Jump to content

Be careful where you place a cache, or they might be prohibited on all Parks


Recommended Posts

We need to be more careful about where we place caches on public lands. If we aren’t careful, we might find a total prohibition on caches inside any Park and the removal of all caches currently in parks. While some might think that the Park belongs to them and they can place the cache wherever they might want to, we must remember that if we have any care about the environment, that we must try to protect our parks and open areas for future generations.

 

Why am I posting this? Well, as a former/retired National Park Ranger (All around Nice Guy and a Boy/Explorer Scout, if that really matters), when I noticed someone walking off trail (ie: trail cutting for example), I would try to explain to them what their trail cutting was doing to the vegetation/environment. Of course most apologized and agreed with me, but then there were people that would scream and yell and tell me that their actions alone wouldn’t hurt the environment. I told them that I begged to differ and explained how it ends up not being just one or 2 people, but many people that ends up taking that newly created, but illegal trail.

 

How does that impact us? As you know, the National Park Service has already prohibited geocaches. I know that the California State Park System is in the process of watching caches that are currently placed on Park property (and have already removed some) and will not issue any permit allowing placement of caches on Park Property (Until they finish studying the problem). A friend that is employed with the San Diego County Park System, gave me a call this weekend about a cache that I had located a short while back-http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=9273

I was the last person that had written in the log book and he had recognized my name. This cache was located a few feet from the trail by a tracker, and had been given to a Ranger. This, of course started the County Parks to start looking into other caches that are located on County land.

 

While most caches are just a few feet off the trail, there are some that does requiring tearing up the vegetation/environment by being forced to slide down a loose dirt hill such as this one that I recently visited:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=10990&decrypt=y

 

While geocaching isn=t an organized sport (for the most part), we might want to take into consideration the concerns that the various park systems have towards geocaching. We might want to invite Rangers to picnics we might have in our areas for geocachers, such as the one planned for this Saturday in San Diego:http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=19027

 

This is a great hobby that we=ve all been attracted to. Lets not blow it by not taking into consideration the protection of the environment for the enjoyment for future generations.

 

JMHO

 

 

Garmin Vista

Garmin Street Pilot

Link to comment

I am not one to start an argument but the lands DO belong to us. I don't see deer being taxed to the hilt to keep up their bedrooms and bathrooms. I for one am not one who believes that my walking on the ground is going to cause irreperable harm to the environment or vegitation. It's an interesting thing, the earth is pretty rugged. Billions of years of earthquakes, tornados, floods, volcanos, hail storms, meteor showers, forest fires....I just find it difficult to swallow that my walking on the dirt in a park is going to stop the earth on its axis and fall to pieces. We tend to think of history in a very limited view, when history includes all that time before man was created. the earth has been here for a long, long time and it is very tough. I am not proposing dumping your engine oil on the beach, you do need common sense. I really don't want to have to file forms with the state so that a federal employee somewhere, probably in a big city, can tell me that I can't place a box in the woods. have you seen all of the roads that the park service plowed through the parks, all of the inns, the benches the walkways etc...and miy sister is one of them. These are the same folks that will place hair from an endangered species in a park, to make people think that that area needs to be sealed off because some non-existent lynx has passed through. Everyone has an agenda.I do believe that most of the people in the Park Service love nature and the environment as do I, but things can be taken too far.

I know it is easy to read a post and not understand the tone of my thoughts, but this in no way is meant to be rude or argumentative, just a stream of thoughts.

 

PLEASE DON'T THINK OF THIS AS A FLAME, IT WAS NOT WRITTEN IN THAT FRAME OF MIND...

 

46113_400.jpg

The KGB

guy.gif

Link to comment

RR,

 

Thanks for some good feedback and information, and for sharing your perspective. I do however have one question: can you pass on some information as tothe applicable statute? Being National parks I believe you are focusing on in your example, I'm assuming its a federal statute. Thanks...

quote:
Originally posted by Ranger Roger:

I told them that I begged to differ and explained how it ends up not being just one or 2 people, but many people that ends up taking that newly created, but illegal trail.


 

_________________________________

Member:

banner-small.gif

Link to comment

I left the Park Service awhile back so I can't tell you what applicable statute they are basing the prohibtion on. I think that the NPS, as while as other Park Systems concerns are basically the damage that can and is happening in regards to the caches-ie: trampling restricted areas, areas that are senstive (Such as archelogical sites and animal habitat).

 

In regards to taking stuff too far, yes you're right. Our time on this planet is just a blink compared to the age of the earth, but if we want our children and their children to see and enjoy the stuff that we're enjoying, we need to protect it. You have groups such as the Sierra Club that claims to protect, but the actions of their national leadership (such as Hetch Hetchy and Glen Canyon Dams) and local leadership (large group outings, okay to drive off roads to get to outings) that conflict with their own statements.

 

I too don't want big brother hanging over my head all the time (having to file permits to place a cache), so we need to be mindful of the placement of our caches, and how others might create a trail to get to the cache.

 

Hey-I like to go off trail too, but if the various park services have some concerns, then let's check them out.

 

Peace

 

 

Garmin Vista

Garmin Street Pilot

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by The KGB:

These are the same folks that will place hair from an endangered species in a park, to make people think that that area needs to be sealed off because some non-existent lynx has passed through.


 

KGB, in the same spirit, this is not a flame either, but that statement is completely false. I know exactly what 'scandal' you are referring to. I also realize that it has gotten a lot of comments from some conservative politicians and commentators, but most those statements are completely incorrect.

 

The actual story is that scientists from the National Interagency Canada Lynx Survey were concerned about the accuracy of the lab doing DNA testing on Forest Service provided hair samples. It was not a matter of 'hey, they never report Canada Lynx...', it was 'how could there possibly be more Feral Housecats in these wilderness areas than bobcats and other expected species?'

 

So, the scientists informed at least one supervisor, in writing, that they intended to send known, but unlabeled samples to the lab. The labs accuracy was about 0%. As in, you'd have better odds of winning the lottery than the lab getting a solid test result. The scientists then committed the true 'scandal', they suggested that, since really large amounts of money was being paid to the lab, the lab should, perhaps, provide accurate testing...

 

Well, it turns out that, in an arangement that could only be governmental, unlabeled test samples are prohibited under the lab's contract with the Forest Service (apparently, the lab would have charged more in the first place if some form a quality assurance was to be included). The lab protested and the top management of the project, who had never been notified of the test samples, launched an investigation and removed the scientists and at least one supervisor from the project.

 

The Washington Times ran a wildly inaccurate version of the story and alledged "biofraud". Many conservatives took the story at face value and proceeded to elaborate on it.

 

Here are the things that I really like about this story:

 

1. The lab is still taking our money for doing basically nothing

 

2. The Washington Times drafted a large ad, outlining the inaccuracies of the original "biofraud" article (which the Times broke!) A salesman then contacted the Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics (FSEEE), showed them the pre-drafted ad, and proposed that the group pay the paper $9,450 to run the ad and 'set the record straight'. The Times finally ran a partial retraction of some aspects of the original story after the 'sales pitch' was covered in other papers.

 

3. Triggering the Endagered Species Act with a Canada lynx would almost certainly not have an impact on logging or development. The species is easily relocated and accomodated.

 

4. Despite a partial retraction, and an attempt to extort ad money, the Washington Times ran still another story, spinning the General Accounting Office's report on the matter, as a partial vindication of the original story. No where does the ad quote the actual summary findings (IE, no criminal intent). However, it devotes several paragraphs to 'angered lawmakers', who give us such memorable logic as:

 

"If the biologists were testing the lab, 'it shows a fundamental mistrust that these scientists have for the very science they are using. This is very, very troubling,' said Rep. James V. Hansen, Utah Republican and committee chairman." -Washington Times, March 7, 2002

 

I find it somehow comforting that congressional committee chairman would have absolutely no grasp of the scientific method whatsoever. I find it even more comforting that some Republican Leadership in the House puts more trust in the Washington Times (owned by the Reverend Sun Yung Moon's Church of Unification). Than in the non-partisan General Accounting Office...

 

-jjf

Link to comment

Roger I totally understand what you are saying. its not the Cache that's the problem. It is the so called "SOCIAL TRAIL" that people use because it is easier.

If we put them far enough in the hills the "Drive and Bag Cachers" will be cut short. And if we don't pay attention to what we are doing more agencys will shut us down. icon_frown.gif

 

The "Bushwhacker"

>>--->

Link to comment

Roger I totally understand what you are saying. its not the Cache that's the problem. It is the so called "SOCIAL TRAIL" that people use because it is easier.

If we put them far enough in the hills the "Drive and Bag Cachers" will be cut short. And if we don't pay attention to what we are doing more agencys will shut us down. icon_frown.gif

 

The "Bushwhacker"

>>--->

Link to comment

While I agree with your comment about "Drive and Bag Cachers", what about the handicap geocacher who can't hike to these far sites or the families with small kids that can't hike far. Should we exclude them??

 

I always preferred backpacking trips off the beaten path and far from the public (less people) and I would be outraged to hear that big brother wanted to build a nice trail or a road to that out of way place that I had always enjoyed, so that people that didn't have the ability to hike there, could (Good reading-Edward Abbey's "Desert Soltaire"), but what are you to do? Civil disobedience? Not my cup of tea anymore.

 

It's a tough issue. Where do we draw the line? Who do we say no to? I would prefer us to draw it rather than big brother.

 

Of course JMHO and of course, Peace

 

 

Garmin Vista

Garmin Street Pilot

Link to comment

Just thought I would point out something and get your justification for it.

 

During your whole diatribe about protecting the forest and pointing out an example of

 

"While most caches are just a few feet off the trail, there are some that does requiring tearing up the vegetation/environment by being forced to slide down a loose dirt hill such as this one that I recently visited:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=10990&decrypt=y"

 

I checked your log for that...you found it...so that means that you had to slide down the hill and contribute to the "degradation" of the forest by going off of the trail.

 

Just curious as to how you use this as an example and then go ahead and find it instead of walking away and sticking to your principals of not directly contributing to the degradation of the forests.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by jfitzpat:

quote:
Originally posted by The KGB:

These are the same folks that will place hair from an endangered species in a park, to make people think that that area needs to be sealed off because some non-existent lynx has passed through.


 

KGB, in the same spirit, this is not a flame either, but that statement is completely false. I know exactly what 'scandal' you are referring to. I also realize that it has gotten a lot of comments from some conservative politicians and commentators, but most those statements are completely incorrect.

 

The actual story is

.... snip ....

 

I find it somehow comforting that congressional committee chairman would have absolutely no grasp of the scientific method whatsoever. I find it even more comforting that some Republican Leadership in the House puts more trust in the Washington Times (owned by the Reverend Sun Yung Moon's Church of Unification). Than in the non-partisan General Accounting Office...

 

-jjf


 

I've read up on this 'scandal', too. You've nailed it right on the head. Check out the recent article in 'Outside' magazine.

 

Bluespreacher

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Ranger Roger:

While I agree with your comment about "Drive and Bag Cachers", what about the handicap geocacher who can't hike to these far sites or the families with small kids that can't hike far. Should we exclude them??

 

I always preferred backpacking trips off the beaten path and far from the public (less people) and I would be outraged to hear that big brother wanted to build a nice trail or a road to that out of way place that I had always enjoyed, so that people that didn't have the ability to hike there, could (Good reading-Edward Abbey's "Desert Soltaire"), but what are you to do? Civil disobedience? Not my cup of tea anymore.

 

It's a tough issue. Where do we draw the line? Who do we say no to? I would prefer us to draw it rather than big brother.

 

Of course JMHO and of course, Peace

 

 

Garmin Vista

Garmin Street Pilot


 

It seems to me that if the cache is far enough away from a parking spot, social trails will not be a problem. I've seen plenty of social trails, many made be seekers doing the drunken bee dance. It was obvious by the way the vegetation was torn up. Some caches I've found were easy because of all the social trails. I just look for them!

What to do? Heck, I don't know. I just hide my caches in places that require some walking. Those few people, so far, that seek my caches don't seem to do much harm. But I'll tell you, if there ever ends up being noticable trails caused by my cache, I'll pull it!

 

As long as we're talking E. Abbey, what about the 'Monkey Wrench Gang'? icon_wink.gif

 

Bluespreacher

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Ranger Roger:

While I agree with your comment about "Drive and Bag Cachers", what about the handicap geocacher who can't hike to these far sites or the families with small kids that can't hike far. Should we exclude them??

 

I always preferred backpacking trips off the beaten path and far from the public (less people) and I would be outraged to hear that big brother wanted to build a nice trail or a road to that out of way place that I had always enjoyed, so that people that didn't have the ability to hike there, could (Good reading-Edward Abbey's "Desert Soltaire"), but what are you to do? Civil disobedience? Not my cup of tea anymore.

 

It's a tough issue. Where do we draw the line? Who do we say no to? I would prefer us to draw it rather than big brother.

 

Of course JMHO and of course, Peace

 

 

Garmin Vista

Garmin Street Pilot


 

It seems to me that if the cache is far enough away from a parking spot, social trails will not be a problem. I've seen plenty of social trails, many made be seekers doing the drunken bee dance. It was obvious by the way the vegetation was torn up. Some caches I've found were easy because of all the social trails. I just look for them!

What to do? Heck, I don't know. I just hide my caches in places that require some walking. Those few people, so far, that seek my caches don't seem to do much harm. But I'll tell you, if there ever ends up being noticable trails caused by my cache, I'll pull it!

 

As long as we're talking E. Abbey, what about the 'Monkey Wrench Gang'? icon_wink.gif

 

Bluespreacher

Link to comment

In some way, Ranger Roger and KGB are talking about different levels of the issue. KGB says "Hey - it's our park and we shouldn't have to get a permit" whereas I hear Ranger Roger saying "opinions aside, if we are not careful, we WILL need a permit or worse, we will just get told 'no' more and more often."

 

Conceptually, it is our park. In reality, it is the ranger's park. I think rangers, as a group, are pretty good people who are trying to make a really diverse group of users happy. Like hunters and mountain bikers, we stand the risk of having the vast majority suffer because of a couple of jerks.

 

But I really appreciate reminders like this one from RR. Another aspect of good cache placement should be 'Can people get to your cache without causing damage that will make Geocaching look bad'.

Link to comment

I started two topic polls a couple of days ago. I think they’re very apropos to this thread. They say a lot!

 

Poll Question:

If you do not know whether caching is allowed, do you request permission from the land manager before placing a cache on public property such as a city or state park.

 

Results (45 votes counted so far):

 

All the time. 8/18%

 

Sometimes. 9/20%

 

Never. 28/62%

 

Poll Question:

Leaving out National Parks in your area, do you know if geocaching is allowed in your local, country and state run parks? This is not a question of where you placed caches like the other poll. Only what you know about where it is allowed.

 

Results (20 votes counted so far):

 

ALL: I know that status in all my local park systems 4/20%

 

SOME: I know the status in some of my local park systems 5/25%

 

NONE: I do not know the status in any of my local park systems. 11/55%

 

Alan

Link to comment

My latest cache had to be pulled. I was notified by the recreation coordinator of our local state forest that people seeking my cache were causing off trail damage. I immediately hiked out there and removed it. I learned a lot from that experience about proper cache placement. From now on I'm going to think about how added foot traffic will impact the area. I used to just look for the best hiding spot.

 

"There's no need to be afraid of strange noises in the night. Anything that intends you harm will stalk you silently."

Link to comment

And social trails are bad because...? We are animals on this planet just like deer. Do we prohibit deer from making trails? Or prohibit them from bedding down in matted down bushes?

 

I like the what one poster said about the earth has been a long time and will be here long after we are gone. I don't see the problem in a trail leading away from a maintained path.

 

I am tired of being told I can only walk on maintained paths and I can't strike out on my own across the desert or through a forest.

 

I actually had a NPS ranger tell me I couldn't leave a trail once in the desert. I did anyway. I wasn't breaking any laws.

 

We are being bullied to death. Being forced into smaller and smaller areas, being made into sheep that have to stay on the prescribed routes dictated to us by various land managers and eco-nazi groups.

 

Protection is one thing but things have gone WAY too far. I can't stray off a trail but the gov. can drill for gas/oil in pristine areas. Illogical.

 

RedShoes.jpg

Link to comment

Laraley and KGB,

 

I agree with you 100 percent.

 

Last summer I went to Mount St Helens. It was amazing that they had signs everywhere about how you aren't allowed to go off the trail. It was illegal for us to even sit on the edge of the grass next to the parking lot to eat our lunch. Sure is amazing that we can't step off of the trails and can only see the guided tour that the government wants us to see, but it didn't matter to them that they built a bunch of roads into the area and built a bunch of buildings on that same fragile land. What a bunch of hypocrites.

 

The problem is that to some people environmentalism (instead of common sense) is their religion and saying anything against their extreme ideas just eats at their core.

 

I say use common sense and enjoy nature all you want

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Ranger Roger: when I noticed someone walking off trail (ie: trail cutting for example), I would try to explain to them what their trail cutting was doing to the vegetation/environment

 

What was it doing to the vegetation/environment?

Are you aware of any studies demonstrating that off-trail hikers have caused permanent and irreparable damage to a forest ecosystem? It seems to me that of all the really horrible things we do to our environment, hiking off-trail would be one of the most innoccuous. I would imagine the emissions from my car on the way to the start of my hike would be causing more damage. I think the best way of preserving our wilderness is to encourage people to go out and enjoy their freedom in it. Geocaching is an environmentally friendly activity and I think that Park authorities should recognize this and encourage it.

 

[This message was edited by seneca on April 24, 2002 at 12:28 AM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Ranger Roger: when I noticed someone walking off trail (ie: trail cutting for example), I would try to explain to them what their trail cutting was doing to the vegetation/environment

 

quote:
Originally posted by seneca:

What was it doing to the vegetation/environment?

Are you aware of any studies demonstrating that off-trail hikers have caused permanent and irreparable damage to a forest ecosystem? It seems to me that of all the really horrible things we do to our environment, hiking off-trail would be one of the most innocuous.

 

[This message was edited by seneca on April 24, 2002 at 12:28 AM.]


 

Even though I believe that most off trail activities do little permanent damage in the grand scheme of things, people who cut on trails drive me nuts. Each time does impact the area for the short term. And why? Because someone is to lazy to stick to a established trail? That is just plain stupid, and inconsiderate. I am not talking about someone who accidentally left a trail early because they trust the GPS too much, that is unintentional and for the most part random.

 

Now that said, a small trail that is created by people visiting a maintained cache is nothing most of the time. A few months later after it is moved you would never know it was there. The main difference is that trail had a purpose to exsist besides laziness. I also like a cache moved before it affects the area much, not because of the impact it makes so much, but because it ruins the fun of the hunt. If there is a trail leading right to the cache it is just too easy.

 

There are exceptions, and I think that is the area Geocachers are weakest on. Realizing when the cost of the effect on the environment of a cache is just too high for the amount of fun we will get out of it. I know I have been shocked sometimes at how quickly a trail will establish around a cache that only been visited by a dozen or so people. If it is in an area where it will take years for it to undo, that is too high a price to me.

 

The bottom line is that if you exist, you affect the environment around you. The trick is to balance that effect with the trade offs.

Link to comment

I visited the cache in question a mere week before its discovery and removal by the County. The cache was located in the Blue Sky Ecological Reserve. The preserve protects a fine example of dwindling oak woodlands / canyon bottom riparian strip habitat. Perhaps it would be wise to refrain from placing caches in any property labelled a reserve or preserve, yet let us not be so hasty to condemn the cache hider.

 

The location of the cache in the park reflected great care and consideration of potential environmental impacts in my opinion. The cache was not located in the oak woodland or along the riparian strip but in chaparal / sage scrub just a few steps from the main travel route (a fire / maintenance road). Since the cache was located in a fairly conspicuous location there were few to no social trails; a faint trail did lead from the edge of the fire road directly to the cache site. There were no "shortcut" trails. I think the cache hider displayed a profound respect for the location.

 

Unfortunately, out of ignorance or a lack of care not all caches I've discovered have been as thoughtfully placed. I'm very concerned with the Chat Noir cache located in Torrey Pines State Reserve. The purpose of this park is to protect some of the last stands of Torrey Pines. Although the cache hiders state in their description that no protected areas need to be crossed to access the cache the cache is in fact located off trail in a sensitive area.

 

No, there are no live Torrey Pines in the vicinity of the cache, but there were before a combination of parasites and drought wiped out this part of the grove. Revegetation efforts are / will be underway to restore the former condition of the grove. Worse, cache seekers must walk up a sandy slope to get to the cache. As only the second finder all I had to do to find the cache was follow the footprints. I still haven't resolved the moral quandry of this cache. It should be removed before the State Park Service finds it. A second cache hidden in the reserve is thoughtfully located in a non-sensitive area.

 

I support Ranger Roger's call for careful consideration of cache impacts. Too many poorly placed caches will only hurt this fun and rewarding hobby.

Link to comment

I continue to be somewhat baffled by continually hearing that geocaching may be banned in parks.

 

Is it not important for parks to attract visitors? What a better way for parks to increase visitation than promote geocaching within their parks! I really don't understand why many parks are not actually placing caches and promoting the entire geocaching concept. Maybe some are? If so, kudos to them.

 

When I hear about threats from local and state parks that geocaching may be banned if not done "properly" I can't help but think there must be some real "anal retentative" (sorry if anyone was offended) people running OUR parks.

 

Here in PA, the State Parks and State Forest agencies are just getting wind of geocaching and they don't seem very concerned. Someday, as this activity grows, I'm sure they will have to develop some guidelines like any other park activity. But, considering they promote trout stocking, Snowmobile riding, ATV riding, horseback riding, hunting, ect... Promoting geocaching would seem to be an extremely low impact, positive, family oriented park activity.

 

When compared to the previously mentioned activities, you will never convince me that walking a few tenths of a mile off trail in a state park is having so much impact (biologically sensitive areas excluded) that geocaching should be banned! Give me a break.

 

All that said, I understand that there will always be idiots among us. We(geocachers and the park agencies) should focus on eliminating them...not geocaching.

 

There are far more positives in geocaching than negatives. Lets use the positives!

 

goldfish.gif

"When the last tree is cut...

"When the last stream is polluted...

"When the last fish is caught.

You still can't eat the money"

Link to comment

I've got to agree with Ranger Roger on this one. While I completely understand and sympathize with the argument that they are "our" lands, as was pointed out, the reality is, that they may be ours, but not ours to do whatever we want with them. The reality is, the rules that are made are done so, because without them, there would be nothing left to enjoy out there.

 

Here's an example... If you go to the Angeles National Forest near Los Angeles, you will be greeted by hundreds of rocks and boulders with graffiti on them, not only along the road, but even on the trails and in the back country. You and I don't go into the forest to spray paint unintelligible garbage on the rocks, but some people do. The social trail that I make down a steep hillside will be erased in a couple of months, but multiply that by a dozen, a hundred, etc... and pretty soon there are hillsides that look like strip mining is taking place. Without all the dadgum rules, there would be no recourse against the people that do go out there and muck it up for the rest of us. I don't like it, but that's just the way it is.

 

As stated by Laraley, there are also officials that take this way too far. Its ridiculous that you can't go off a trail in the desert! And its hypocritical for the government to build roads and buildings all over sensitive land (don't even get me starting on oil drilling!).

 

Anyway, the point of all of this is, we can cry and moan about how the government controls our land, but Ranger Roger's point is still valid. If we don't take seriously, the impact that we and our sport have on the land, we will quickly find ourselves relegated to smaller and smaller bits of it. I have not placed caches in areas I would have liked to because I thought it would cause too much damage. All Roger is saying is that like it or not, we'd better be a little more careful in the future.

 

"I thought you said this was a quick find!" - My wife

Link to comment

Concerning "Waynepdx" post, can I ask what is your problem? I made post about what is a legit concern. I spoke of what the problem is and what could be the perspective of the Park System. I made a comment that we need to be careful about placement.

 

You had assumed that I took the shortest way to the cache, which would have meant going down/sliding down this loose dirt hill. You should never jump to assumptions. With my 5 year old son, we went looking for the best (environmentally sound) way to the cache which meant following the road back to the creek bed and then following the creek (dry) to the cache location. This probably added .75 mile to our journey. Not much, but well worth the lesson to my son about protecting our enviroment. I Ask you-how many people would go that way, or just go the shortest and most direct route to the cache? As I have stated, we need to be mindful about our placing of caches and how they can impact the enviroment. Hopefully we all have some love for this planet.

 

So "Waynepdx" before you try to twist the topic around to your liking and trying to blast me, use your head.

 

Peace

 

 

Garmin Vista

Garmin Street Pilot

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by laraley:

And social trails are bad because...? We are animals on this planet just like deer. Do we prohibit deer from making trails? Or prohibit them from bedding down in matted down bushes?


 

I try to bring this up every time the point is made. I generally don't expect most people who use terms like "eco-nazi" to get it, but other people might stop and think it through.

 

Take Joshua Tree National Park. It is not a particularly popular national park, but it receives more than 1,000,000 visitors each year. That is, twice as many human beings roam a small area each year, than there are bear on the entire continent.

 

Now, have those 1,000,000 folks visit your home. Even if they just take a quick peek and critique your furniture, the wear and tear on your property would be huge.

 

Now, assume that you want to keep your home looking even remotely nice for all visitors, and tolerably habitable for you. You would find that you would have to put constraints on where folks go and what they do. Walking through flower beds would certainly be taboo, but just cutting across the yard, instead of using the sidewalk might make the difference between having a grass lawn and an unsightly barren mud hole.

 

If you think about it, could you really even live and maintain any quality of life without keeping some portions of your home completely off limits?

 

Parks have no need to "attact visitors" as one poster suggests, the problem is that huge numbers of people come to relatively small areas. Compromises like marked trails and developed campgrounds don't exist to appease radical environmentalists. They exist to keep some semblance of a natural environment for many more human visitors than an area could normally sustain without significant visible change.

 

When animal populations get out of control and start damaging an area, we take steps to control or reduce the population. Since it is "our" public land, and we are a supposedly cognitive species, we generally opt for restricting actions and permitting maximum visitors, vs. allowing unlimited activities but only small numbers of visitors.

 

What I find truly amazing about this 'I should be able to go where I want and do what I want' attitude is generally only applied to natural environments. Do you cut across your neighbor's garden climb through their windows, and cut through their house to save a few steps on your way home when you are out for a evening stroll?

 

Do you get outraged at the idea that you cannot drive and park your car however you feel like, even though they are PUBLIC roads?

 

For some reason, rules and constraints are OK to preserve quality of life and minimize damage to highly developed areas, but unacceptable in more pristine areas that are being intentionally preserved.

 

-jjf

Link to comment

I haven't had an opportunity to go hiking in National Parks, though geocaching in them seems like it would be fun, and an exciting way to see the parks. What exactly are the rules? I am getting from your post that there are defined trails, and that hikers must stay on them? I know some of these parks are HUGE. I guess if hikers are restricted to these defined trails, they will only see a tiny fraction of these huge parks. But this so that future generations can also hike this same defined trails, and see minimal parts of the park. Seems like kinda of a waste of the parks that my tax money pays for.

 

[This message was edited by Hinge Thunder on April 24, 2002 at 01:15 PM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by jfitzpat:

Now, have those 1,000,000 folks visit your home. Even if they just take a quick peek and critique your furniture, the wear and tear on your property would be huge.

-jjf


 

Wow! Millions of people visiting caches! You must be thinking of some really good caches. I have only had at most, maybe 20 or 30 people visit mine so far! Thats the easy ones. I don't get so many people at the hard ones. You know the ones where they have to walk more than a half a mile, or do any climbing, etc. But from what you are saying, if they were to allow caches in National Parks, all of a sudden millions of people would be visiting each of these caches. This is really mind boggling!

Link to comment

quote:
illegal trail

 

what????

Are you kidding me???

 

With the exception of posted restricted zones, easements across private property, and mountain peaks - we the public (you know the ones who own that land) can go off the trail and can let others know where we went and encourage them to follow.

 

Did you ever do any trail maintainence? - if so you will know that all but the most worn trails need continuous maintenance to prevent mother nature from reclaiming it. herd paths are quickly reclaimed.

 

I understand what you are trying to say but it just doesn't make common sense

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by smoochnme:

Is it not important for parks to attract visitors?


 

No, I'm not under the impression that there is a need to attract visitors. Have you ever tried to get reservations for campsites? In the more popular places, they can be tough to get.

 

I think the reason for the park services is to help control visitation, so that there is as little impact/damage as possible. They want to keep these natural areas from being destroyed, so that we, and our children, (and the resident wildlife, of course) can enjoy them for as long as possible.

 

-------

Join us at our first 196939_600.gif "geo-gathering" on 4/27/02!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Hinge Thunder:

Wow! Millions of people visiting caches! You must be thinking of some really good caches.

 


 

Actually, I was trying to explain, for the least slow, why comparisons between human impact and, say, deer, in a park or wilderness area is pointless. Like a lottery being a tax on people who are bad at math, it is generally simple arithmetic and facility maintanence, not enviromental-extremism.

 

But, as I indicated in the previous message just because a person can count does not mean that he/she will get it.

 

Don't take this personally, but I sincerely hope that by "climb" you mean class 3 scrambling. Most of us who love technical rock and ice climbing are having enough difficulty keeping areas open for the sport as it is.

 

-jjf

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Ranger Roger:

In regards to taking stuff too far, yes you're right. Our time on this planet is just a blink compared to the age of the earth, but if we want our children and their children to see and enjoy the stuff that we're enjoying, we need to protect it. You have groups such as the Sierra Club that


 

Thanks for your post, but this is something that I have brought up over and over down here in the Tucson area. If restrictions continue to go the way that they are, our kids will not be able to enjoy the outdoors as we have. Not because the outdoors will not be there any longer, but because the area will be so restrictive that there is just no point to go out.

 

Scott

Team My Blue Heaven

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by k2dave:

Did you ever do any trail maintainence? - if so you will know that all but the most worn trails need continuous maintenance to prevent mother nature from reclaiming it. herd paths are quickly reclaimed.

 


 

I hadn't really thought of it in that context before I read your post but you bring up a good point. Last month I went and found a cache that happened to be in a very remote part of a very large national park. The hike was just under 2 miles each way, and the cache itself was very well hidden about 5 feet from the trail. After I returned to my vehicle about 3 hours later I ran into the volunteer that leads guided hikes on that trail and also does the maint. each year. He told me how he was going to have to quit because at his age it was getting too hard to carry the chain saw a couple times a year to clear the desert out of the way of the trail.

 

I used to fight forest fires for a living. That is one of the most damaging short term things you can do to a forest, but the great thing about this planet is that it bounces back, and usually does it pretty fast.

 

Scott

Team My Blue Heaven

Link to comment

jfitzpat you mentioned the Joshua Tree National park, here is some info I found from their website:

"Joshua Tree National Park is immense, nearly 800,000 acres, and infinitely variable. It can seem unwelcoming, even brutal during the heat of summer when, in fact, it is delicate and extremely fragile. This is a land shaped by sudden torrents of rain, strong winds, and climatic extremes. Rainfall is sparse and unpredictable. Streambeds are usually dry and waterholes are few"

 

Now your example about 1,000,000 people coming over to my house, well thats is not a very good example. If I had 800,000 acres and 1,000,000 people all came over in one day, you could have 1 person on 0.8 acres of land and chances are you wouldn't run into that many people.

So if you had 800,000 acres and 1,000,000 came by your house in a years time, that would be 2,740 people everyday and in an 8 hour day it would be about 230 people an hour. Now 230 people on 800,000 acres everyday gives each one of those people 3478 acres all to themselves. That would be 5.43 square miles per person. I would imagine that most people visiting your 800,000 acre home would not walk all 5.43 sq miles.

So using your example, I would love to have 1,000,000 visitors to my 800,000 acre home espically if I can tax tehm to maintain it and then charge them to come over. Oh yeah, and whats with the weather they have there, seems pretty rough, and it's odd that after all these billions of years, its still there.

 

"But, as I indicated in the previous message just because a person can count does not mean that he/she will get it."

 

I just saw a post that made a lot of sense too. Why do we have to pay people to maintain the trails all year long if the environment is so fragile. It's because nature tries to reclaim the trail and the Park Service chainsaws it back down. That makes no sense?

 

Just my 2 cents

 

46113_400.jpg

The KGB

guy.gif

Link to comment

Not a hard concept. Place your cache where it will have limited impact, even if the impact is a simply a perceived one. I placed one in a NJ meadow/swamp last year. I thought it was in a nice area and knew there would be no impact. However after a few cachers visited the site, I noted messages in the log about the

impact the cache was causing. I investigated the site and the "impact" consisted of beaten paths through the tall grass. I knew for a fact that the paths were not a problem, as the meadow is cut and burned every few years anyway. So a few paths through the grass were not an issue. Still, I moved the cache because there was the perception that it had an impact.

 

It is now 300 yards from the original site and there is no evidence that there is a cache there.

In fact, it's now in a better spot because there aren't obvious trails leading to the cache

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:

Place your cache where it will have limited impact, even if the impact is a simply a perceived one. [...] I moved the cache because there was the perception that it had an impact.


 

Kudos to you, Brian! This is a perfect example of the point I was trying to make on this thread, where people were discussing (rather heatedly) whether drilling holes in an already dead tree was a big deal.

 

We need to always consider how our actions will be perceived (even if that perception is incorrect), and how others will react to the example we set.

 

Especially in a virtual community (where we can't always see things first hand for ourselves, but have to depend upon our interpretation of the words of others), it's easy for misunderstandings to take place...and they can have a snowballing effect. icon_eek.gif

 

-------

Join us at our first 196939_600.gif "geo-gathering" on 4/27/02!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:

Place your cache where it will have limited impact, even if the impact is a simply a perceived one. [...] I moved the cache because there was the perception that it had an impact.


 

Kudos to you, Brian! This is a perfect example of the point I was trying to make on this thread, where people were discussing (rather heatedly) whether drilling holes in an already dead tree was a big deal.

 

We need to always consider how our actions will be perceived (even if that perception is incorrect), and how others will react to the example we set.

 

Especially in a virtual community (where we can't always see things first hand for ourselves, but have to depend upon our interpretation of the words of others), it's easy for misunderstandings to take place...and they can have a snowballing effect. icon_eek.gif

 

-------

Join us at our first 196939_600.gif "geo-gathering" on 4/27/02!

Link to comment

You're dead on accurate.

 

Whether or not we are entitled to use certain lands for any pursuit we desire is not the primary issue. The perception of Geocaching is. If a park manager perceives that a cache is disruptive to the park, then it will be a problem. It might be placed right in the middle of a clump of Purple Loosestrife, it wouldn't matter.

 

Just ask all of the climbing and mountain biking groups who find themselves closed out of prime areas. Even if a mountain biking club is able to provide extensive trail maintenance, the perception is that the bikes tear up the trails and therefore must be bad.

 

If Geocachers are perceived as a group who plant caches anywhere without permission or regard for the desires of land managers or frequently hike off-trail, it will only get us shut out as well.

 

Now where did I park my car???????

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by The KGB:

So using your example, I would love to have 1,000,000 visitors to my 800,000 acre home espically if I can tax tehm to maintain it and then charge them to come over. Oh yeah, and whats with the weather they have there, seems pretty rough, and it's odd that after all these billions of years, its still there.

 


 

You are making one significant mistake. You are assuming that the vistors spread out evenly in the parks. That is not true in almost any of the national parks, wilderness areas, and national monuments, including Joshua Tree.

 

The vast majority of Joshua Tree is essentially inaccessible to any but the most determined vistors. On the other hand, very specific spots, like 'Thin Wall', in the Hidden Valley area, or Wonderland of Rocks can gets hundreds or thousands of visits in a single day.

 

Grand Canyon National Park is about 1,900 square miles in size, but virtually all of the 5,000,000 visitors each year go to the same 8 acres of the park...

 

But of course, the logic (or not) of this, and how it relates to my point does not matter. No matter how vastly superior your logic, and no matter how mortally wounded I become from your rapier wit - the people who actually control the land use policies lean towards my way of thinking. And, have done so pretty consistantly despite pendulum shifts between left and right in US politics over the decades.

 

So... we wind up back at the *original* post in this thread. Fail to follow the rules at your own peril. Unless you like complaining about the unfairness and stupidness of the rules more than you like caching, a 'my land, as I please' attitude is quite dangerous.

 

And, this is the part that is hard for some to swallow, there will be no grassroots uprising against the tryranny of banning geocaching. The vast majority of your fellow citizens will care no more about your right to play hide-and-seek for Happy Meal toys than they cared about my right to claw up many unique rock formations all over the country.

 

-jjf

 

P.S. I am surprised that you bothered to research the park for your cutting analysis, but did not look more closely at the environment. Geologically speaking, JT may have had its rocky landscape formed a million years ago, but the fairly unique ecology, which supports all the plants that give it its name, is not nearly as old.

 

The ecosystem has problems aside from trail wear and tear, route bolting, and gym chalk. Palm Springs and Palm Desert have grown significantly, as has 29 Palms and the city of Joshua Tree. Polution, and a somewhat taxed ground water system is taking a measurable toll on the ecosystem of the park.

 

That's not to say people should build and live. It just means that it is incorrect to assume that JT has been the place it is now for the past million years, or that it will remain essentially the same, regardless of what we do, for the foreseeable future.

Link to comment

"But of course, the logic (or not) of this, and how it relates to my point does not matter. No matter how vastly superior your logic, and no matter how mortally wounded I become from your rapier wit - the people who actually control the land use policies lean towards my way of thinking. And, have done so pretty consistantly despite pendulum shifts between left and right in US politics over the decades."

 

Rapier wit aside, I was using your example of 1,000,000 people at my house in one day. So ligic (or not) of this response was to your example of 1,000,000 people on my .5 acres here in Florida all in one day. I simply pointed out that the size of JT park was not all that small, sure a lot of that most would never see, but it is the park service and people that think the way you do, that force people to cram into a tiny area out of 800,000 acres. If you read my original post, I did state that common sense needed to be used. I love the environment just as much as you do, I do not believe that I pay for it so I should do whatever I please with it. If the land is there for us to enjoy, I would like to be able to enjoy it without someone in a big hat telling me that the destruction of the earth could result from my walking on it. You still didn't really refute any of my post other than making fun of it, so it still stands wounded pride or not. The earth has been here for billions of years, and while we have to take care of the environment, I don't think that people (we are animals too) can cause more damage to the environment that does mother nature.(forest fires, tornados, earthquakes, drought, mudslides, hurricanes, tsunamis, hail storms, hard freezes, heat waves, lightning, floods, the list goes on and on.)

 

"P.S. I am surprised that you bothered to research the park for your cutting analysis, but did not look more closely at the environment. Geologically speaking, JT may have had its rocky landscape formed a million years ago, but the fairly unique ecology, which supports all the plants that give it its name, is not nearly as old."

 

So the place has evolved over time and adapted to whatever changes have occured in that area, that's really interesting. I would imagine that the ground over there has changed over the billions of years the earth has been here, and from what you say, it continues to change and adapt, and was doing so long before man was here. That is really fascinating, do we know what may have been growing there millions of years ago, before man arrived, or has it always been Joshua trees? I would be willing to bet that over a few billion years, there may have been all kinds of things living there and growing there. Seems kind of like a cycle, but what do I know, you were shocked that I even knew anything about it.

 

"And, this is the part that is hard for some to swallow, there will be no grassroots uprising against the tryranny of banning geocaching. The vast majority of your fellow citizens will care no more about your right to play hide-and-seek for Happy Meal toys than they cared about my right to claw up many unique rock formations all over the country."

 

I sure hope you dodn't hammer any spikes into the rocks, and I hope you didn't drive to the climb or hike through the woods to get there.

 

I am sorry if I wounded you or hurt your feelings, but your opinion on this is no less relevant than mine. So you can throw away my argument if you'd like, but I have the history of the earth and all the natural destruction that has occured over billions on years, that tell me that it's not as fragile as the extreme environmentalist would lead you to believe.

 

Thanks in advance for your maturity.

PS thanks for proving my point!

 

46113_400.jpg

The KGB

guy.gif

 

[This message was edited by The KGB on April 24, 2002 at 09:05 PM.]

Link to comment

Here's a compromise.

 

The park (national, state, local whatever) issues a geocaching permit after the hider submits a request. That entitles him/her to place a cache in an area defined by the park that is not a sensitive area. The park permit's cache number is posted on the .com site to show it's an sanctioned cache. Since the park limits the number of caches, the hider is protected from other cachers from "encroaching" in their area. After three months or as determine by the park manager, the cache must be removed to allow the growth to return any social trails to the envirnonment that may have occurred. The cache is archived on the web site.

 

The cacher gets his cache in parks that may not now allow caching now or may have considered stopping caching in the future, the environmentalists get they pristine forest, the public is served, nature is served.

 

Who did I miss?

 

Alan

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by The KGB:

 

Thanks in advance for your maturity.

PS thanks for proving my point!

 


 

KGB,

 

I'm sorry your lynx story was false.

 

I'm sorry you went to all the trouble to lookup Joshua Tree, and perform calculations, only to find that you had forgotten (or had not realized) that land usage is not at all evenly distributed (picture your house on the .3 acres of Mather Point at the Grand Canyon - your 1900 square mile 'yard' becomes moot icon_smile.gif).

 

A bad citation and a poor use of math do not make you a bad person. Nor do they automatically invalidate your thoughts and feelings.

 

The point I was trying to make was that it does not matter how you interpret natural history, planetology, or the ecosystem. It does not matter what you feel. Nor does it matter what I think or feel.

 

Public land is managed, and the managers have rules. Respectful lip service and dutiful compliance generally means access can be negotiated. Vocal objections and defiance generally means that your activities have to move elsewhere.

 

Bucking the system will get you little support from the general public, and you will almost certainly find that the majority of cachers turn against you when it comes down to a choice concerning their access vs. your principles.

 

Getting worked up at me will not change this.

 

Relax, enjoy come caching. Litter a little or cut off trail if it makes you feel better, just don't get caught by the authorities if you want to keep caching on public land... icon_wink.gif

 

-jjf

 

P.S. Don't worry, this thread has caused nothing beyond mild amusement at my end. I'm much to full of myself to let online rants get under my skin. icon_smile.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by The KGB:

 

Thanks in advance for your maturity.

PS thanks for proving my point!

 


 

KGB,

 

I'm sorry your lynx story was false.

 

I'm sorry you went to all the trouble to lookup Joshua Tree, and perform calculations, only to find that you had forgotten (or had not realized) that land usage is not at all evenly distributed (picture your house on the .3 acres of Mather Point at the Grand Canyon - your 1900 square mile 'yard' becomes moot icon_smile.gif).

 

A bad citation and a poor use of math do not make you a bad person. Nor do they automatically invalidate your thoughts and feelings.

 

The point I was trying to make was that it does not matter how you interpret natural history, planetology, or the ecosystem. It does not matter what you feel. Nor does it matter what I think or feel.

 

Public land is managed, and the managers have rules. Respectful lip service and dutiful compliance generally means access can be negotiated. Vocal objections and defiance generally means that your activities have to move elsewhere.

 

Bucking the system will get you little support from the general public, and you will almost certainly find that the majority of cachers turn against you when it comes down to a choice concerning their access vs. your principles.

 

Getting worked up at me will not change this.

 

Relax, enjoy come caching. Litter a little or cut off trail if it makes you feel better, just don't get caught by the authorities if you want to keep caching on public land... icon_wink.gif

 

-jjf

 

P.S. Don't worry, this thread has caused nothing beyond mild amusement at my end. I'm much to full of myself to let online rants get under my skin. icon_smile.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Alan2:

 

Who did I miss?

 


 

You have it covered. I've said a number of times that geocaching could be a land manager's dream recreational use. By its very nature it is trackable and enforcable.

 

But, it takes good behavior, friendly education, and constructive advocacy to get a reasonable system in place. Break rules, cop an attitude, or make demands, and you wind up with draconian restrictions.

 

Been there, done that... icon_wink.gif

 

-jjf

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Alan2:

 

Who did I miss?

 


 

You have it covered. I've said a number of times that geocaching could be a land manager's dream recreational use. By its very nature it is trackable and enforcable.

 

But, it takes good behavior, friendly education, and constructive advocacy to get a reasonable system in place. Break rules, cop an attitude, or make demands, and you wind up with draconian restrictions.

 

Been there, done that... icon_wink.gif

 

-jjf

Link to comment

Well let's see:

 

"I'm sorry you went to all the trouble to lookup Joshua Tree, and perform calculations, only to find that you had forgotten (or had not realized) that land usage is not at all evenly distributed (picture your house on the .3 acres of Mather Point at the Grand Canyon - your 1900 square mile 'yard' becomes moot )."

 

I think I said of course not all of it can be used by the public and I was using your example not mine.

 

"A bad citation and a poor use of math do not make you a bad person. Nor do they automatically invalidate your thoughts and feelings."

 

I was using your example and I think you will find my calculations are accurate although rounded.

 

"The point I was trying to make was that it does not matter how you interpret natural history, planetology, or the ecosystem. It does not matter what you feel. Nor does it matter what I think or feel."

 

So how does anyone know anything?

 

"Public land is managed, and the managers have rules. Respectful lip service and dutiful compliance generally means access can be negotiated. Vocal objections and defiance generally means that your activities have to move elsewhere."

 

Eveerything can be negotiated and I don't believe I advocated telling off a beuracrat/land manager. I just don't think there is a problem with questioning their premise. There is nothing wrong with vocal oblections and I don't break the rules, so I am not sure you inderstood or even read my posts at all. I just don't take what beuracrats tell me as gospel, so sorry if I think diffferently.

 

"Bucking the system will get you little support from the general public, and you will almost certainly find that the majority of cachers turn against you when it comes down to a choice concerning their access vs. your principles."

 

What system exactly was bucked. I think most people that do this hobby obviously do it because they like the outdoors and wouldn't do anything intentionally to hurt the ground, there are exceptions to everything, granted. Don't worry though, I'm not starting a movement.

 

"Getting worked up at me will not change this."

 

Not worked up, I just enjoy debate and hearing the other side, however wrong they may be.

 

"Relax, enjoy come caching. Litter a little or cut off trail if it makes you feel better, just don't get caught by the authorities if you want to keep caching on public land..."

 

Thats a good idea, I planned to place a cache this weekend and thanks to your suggestion, I think I am going to slash and burn a few acres to get rid of the ticks, they're bad down here, and then I have about a weeks worth of garbage that I need to dump, so I can't think of anything better, I may just toss it in the St. Johns.

 

"P.S. Don't worry, this thread has caused nothing beyond mild amusement at my end. I'm much to full of myself to let online rants get under my skin"

 

No worries, although not exactly a rant, I jsut enjoy debate, espically when the other side still hasn't refuted anything that I said other than what I say doesn't matter, I wish they were all that easy. Glad I am amusing you icon_wink.gif

 

46113_400.jpg

The KGB

guy.gif

Link to comment

Well let's see:

 

"I'm sorry you went to all the trouble to lookup Joshua Tree, and perform calculations, only to find that you had forgotten (or had not realized) that land usage is not at all evenly distributed (picture your house on the .3 acres of Mather Point at the Grand Canyon - your 1900 square mile 'yard' becomes moot )."

 

I think I said of course not all of it can be used by the public and I was using your example not mine.

 

"A bad citation and a poor use of math do not make you a bad person. Nor do they automatically invalidate your thoughts and feelings."

 

I was using your example and I think you will find my calculations are accurate although rounded.

 

"The point I was trying to make was that it does not matter how you interpret natural history, planetology, or the ecosystem. It does not matter what you feel. Nor does it matter what I think or feel."

 

So how does anyone know anything?

 

"Public land is managed, and the managers have rules. Respectful lip service and dutiful compliance generally means access can be negotiated. Vocal objections and defiance generally means that your activities have to move elsewhere."

 

Eveerything can be negotiated and I don't believe I advocated telling off a beuracrat/land manager. I just don't think there is a problem with questioning their premise. There is nothing wrong with vocal oblections and I don't break the rules, so I am not sure you inderstood or even read my posts at all. I just don't take what beuracrats tell me as gospel, so sorry if I think diffferently.

 

"Bucking the system will get you little support from the general public, and you will almost certainly find that the majority of cachers turn against you when it comes down to a choice concerning their access vs. your principles."

 

What system exactly was bucked. I think most people that do this hobby obviously do it because they like the outdoors and wouldn't do anything intentionally to hurt the ground, there are exceptions to everything, granted. Don't worry though, I'm not starting a movement.

 

"Getting worked up at me will not change this."

 

Not worked up, I just enjoy debate and hearing the other side, however wrong they may be.

 

"Relax, enjoy come caching. Litter a little or cut off trail if it makes you feel better, just don't get caught by the authorities if you want to keep caching on public land..."

 

Thats a good idea, I planned to place a cache this weekend and thanks to your suggestion, I think I am going to slash and burn a few acres to get rid of the ticks, they're bad down here, and then I have about a weeks worth of garbage that I need to dump, so I can't think of anything better, I may just toss it in the St. Johns.

 

"P.S. Don't worry, this thread has caused nothing beyond mild amusement at my end. I'm much to full of myself to let online rants get under my skin"

 

No worries, although not exactly a rant, I jsut enjoy debate, espically when the other side still hasn't refuted anything that I said other than what I say doesn't matter, I wish they were all that easy. Glad I am amusing you icon_wink.gif

 

46113_400.jpg

The KGB

guy.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by jfitzpat:

Grand Canyon National Park is about 1,900 square miles in size, but virtually all of the 5,000,000 visitors each year go to the same 8 acres of the park...


 

So you are saying that if we placed a cache outside this 8 acres, that it wouldn't get all this horrible damaging traffic that you are talking about! Great! Thanks for making one of my points for me!

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...