Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

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.

 

 

If they are not attracting visitors then what the heck are they (the parks) there for? I'm not referring to "protected areas"! They are a different issue and should be avoided by geocachers.

 

State Parks and Forest in my state actually do use counts and report park usage. State Park programming is actually geared toward attracting the public to the park.

 

Maybe it is different in other areas.

 

goldfish.gif

"Only when the last tree is cut,

and the last stream is polluted,

and the last fish is caught,

will we realize that you can't eat the money"

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Hinge Thunder:

 

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!


 

No, I'm saying that you have missed my points entirely. I have never even brought caching or cache location up in this thread, except to repeat my often stated position that it is a modest impact activity which is land management friendly.

 

I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to dispute. The number of visitors to parks and wilderness areas is an objective fact. That is, we can count them. That visitation is overwhelmingly focused on small areas inside larger parks is also, a measurable, quantitive fact.

 

If you are trying to dispute that areas with the highest visitation experience the highest wear and tear, or that land managers take steps to minimize that wear and tear, I don't have an answer for you. It is a free country, reconciling beliefs to reality is optional.

 

-jjf

Link to comment

quote:
by smoochnme:

 

Is it not important for parks to attract visitors?


quote:
by Zuckerruebensirup:

 

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.


quote:
by smoochnme:

 

If they are not attracting visitors then what the heck are they (the parks) there for? I'm not referring to "protected areas"! They are a different issue and should be avoided by geocachers.

 

State Parks and Forest in my state actually do use counts and report park usage. State Park programming is actually geared toward attracting the public to the park.

 

Maybe it is different in other areas.


 

I was under the impression that the parks are there in order to preserve a portion of our natural areas from becoming developed, thus saving some space for the wildlife, while also allowing visitors to get away from the city and enjoy a bit of nature.

 

I didn't say that the parks AREN'T attracting visitors, but that I don't think they have a "need" to do so. Plenty of people already seem to be attracted without any additional campaigns required.

 

Our parks have programs for people to participate in, too...but I didn't think the purpose was to "attract" people who wouldn't otherwise come, but rather to make the visit enjoyable for those who do come.

 

I'm not aware of any local parks that are sitting around nearly vacant, while the park services are trying to drum up visitation. Perhaps it's different in your state. If so, then I'd expect that they'd be very receptive to the suggestion of bringing in Geocaches. icon_smile.gif

Link to comment

quote:
by smoochnme:

 

Is it not important for parks to attract visitors?


quote:
by Zuckerruebensirup:

 

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.


quote:
by smoochnme:

 

If they are not attracting visitors then what the heck are they (the parks) there for? I'm not referring to "protected areas"! They are a different issue and should be avoided by geocachers.

 

State Parks and Forest in my state actually do use counts and report park usage. State Park programming is actually geared toward attracting the public to the park.

 

Maybe it is different in other areas.


 

I was under the impression that the parks are there in order to preserve a portion of our natural areas from becoming developed, thus saving some space for the wildlife, while also allowing visitors to get away from the city and enjoy a bit of nature.

 

I didn't say that the parks AREN'T attracting visitors, but that I don't think they have a "need" to do so. Plenty of people already seem to be attracted without any additional campaigns required.

 

Our parks have programs for people to participate in, too...but I didn't think the purpose was to "attract" people who wouldn't otherwise come, but rather to make the visit enjoyable for those who do come.

 

I'm not aware of any local parks that are sitting around nearly vacant, while the park services are trying to drum up visitation. Perhaps it's different in your state. If so, then I'd expect that they'd be very receptive to the suggestion of bringing in Geocaches. icon_smile.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by The KGB:

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...

 


 

Well, I specifically disputed a few of your facts (ex. 'false samples', 'unchanged for millions of years'). And, I argued that your mathmatical model was pointless because it did not match measurable reality (half acres in enormous parks receive in excess of 1,000,000 visitors per year).

 

Yet, you keep speaking in absolutes like the quote above, and using ever more loaded personal language... Seems like full on rant to me. icon_wink.gif

 

Seriously, you win. I have no aptitude for your type of 'debate'.

 

-jjf

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by The KGB:

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...

 


 

Well, I specifically disputed a few of your facts (ex. 'false samples', 'unchanged for millions of years'). And, I argued that your mathmatical model was pointless because it did not match measurable reality (half acres in enormous parks receive in excess of 1,000,000 visitors per year).

 

Yet, you keep speaking in absolutes like the quote above, and using ever more loaded personal language... Seems like full on rant to me. icon_wink.gif

 

Seriously, you win. I have no aptitude for your type of 'debate'.

 

-jjf

Link to comment

For a local state park here in Texas. I've had at least 8 people visit the park paying their admission fee. All With the land manager's permission.

 

I believe in keeping pristine wilderness pristine. I also believe that a cache in such a location will not destroy it's pristine-ness. There just aren't enough geocachers out there.

 

What cache has attracted the most number of people? I have one in a local municipal park with almost 120 finds. It still looks like the woods out there to me...

 

A cache requiring a 5-10 mile hike into the woods is not going to attract many cachers. 10? 20 a year? Bigger, stronger, more destructive moose are more plentiful than that.

 

Frankly most municipal parks - and even some state parks - and EVEN some FEDERAL areas were not created to maintain a wilderness preserve, wildlife preserve, or anything like that. They were simply created to be a nice place where apartment buildings aren't going to be built where people can recreate. Or, maybe to maintain historical significance of an area important to our heritage. So what if 100 people go mudsliding down the side of a cliff in a city park in California? So what if people carve a path to a cache (which will re-grow in a year after the cache is moved 100 feet)?

 

A spotted owl and a human within 1 mile (or even 10 feet) from each other ain't gonna kill either one. Mountain lion or bear could be a different story.

 

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

wavey.gif Go! And don't be afraid to get a little wet!

Link to comment

However we individually feel about this issue, the bottom line is that the land managers are entrusted for the protection of the land. In most instances, they consider appropriate use to be the same as many of us learned in scouts. That is, we are to leave the land 'as we found it'. Another way of saying this is, we should leave no evidence of our passing.

 

We already break this rule because of the existence of the cache. Due to this, we must put more effort into working with the land managers to agree on proper placement of our caches. We must also ensure that no future damage is done to the area as a result of our cache placement (casual trails, etc.)

 

I realize that, in most cases, the earth will repair herself of whatever minor damage we do. However, we must understand, that we must play by the guidelines implemented by the land managers.

 

We must think of caches on public lands the same as we would those on private lands not owned by us. The land managers are responsible for the land. Working with them is a requirement to the survival of this hobby.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

quote:
by smoochnme:

 

Is it not important for parks to attract visitors?


quote:
by Zuckerruebensirup:

 

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.


quote:
by smoochnme:

 

If they are not attracting visitors then what the heck are they (the parks) there for? I'm not referring to "protected areas"! They are a different issue and should be avoided by geocachers.

 

State Parks and Forest in my state actually do use counts and report park usage. State Park programming is actually geared toward attracting the public to the park.

 

Maybe it is different in other areas.


 

I was under the impression that the parks are there in order to preserve a portion of our natural areas from becoming developed, thus saving some space for the wildlife, while also allowing visitors to get away from the city and enjoy a bit of nature.

 

I didn't say that the parks AREN'T attracting visitors, but that I don't think they have a "need" to do so. Plenty of people already seem to be attracted without any additional campaigns required.

 

Our parks have programs for people to participate in, too...but I didn't think the purpose was to "attract" people who wouldn't otherwise come, but rather to make the visit enjoyable for those who do come.

 

I'm not aware of any local parks that are sitting around nearly vacant, while the park services are trying to drum up visitation. Perhaps it's different in your state. If so, then I'd expect that they'd be very receptive to the suggestion of bringing in Geocaches. icon_smile.gif


 

I think we can agree that parks and the programs they provide have multiple goals. Everything you have said is accurate. I also agree that if a state park or forest does nothing else, the land preserved for the public trust is worth their existance.

 

From my profile you can guess that I work for a state agency who often works with state parks and state forest agencies quite a bit (In PA they are all seperate agencies). Believe me, when something is done or proposed that may affect the amount of visitors to their park (good or bad). They take notice and are usually heard from.

 

Most parks and forest people are good land stewards and know how much visitation they can sustain before some of their other goals may be negatively affected. Around here, state parks and forest just don't seem to feel as if there are too many visitors. Thus, they are always looking for more and try hard to maintain the level of visitors they currently have. Maybe their budget is based on visitation? I truly don't know.

 

Ouch, that's another can of worms.

 

goldfish.gif

"Only when the last tree is cut,

and the last stream is polluted,

and the last fish is caught,

will we realize that you can't eat the money"

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

quote:
by smoochnme:

 

Is it not important for parks to attract visitors?


quote:
by Zuckerruebensirup:

 

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.


quote:
by smoochnme:

 

If they are not attracting visitors then what the heck are they (the parks) there for? I'm not referring to "protected areas"! They are a different issue and should be avoided by geocachers.

 

State Parks and Forest in my state actually do use counts and report park usage. State Park programming is actually geared toward attracting the public to the park.

 

Maybe it is different in other areas.


 

I was under the impression that the parks are there in order to preserve a portion of our natural areas from becoming developed, thus saving some space for the wildlife, while also allowing visitors to get away from the city and enjoy a bit of nature.

 

I didn't say that the parks AREN'T attracting visitors, but that I don't think they have a "need" to do so. Plenty of people already seem to be attracted without any additional campaigns required.

 

Our parks have programs for people to participate in, too...but I didn't think the purpose was to "attract" people who wouldn't otherwise come, but rather to make the visit enjoyable for those who do come.

 

I'm not aware of any local parks that are sitting around nearly vacant, while the park services are trying to drum up visitation. Perhaps it's different in your state. If so, then I'd expect that they'd be very receptive to the suggestion of bringing in Geocaches. icon_smile.gif


 

I think we can agree that parks and the programs they provide have multiple goals. Everything you have said is accurate. I also agree that if a state park or forest does nothing else, the land preserved for the public trust is worth their existance.

 

From my profile you can guess that I work for a state agency who often works with state parks and state forest agencies quite a bit (In PA they are all seperate agencies). Believe me, when something is done or proposed that may affect the amount of visitors to their park (good or bad). They take notice and are usually heard from.

 

Most parks and forest people are good land stewards and know how much visitation they can sustain before some of their other goals may be negatively affected. Around here, state parks and forest just don't seem to feel as if there are too many visitors. Thus, they are always looking for more and try hard to maintain the level of visitors they currently have. Maybe their budget is based on visitation? I truly don't know.

 

Ouch, that's another can of worms.

 

goldfish.gif

"Only when the last tree is cut,

and the last stream is polluted,

and the last fish is caught,

will we realize that you can't eat the money"

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by smoochnme:

 

I think we can agree that parks and the programs they provide have multiple goals.


 

Yes, I think that’s very true.

 

quote:
I also agree that if a state park or forest does nothing else, the land preserved for the public trust is worth their existance. […] Most parks and forest people are good land stewards and know how much visitation they can sustain before some of their other goals may be negatively affected.

 

Good point. I think it’s basically a case by case issue of whether they feel attracting more visitors would be a good or bad thing.

 

The bottom line, though (getting back to the original topic of this thread), is that whether or not more visitors are sought out…that if we want to encourage park authorities to allow (if not enthusiastically welcome) Geocaching in their parks, we need to exercise care and common sense about where and how we place them.

 

quote:
Around here, state parks and forest just don't seem to feel as if there are too many visitors. Thus, they are always looking for more and try hard to maintain the level of visitors they currently have. Maybe their budget is based on visitation? I truly don't know.

 

Ouch, that's another can of worms.


 

Ah, yes…a topic worth an entire debate of its own. icon_wink.gif

 

[This message was edited by Zuckerruebensirup on April 25, 2002 at 10:54 AM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by smoochnme:

 

I think we can agree that parks and the programs they provide have multiple goals.


 

Yes, I think that’s very true.

 

quote:
I also agree that if a state park or forest does nothing else, the land preserved for the public trust is worth their existance. […] Most parks and forest people are good land stewards and know how much visitation they can sustain before some of their other goals may be negatively affected.

 

Good point. I think it’s basically a case by case issue of whether they feel attracting more visitors would be a good or bad thing.

 

The bottom line, though (getting back to the original topic of this thread), is that whether or not more visitors are sought out…that if we want to encourage park authorities to allow (if not enthusiastically welcome) Geocaching in their parks, we need to exercise care and common sense about where and how we place them.

 

quote:
Around here, state parks and forest just don't seem to feel as if there are too many visitors. Thus, they are always looking for more and try hard to maintain the level of visitors they currently have. Maybe their budget is based on visitation? I truly don't know.

 

Ouch, that's another can of worms.


 

Ah, yes…a topic worth an entire debate of its own. icon_wink.gif

 

[This message was edited by Zuckerruebensirup on April 25, 2002 at 10:54 AM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by jfitzpat:

No, I'm saying that you have missed my points entirely. I have never even brought caching or cache location up in this thread, except to repeat my often stated position that it is a modest impact activity which is land management friendly.

 

I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to dispute. The number of visitors to parks and wilderness areas is an objective fact. That is, we can count them. That visitation is overwhelmingly focused on small areas inside larger parks is also, a measurable, quantitive fact.

 

If you are trying to dispute that areas with the highest visitation experience the highest wear and tear, or that land managers take steps to minimize that wear and tear, I don't have an answer for you. It is a free country, reconciling beliefs to reality is optional.

 

-jjf


 

You're not talking about caching? What do you think these forums are for? When the talk of placing caches in parks comes up, and why they are not allow, people start talking about the damage from people coming to get will cause. Then some people start citing numbers such millions of people visit these parks, and what damage that would cause. As you said, large numbers of people visit The Grand Canyon, but stay in a small area.

 

I have about 10 local caches, and from my experience, the easy caches with short walks, and easy terrain have gotten maybe 20-30 visitors, while anything with longer walks (over 1/2 mile), and some even minor hilly terrain don't get nearly as many. The same thing would happen with caches in the parks. Caches that were placed deeper in the park, and had some terrain, would not receive a huge number of visitors. So talk about MILLIONS of visitors is just not applicable.

 

Such as if someone placed a cache near the summit of Mt. Ranier. in Washington State. Do you really think that large numbers of people would/could go after it? That it would cause significant damage to the park?

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Hinge Thunder:

 

You're not talking about caching? What do you think these forums are for? When the talk of placing caches in parks comes up, and why they are not allow, people start talking about the damage from people coming to get will cause. Then some people start citing numbers such millions of people visit these parks, and what damage that would cause. As you said, large numbers of people visit The Grand Canyon, but stay in a small area.

 

I have about 10 local caches, and from my experience, the easy caches with short walks, and easy terrain have gotten maybe 20-30 visitors, while anything with longer walks (over 1/2 mile), and some even minor hilly terrain don't get nearly as many. The same thing would happen with caches in the parks. Caches that were placed deeper in the park, and had some terrain, would not receive a huge number of visitors. So talk about MILLIONS of visitors is just not applicable.

 

Such as if someone placed a cache near the summit of Mt. Ranier. in Washington State. Do you really think that large numbers of people would/could go after it? That it would cause significant damage to the park?


 

Why ask what I think? You've yet to actually read anything I've written or respond to it in anything approaching context.

 

I've made a small number of easily stated points in this thread:

 

#1: The 'lynx' story about false samples is pure BS.

 

#2: Comparing human impact to deer and other wildlife only works if you consider volume and coverage. Yes, we are all animals, but millions of deer do not converge on relatively small areas.

 

#3: Dividing vistors by land area does not accurate model public land usage. This is demonstratable fact.

 

#4: Compliance and cooperation with existing land management, regardless of how you feel about it, is the most likely path to reasonable access for the sport.

 

#5: (For you) If you are going to directly address me, in the context of a thread, it is generally expected that you will relate your comments to something I've actually stated or remotely inferred.

 

Agressively refuting something that I've never said or implied makes the thread, as a whole, difficult to follow.

 

Seriously, wouldn't it be more satisfying for you to argue with someone who actually believes or says the crud you are trying to put in my mouth? Anyone who has read any of my posts here for any length of time knows that I have stated exactly the opposite of what you are attributing to me not once, but many times.

 

Trying to stretch the simple points above into some sort of anti-caching enviro-fest is just a waste of time. I sincerely hope that you use better sense in the mountains. I've already hauled down my share of dead fools for this lifetime.

 

-jjf

Link to comment

"Only when the last tree is cut,

and the last stream is polluted,

and the last fish is caught,

will we realize that you can't eat the money"

 

Because there is money in forestry, that insures that there will never be a "last tree" but always an abundance of new forests growing. And because even the wealthy industrialists like to go fly fishing, kayaking, rafting and so on, there will always be pristine rivers. And because we like to eat fish, and fishermen make money fishing, there will never be a "last fish" instead we will continue to fund hatcheries which insure that the fish continue to return to the seas.

 

In fact the best way to insure that something would stick around is to make it profitable to someone to keep it around. It's amazing how many people can be creative to keep a cash cow available...just look at the envirormental wacko's, they aren't poor, many have no other job but their "activism" and so long as they can find a rare slug to protect, or a wasteland to keep "pristine" they will continue to make money off their activism (while also making themselves feel superiour and more sensitiv than the rest of us users).

 

ummmm....not sure what to say here....so ummm, well errrr, uhhhh, well I guess that's it.

Link to comment

I work for the parks in Mississippi. I know that for us or at least our park we have no problem with caches. As a matter of fact I placed one on our park. It has helped to get more people to come to the park. My manager likes the idea. The only thing that our park managers ask is to let them know what you are doing and what it is. So far on the other parks in our state they seem to like the idea. I had on other manager call me and ask me what was this game. I explaned to him what it was. He then told me why he called me. He had someone ask him if he could put one on the park. Now he wants more caches on the park because it has brought people in to the park that have never been there or ever heard of it.

So what I am saying is with us ... just ask.. most of the time it is no problem.

 

Just my thoughts on the subject.

I am the maintenance supervisor at Wall Doxey State Park in Mississippi

34 39.679N

089 28.187w

Is our cache

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by sbell111:

 

We already break this rule because of the existence of the cache. Due to this, we must put more effort into working with the land managers to agree on proper placement of our caches. We must also ensure that no future damage is done to the area as a result of our cache placement (casual trails, etc.)

 

I realize that, in most cases, the earth will repair herself of whatever minor damage we do. However, we must understand, that we must play by the guidelines implemented by the land managers.


 

As a member of the O.F.C. I have a question or two? How often does the earth repair herself? Has the rain forest in South America grown back already? Have many of the small forests and large groves of trees that have been destroyed are grown back? How long does it take for the lakes, rivers and creeks to clean themselves so that the water is clean again?

 

Man has little or no impact on nature? I remember when forests were almost everywhere. You could actually walk around and not see plastic grocery bags, empty beer cans or trash littering the parks. One carried a canteen that could be filled from a stream. This water was drinkable without a trip to the hospital. You could eat fish out of the lake without the worry of chemical contamination. You could spend a day at the beach and only use suntan lotion not sunblock. Few people were even aware that there was an ozone layer.

 

I have read where others say that their children will have the same access to the wilderness that they do. Not if things don't change. My children have a lot less parks and forests than I did. A child was sent to the hospital not long ago because a security guard at an airport made him drink water from a jar (that he was taking home) that contained creek water. This is truly sad. Not only that the guard made this boy drink the water but, that the creek water was so contaminated. I read an article not long ago that said by the year 2025 fresh water fish will be extinct. At this rate it is entirely possible.

 

I, for one, am grateful for land managers. They are helping to save what is left of our wilderness. They are protecting the rest of us from those whose opinion is "this is my land, I will do as I please." They have a job to do and most, if not all, do it to the best of their ability. Whether the threat of geocaching is real or merely perceived, we must play by their rules. The other option is that those who want to argue with them can stand back and tell themselves and others that the land managers and park rangers were wrong to ban geocaching and move on to another sport they can argue about.

 

Ok, I'm donning my bunker gear and SCBA for all the flaming! icon_biggrin.gif

 

inceptor

the only difference between men and boys is the price of their toys

 

[This message was edited by inceptor on April 25, 2002 at 07:05 PM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by sbell111:

 

We already break this rule because of the existence of the cache. Due to this, we must put more effort into working with the land managers to agree on proper placement of our caches. We must also ensure that no future damage is done to the area as a result of our cache placement (casual trails, etc.)

 

I realize that, in most cases, the earth will repair herself of whatever minor damage we do. However, we must understand, that we must play by the guidelines implemented by the land managers.


 

As a member of the O.F.C. I have a question or two? How often does the earth repair herself? Has the rain forest in South America grown back already? Have many of the small forests and large groves of trees that have been destroyed are grown back? How long does it take for the lakes, rivers and creeks to clean themselves so that the water is clean again?

 

Man has little or no impact on nature? I remember when forests were almost everywhere. You could actually walk around and not see plastic grocery bags, empty beer cans or trash littering the parks. One carried a canteen that could be filled from a stream. This water was drinkable without a trip to the hospital. You could eat fish out of the lake without the worry of chemical contamination. You could spend a day at the beach and only use suntan lotion not sunblock. Few people were even aware that there was an ozone layer.

 

I have read where others say that their children will have the same access to the wilderness that they do. Not if things don't change. My children have a lot less parks and forests than I did. A child was sent to the hospital not long ago because a security guard at an airport made him drink water from a jar (that he was taking home) that contained creek water. This is truly sad. Not only that the guard made this boy drink the water but, that the creek water was so contaminated. I read an article not long ago that said by the year 2025 fresh water fish will be extinct. At this rate it is entirely possible.

 

I, for one, am grateful for land managers. They are helping to save what is left of our wilderness. They are protecting the rest of us from those whose opinion is "this is my land, I will do as I please." They have a job to do and most, if not all, do it to the best of their ability. Whether the threat of geocaching is real or merely perceived, we must play by their rules. The other option is that those who want to argue with them can stand back and tell themselves and others that the land managers and park rangers were wrong to ban geocaching and move on to another sport they can argue about.

 

Ok, I'm donning my bunker gear and SCBA for all the flaming! icon_biggrin.gif

 

inceptor

the only difference between men and boys is the price of their toys

 

[This message was edited by inceptor on April 25, 2002 at 07:05 PM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by inceptor:

As a member of the O.F.C. I have a question or two? How often does the earth repair herself?

 

I have read where others say that their children will have the same access to the wilderness that they do. Not if things don't change.

 

I read an article not long ago that said by the year 2525 fresh water fish will be extinct. At this rate it is entirely possible.


 

Well we have a local park, where there once was a road with houses. They tore down the houses and left the paved road. At this point you can hardly see any signs that there were houses, or even a road. Only small patches of asphalt showing through dirt, mud, trees, and bushes.

 

Children now have access to parks, well at least where there are paths. But they must stay on the path, so we save the parks so future generations can stay on the paths. Nothing is more natural than well manicured paths you know! *sarchasm intended*

 

Nobody knows what is going to be happening in 2525! Think about it. Thats 523 years in the future. 523 years ago, Columbus hadn't even discovered America yet. Do you think they even had the most minor hint what would be happening in 2002?

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Hinge Thunder:

 

Nobody knows what is going to be happening in 2525! Think about it. Thats 523 years in the future. 523 years ago, Columbus hadn't even discovered America yet. Do you think they even had the most minor hint what would be happening in 2002?


 

Sorry, that was a slip of the fingers. It was meant to be 2025. I fixed the post.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by sbell111:

 

I realize that, in most cases, the earth will repair herself of whatever minor damage we do. However, we must understand, that we must play by the guidelines implemented by the land managers.


quote:
Originally posted by inceptor:

 

How often does the earth repair herself? Has the rain forest in South America grown back already? Have many of the small forests and large groves of trees that have been destroyed are grown back? How long does it take for the lakes, rivers and creeks to clean themselves so that the water is clean again?


Umm, I think you missed the word "minor" up there. I hardly think the destruction of the rain forest falls under the minor category. I think sbell was refering to things like footpaths worn into the grass due to traffic to a cache.

 

Anyway, he was advocating that we respect the park and land management rules. Unless I miss my mark, it appears that you're trying to pick an argument with someone whose views are not in opposition to your own.

 

-------

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

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Alan2:

Cleveland Metroparks has their own caches. It's a "come join us in geocaching" kind of thing with score cards, contrests, etc. Check under Recreation then Geocaching. This web page is a good source of positive publicity that should be used with other land managers.

 

http://www.clemetparks.com/

 

Alan


 

Ah! Yes, so it begins. First the parks start doing their own caches. Then they ban anybody else from placing a cache. Next come the fees for finding a cache. Then the fees for even looking for a cache and an additional fee if you find it. After they'll have to pay that person watching over you to make sure you stay on the trail while hunting the cache. You see, geocaching as we know it today is not going to live long. In fact probably not a long as fee free camp grounds or picnic areas or even parking in the National Forests, which are not free (read free from user fees).

 

Furthermore I think that the more we call attention to this activity to the "public" land owners, the sooner it will be highly regulated.

 

Have you got your geocaching, fishing, hunting combination license?

 

7301_400.jpg

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

Umm, I think you missed the word "_minor_" up there.


 

Yup, I did. Sorry. icon_eek.gif

 

quote:

Anyway, he was advocating that we respect the park and land management rules. Unless I miss my mark, it appears that you're trying to pick an argument with someone whose views are not in opposition to your own.


 

Believe it or not, except for the very first part, I was agreeing and taking it a step further with MHO. This is an issue that has bothered me for a long time. I was not trying to pick a fight with anyone. I was disagreeing with several earlier posts.

 

As to a fight? Nah, too old to go 12 rounds with anyone any more. icon_biggrin.gif

 

inceptor

the only difference between men and boys is the price of their toys

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

Umm, I think you missed the word "_minor_" up there.


 

Yup, I did. Sorry. icon_eek.gif

 

quote:

Anyway, he was advocating that we respect the park and land management rules. Unless I miss my mark, it appears that you're trying to pick an argument with someone whose views are not in opposition to your own.


 

Believe it or not, except for the very first part, I was agreeing and taking it a step further with MHO. This is an issue that has bothered me for a long time. I was not trying to pick a fight with anyone. I was disagreeing with several earlier posts.

 

As to a fight? Nah, too old to go 12 rounds with anyone any more. icon_biggrin.gif

 

inceptor

the only difference between men and boys is the price of their toys

Link to comment

Well, I've been staying out of this discussion because it seemed to me that everyone was arguing about "potential issues", and "what if's" and "maybes". Curiously, most of you seem to be on the same side of the discussion too.

 

My views: I actually agree with most of what has been posted by most of you. I don’t think geocaching itself is likely to cause any lasting damage to the ecology. There is the potential for some lasting effects in sensitive areas, so it is a good idea to always work with land managers to insure we are abiding by their requirements. One million folks a year through a small area can and does have deleterious effects. Prohibiting off-trail travel in some places is needed to prevent things like topsoil erosion and the destruction of rare plants. There is no way geocachers could be allowed to travel off trail in such areas and still prevent all the others that would like to do the same. In other words, even though a few geocachers won’t likely hurt a particular area, if 5000 "regular" people a week make new paths in an area, that type of thing can indeed cause some destruction. Land managers in turn are forced to ban all off-trail travel to prevent that from happening. They don’t have the luxury of saying: “geocachers are OK, but everyone else, please stay on the trails”.

 

Anyway, all that is not my point today. Mostly, I was shocked to read the comment below:

 

quote:
Originally posted by Byron & Anne:

Furthermore I think that the more we call attention to this activity to the "public" land owners, the sooner it will be highly regulated.


 

I’m curious, do you really think that by not talking to land use agencies we can avoid the issue of regulation? Believe me, they can and will find out about geocaching from other means. After all, all of us found out about it somehow. More and more, land managers are already aware of geocaching. Some heard about it on the news, some stumbled upon it surfing the web, some hear about it from other land managers, and some will hear about it from cachers.

 

In my opinion, the best way to be regulated would be to sit back and avoid discussing this with them. If the let them make the rules without our input, geocaching won’t just be regulated; it will be banned. We have got to set the tone and have these discussions on our terms. Doing otherwise could be disastrous.

 

As always, this is just my opinion. Take it for what it's worth.

 

Scott / Brokenwing

http://www.cordianet.com/geocaching

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Byron & Anne:

 

Ah! Yes, so it begins. First the parks start doing their own caches. Then they ban anybody else from placing a cache. Next come the fees for finding a cache. Then the fees for even looking for a cache and an additional fee if you find it. After they'll have to pay that person watching over you to make sure you stay on the trail while hunting the cache. You see, geocaching as we know it today is not going to live long. In fact probably not a long as fee free camp grounds or picnic areas or even parking in the National Forests, which are not free (read free from user fees).

 

Furthermore I think that the more we call attention to this activity to the "public" land owners, the sooner it will be highly regulated.

 

Have you got your geocaching, fishing, hunting combination license?

 

http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/7301_400.jpg


 

Let's see now, do I support the Cleveland Metroparks who have placed their own caches, even though I suspect they will put a limit on the number of caches and maybe attach a registration fee to cover the cost of keeping track of the things OR do I support our neighbors the Lake County Metroparks and the NPS (Cuyahoga Valley National Park) who have banned Geocaching altogether?

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Hinge Thunder:

 

Well we have a local park, where there once was a road with houses. They tore down the houses and left the paved road. At this point you can hardly see any signs that there were houses, or even a road. Only small patches of asphalt showing through dirt, mud, trees, and bushes.

 

Children now have access to parks, well at least where there are paths. But they must stay on the path, so we save the parks so future generations can stay on the paths. Nothing is more natural than well manicured paths you know! *sarchasm intended*

 

Nobody knows what is going to be happening in 2525! Think about it. Thats 523 years in the future. 523 years ago, Columbus hadn't even discovered America yet. Do you think they even had the most minor hint what would be happening in 2002?


 

Wow, some stuff I happily would debate with you!

 

Columbus never did discover America. Nor, did most people believe that the world was flat. Eratoshenes' applied an early form of the scientific method about 300 BC. He hypothesized that the earth was round based upon some solar phenomena he read about in a report.

 

He then conducted several experiments, the most notable being that he measured the circumference of the earth using math and a short stick - and was within a couple of percent of the true value.

 

By Columbus' time, it was widely excepted that the earth was round (Columbus even had some of Eratoshenes' maps and writings). Columbus argued that the earth was much smaller than everyone else believed. The generally accepted (and correct) size among intellectuals of the age, made the earth too large for his plan of reaching the far east to work - even if a gigantic land mass hadn't been in the way.

 

Mostly, he was a psuedo certain moron.

 

I was going to make a segue into the science behind water purity and biodiversity, and how your park story does not really address inceptor's points, but I'll leave you two to battle that out yourselves...

 

-jjf

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by jfitzpat:

...By Columbus' time, it was widely excepted that the earth was round (Columbus even had some of Eratoshenes' maps and writings). Columbus argued that the earth was much smaller than everyone else believed. The generally accepted (and correct) size among intellectuals of the age, made the earth too large for his plan of reaching the far east to work - even if a gigantic land mass hadn't been in the way.

 

Mostly, he was a psuedo certain moron.

...

-jjf


 

I've heard this story too but I wonder if he was such a "moron". If he had not argued from the standpoint of a smaller earth, would Ferdinand and Isabella given him the money he needed to "set sail"?

 

Can you imagine if he agreed with the big earth approach. "Yessa your highness, I knowa everyone elsa saying that while the earth isa rounda it'sa also too bigga and I'm going to runna out of water and food before I getta there. But I gotta a plan. Justa givva me a couple of millions doubloons and I willa prova it."

 

As it was it took years for him to get the royals to kick in the moolah! icon_wink.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by jfitzpat:

...By Columbus' time, it was widely excepted that the earth was round (Columbus even had some of Eratoshenes' maps and writings). Columbus argued that the earth was much smaller than everyone else believed. The generally accepted (and correct) size among intellectuals of the age, made the earth too large for his plan of reaching the far east to work - even if a gigantic land mass hadn't been in the way.

 

Mostly, he was a psuedo certain moron.

...

-jjf


 

I've heard this story too but I wonder if he was such a "moron". If he had not argued from the standpoint of a smaller earth, would Ferdinand and Isabella given him the money he needed to "set sail"?

 

Can you imagine if he agreed with the big earth approach. "Yessa your highness, I knowa everyone elsa saying that while the earth isa rounda it'sa also too bigga and I'm going to runna out of water and food before I getta there. But I gotta a plan. Justa givva me a couple of millions doubloons and I willa prova it."

 

As it was it took years for him to get the royals to kick in the moolah! icon_wink.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Alan2:

I've heard this story too but I wonder if he was such a "moron". If he had not argued from the standpoint of a smaller earth, would Ferdinand and Isabella given him the money he needed to "set sail"?

 

Can you imagine if he agreed with the big earth approach. "Yessa your highness, I knowa everyone elsa saying that while the earth isa rounda it'sa also too bigga and I'm going to runna out of water and food before I getta there. But I gotta a plan. Justa givva me a couple of millions doubloons and I willa prova it."

 

As it was it took years for him to get the royals to kick in the moolah! icon_wink.gif


 

That he never set foot on the Continent, and that he was arguing for an earth more than 25% smaller is pretty well documented. We also have many writings from the age showing what intellectuals of the period believed.

 

As to why, that is a great question. He was certainly colorful - sea adventures at a young age, questionable background (there is no proof positive that he was even Italian, and he certainly revised his own background several times). He even married into a noble Portagese family that had fallen on hard times...

 

From about 1484 - when King John II of Portegal turned him down, until 1492, he was turned down at least twice by the Spanish crown. He pitched his journey several ways, better standing for Spain, embarrasement for rival Portegal, and later, he argued that it would somehow further Spain's 'holy war' on the Moors. Some historians think it was this last approach that got traction, and point out that approval for his journey came right after the fall of Granada (sp?), the last Moorish stronghold in Spain.

 

Certainly, a number of the Crown's advisors thought the journey dangerous and Columbus clearly wrong about the Earth's size. But, I guess I would say things weren't all that different...

 

Even today, brains don't automatically equate to fame and/or power (or vice versa)!

 

And, political decisions don't always adhere to science. Look at SDI and the current missile defense system push. We spent over $600,000,000 on some of Edward Teller's odder ideas (none of which panned out) when most of his scientific peers thought that the technology was not there.

 

-jjf

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Alan2:

I've heard this story too but I wonder if he was such a "moron". If he had not argued from the standpoint of a smaller earth, would Ferdinand and Isabella given him the money he needed to "set sail"?

 

Can you imagine if he agreed with the big earth approach. "Yessa your highness, I knowa everyone elsa saying that while the earth isa rounda it'sa also too bigga and I'm going to runna out of water and food before I getta there. But I gotta a plan. Justa givva me a couple of millions doubloons and I willa prova it."

 

As it was it took years for him to get the royals to kick in the moolah! icon_wink.gif


 

That he never set foot on the Continent, and that he was arguing for an earth more than 25% smaller is pretty well documented. We also have many writings from the age showing what intellectuals of the period believed.

 

As to why, that is a great question. He was certainly colorful - sea adventures at a young age, questionable background (there is no proof positive that he was even Italian, and he certainly revised his own background several times). He even married into a noble Portagese family that had fallen on hard times...

 

From about 1484 - when King John II of Portegal turned him down, until 1492, he was turned down at least twice by the Spanish crown. He pitched his journey several ways, better standing for Spain, embarrasement for rival Portegal, and later, he argued that it would somehow further Spain's 'holy war' on the Moors. Some historians think it was this last approach that got traction, and point out that approval for his journey came right after the fall of Granada (sp?), the last Moorish stronghold in Spain.

 

Certainly, a number of the Crown's advisors thought the journey dangerous and Columbus clearly wrong about the Earth's size. But, I guess I would say things weren't all that different...

 

Even today, brains don't automatically equate to fame and/or power (or vice versa)!

 

And, political decisions don't always adhere to science. Look at SDI and the current missile defense system push. We spent over $600,000,000 on some of Edward Teller's odder ideas (none of which panned out) when most of his scientific peers thought that the technology was not there.

 

-jjf

Link to comment

K2dave-Tell me that your a troll or just an ignorant person.

 

Rules and regulations are made and Rangers get to enforce it. What is an illegal trail? I guess I could have used better wording but it's a trail that has been made by man that the Park Service doesn't want. It's like trail cutting-instead of doing those long switchbacks, people decide to cut straight down the hillside. Of course you would never do that.

 

BTW, I have done lots of trail maintainence and building. I've also done alot in regards to trail maintainence to try to stop/slow down erosion, brought on by people deciding that the quickest way downhill (don't worry what it can do to the hillside) is by not following the trail.

 

I'm telling you what the law is. Sometimes common sense and the law don't look good together. You and I might disagree with it and can make it known that we want the law changed, but until then, you can do whatever you want. It's when you're caught that you'll have some explaining to do.

 

All I am is the bearer of news. If you don't like it, then do something to change it-get involved in your local park-volunteer.

 

 

Garmin Vista

Garmin Street Pilot

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Ranger Roger:

K2dave-Tell me that your a troll or just an ignorant person.

 

Rules and regulations...

 

[snip]

 


 

Ranger Roger, I admit that K2Dave's reasoning leaves much to be desired. That he took his feeble attempt at wry wit and made it a signature line, complete with a rude and uncalled for characterization, shows he has the emotional maturity of a pre-pubescent boy. Pimply faced boys who don't date much, you may recall, take inordinate glee in their own bodily functions.

 

However, you, presumably, are past the point in life where flattulance plays a central role. Responding in kind simply reinforces the original behavior and inflated sense of self importance.

 

My suggestion is that you simply respond with a factual correction, perhaps indulging in one wry remark of your own (ex. "don't worry, you'll get to soil errosion in the 4th grade..."), and turn the other cheek.

 

I'm not sure how long you were a ranger, but if you've spent any time in the great outdoors, you know that, in time, Mother Nature generally gives dim bulbs who venture outside their proper due.

 

-jjf

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by RAD Dad:

"Only when the last tree is cut,

and the last stream is polluted,

and the last fish is caught,

will we realize that you can't eat the money"

 

Because there is money in forestry, that insures that there will never be a "last tree" but always an abundance of new forests growing. And because even the wealthy industrialists like to go fly fishing, kayaking, rafting and so on, there will always be pristine rivers. And because we like to eat fish, and fishermen make money fishing, there will never be a "last fish" instead we will continue to fund hatcheries which insure that the fish continue to return to the seas.

 

In fact the best way to insure that something would stick around is to make it profitable to someone to keep it around. It's amazing how many people can be creative to keep a cash cow available...just look at the envirormental wacko's, they aren't poor, many have no other job but their "activism" and so long as they can find a rare slug to protect, or a wasteland to keep "pristine" they will continue to make money off their activism (while also making themselves feel superiour and more sensitiv than the rest of us users).

 

ummmm....not sure what to say here....so ummm, well errrr, uhhhh, well I guess that's it.


 

Why are you critiquing my signature on this thread?

 

Ever have a favorite place to hunt that is now a housing development?

 

Ever know a nice river to fish that is now polluted with mine drainage?

 

Ever wonder what happened to the New England commercial groundfish fishery?

 

By the way...name me one "pristine" river.

 

Smoochnme

 

goldfish.gif

"Only when the last tree is cut,

and the last stream is polluted,

and the last fish is caught,

will we realize that you can't eat the money"

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Alan2:

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


 

Good job. I like that idea. I have a meeting being set up between myself and the state forester of Indiana, the Education director, and the property specialist. I requested this as a citizen of this earth, a tax payer, and a concerned former scout. I love this game and "cache in/trash out" everytime, but it is not enough. I have asked to discuss just this issue and now we are trying to work out a firm date on all our calendars. If you don't mind, I would like to use this idea as a starting point.

 

If one or two states start to take this seriously and do draft guidelines like this and see little in the way of ecological damage, then they can take this to the national conference. Let us educate the decision makers before they listen to those who are ignorant and loud enough to close this off to everyone.

 

As always, we must learn to crawl before we learn to stand and walk (and I am still learning how to fly).

 

Bear

 

Geocachers don't NEED to ask for directions!

 

[This message was edited by Bear & Ting on May 01, 2002 at 11:45 AM.]

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...