 

------

An it harm none, do what ye will

Link to comment

I didn't mean to reawaken the feud with my Stonehenge example. I was just trying to point out the problem with the "all man made objects are litter" argument in a light hearted way (must remember the smiley in future).

 

Just to make things worse, I'll point out that the entire British countryside is a man made object.

 

-------

jeremyp

The second ten million caches were the worst too.

http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by FourWinds:

Actually great concern has been expressed about the effect putting a poisonous plastic box in the wild can have on the fauna around it.


OK, I let it go once, but this time I'll bite!...

 

All 'plastic' caches I have seen have been made either from polyethylene or polypropylene. What evidence do you have that either of these are in any way poisonous to any species?

 

Toxicity is generally considered to be a chemical effect on the body. The fact that putting your head in a plastic drinks can tie, swallowing it whole etc, etc, is a bad idea may make it dangerous, but certainly not poisonous!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Teasel:

All 'plastic' caches I have seen have been made either from polyethylene or polypropylene. What evidence do you have that either of these are in any way poisonous to any species?


If the plastic that they made these containers out of was toxic, it would be a very bad idea to put, say, sandwiches in them icon_smile.gif

 

-------

jeremyp

The second ten million caches were the worst too.

http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

Link to comment

If you would like to follow me on this one....

 

1. I have a Small garden and I place a shed in one corner and an ammo box in the other.

2. I have a Small garden and I let my friend place a shed in one corner and an ammo box in the other.

3. I have a large farm and I place a shed in one corner and an ammo box in the other.

4. I have a large farm and I let my friend place a shed in one corner and an ammo box in the other.

5. I manage a nature reserve and I place a shed in one corner and an ammo box in the other.

6. I manage a nature reserve and I let my friend place a shed in one corner and an ammo box in the other.

 

At what point (if any) did the ammo box become litter? If the ammo box is litter - what about the shed?

 

Yours faithfully

Confused of Essex

 

Bear rescues a speciality!

London & UK Geocaching Resources: http://www.sheps.clara.net

Link to comment

I think we are wasting our time, and providing TMA posters with something to do. They are obviously experts at all things and it is almost impossible to argue with an expert. We 'plant' caches therefore we bury them, no matter how many times we say 'actually we don't' they, being instant experts, say that we do. We use buckets, they say. Do they believe anyone who says we don't? Plastic is toxic they say, some is but it depends what you do with it. They say caches are litter and no other explanation will do.

Water is dangerous stuff if you inhale it, it’s a matter of interpretation.

If you read a few more of the posts on their forum you will find they are pretty much against everybody who looks sideways at 'their' sites. The general drift is ‘keep away, we know best'.

 

Much disillusioned and generally peed off,

naffita

Link to comment

quote:
If the plastic that they made these containers out of was toxic, it would be a very bad idea to put, say, sandwiches in them

 

Actually it is a bad idea. There are many studies that can tie in the chemicals used in these platics with the global reduction in the average sperm count (you asked!).

 

Several experiments have proven that the waste from the producing factories when dumped into rivers (which it invariably is) can actually CHANGE THE SEX of mature fish.

 

To quote a colleague:

quote:
The plasticiser compounds you mentioned are known as Pthalates (try saying that after a few sherbets!). You are right, they are used in the manufacture of plastics, particulaly PVC. They can leach out from PVC and enter the water supply. (incidentally the roof of the Millenium dome is PVC and was made after recommendations from scientists to use a more environmentally friendly substance) They also form a significant quantity of the waste from plastic factories (thats a Beefheart song isnt it?). Anyway the study you mentioned about the caged trout was conducted by a guy in Brunel, who also released the latest work linking feminsation of fish and dropping sperm counts with the pill. He has done extensive studies of Pthalates and found them less potent than estradiol in causing these effects. Truth is a whole bunch of hormone mimicking chemicals are entering our water supply and the multinational chemical companies dont want us to know.


 

It's all about endocrine disruptors :-)

 

http://whyfiles.org/045env_hormone/main4.html

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by FourWinds:

 

Actually it is a bad idea. There are many studies that can tie in the chemicals used in these platics with the global reduction in the average sperm count (you asked!).


Actually there are many problems with any studies trying to link anything with low sperm count, not least the lack of reliable historic data.

 

Please give me some references to these studies so that I can judge for myself.

 

quote:

 

Several experiments have proven that the waste from the producing factories when dumped into rivers (which it invariably is) can actually CHANGE THE SEX of mature fish.


 

Ditto re the references. The one you gave in your post looks interesting and I shall read it at leisure although it does mention "Silent Spring" which is a book with a lot wrong with it. I realise, I'm making an unsupported statement there. I'd be glad to expand on it by e-mail.

 

-------

jeremyp

The second ten million caches were the worst too.

http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

Link to comment

I am willing to take every word that Fourwinds says about plastics as the gospel truth.

 

But he knows perfectly well that a small animal would have to suck on a tupperware box every day for a million years before it had any harmful effect.

 

If we were burning plastic out there fair enough, but lets get real, I feed my babies with a plastic spoon, from a plastic dish and the food is stored in ... guess what ... a tupperware dish. After their food, they play with their plastic toys, which they delight in putting in their mouths. Some of them are pretty chewed up. Yesterday, our health visitor called, and surprisingly, if Fourwinds is to be believed, she expressed no concern at all at my children's diet of almost pure plastic.

 

So come on Fourwinds, this argument just doesn't hold water. Try to be a bit more objective about what we do.

 

"The sooner all the animals are extinct, the sooner we'll find their money"

Link to comment

But metal is corrosive to the environment Jeremy didnt you know that!Apparently the corrosive rust combines with the non-bio degradable humidity of plastic in the air to create this formless substance known as CACHE. Its on the Periodic table of Elements Honest icon_biggrin.gif

 

--------------------------------------------------------

One ring to rule them all, One ring to find them, One ring to bring them all and in the Darkness bind them!

 

www.buckscaching.co.uk

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by TreeBeard (Pid):

But metal is corrosive to the environment Jeremy didnt you know that!Apparently the corrosive rust combines with the non-bio degradable humidity of plastic in the air to create this formless substance known as CACHE. Its on the Periodic table of Elements Honest icon_biggrin.gif


 

Dang! I knew I should've paid more attention in science... or any of my lectures for that matter.

 

At least then I'd be able to recognise which part of that statement isn't true... icon_wink.gif Or is it all?

 

------

An it harm none, do what ye will

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by The Northumbrian:

So the self pregnating thing, using the Turkey baster is out the window as well. Thats Plastic. Mind you when I used the artificial insemination Tubes on the cattle we always got a calf , and sometimes the odd twins.

Nige


 

The 'oddness' presumably being due to the fact that the plastic AI tubes caused genetic defects? icon_razz.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by FourWinds:

There are many studies that can tie in the chemicals used in these platics with the global reduction in the average sperm count (you asked!).


The studies you mention concern pthalates, which are used as plasticisers in the manufacture of PVC products. I'm not sure I've seen any PVC caches in my travels (though I'm willing to be corrected!).

 

Unless you know any studies suggesting that either PE or PP can be considered in any way toxic to any organisms, then I'll have to conclude that most, if not all, plastic caches are not poisonous!

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...