A Specific Environmental Concern

[Guest CaptHawke]

toilet.

 

I'm no liberal tree-hugger, but I think its a shame that an area like this is likely to be radically upset and possibly destroyed before the general public is even aware that it exists. So I am considering altering the plans for my geocache. Rather than just visiting the phantom parking lots on the abandoned campus, I will lead seekers to within a few hundred feet of the endangered wetlands, deeper into the woods but still on land slated for development. From the physical geocache I will just give general directions toward the marshes, sort of a bonus virtual cache. Like I said at the top, I'm leary to direct cache seekers into an trail-less, environmentally sensitive area, but groups like the local Sierra Club are already doing just that, leading organized hikes on Hackett Hill in an effort to raise public awarenes of this situation.

 

Any comments?

 

Cephas Hawke

Bedford, NH

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by CaptHawke (edited 27 August 2001).]

[Guest arffer]

Sounds to me like this area will be lost anyway if a public outcry isn't raised.

 

So, why not lead folks gently into the area before its lost forever, and perhaps enough can raise their voices along with those the Nature Conservancy are also taking in to have an effect.

[Guest jeremy]

Put a logbook and petition there. Ask people to write something about how they felt if the area was developed, and have them sign the petition.

 

Of course most geocaches don't get enough traffic to fill a petition but it may be a unique way to get interest in the area. Take the logbook and petition and contact your local paper with it. I can't guarantee press coverage but the uniqueness of your approach may be newsworthy.

 

Jeremy

[Guest cache_ninja]

hey capn hawke, e-mail me cache_ninja@hotmail.com, i wanna ask you a off-topic bedford question...

 

c/n

[Guest CaptHawke]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeremy:

Take the logbook and petition and contact your local paper with it.

Jeremy

---

 

Jeremy,

Thanks for your words of encouragement. I'll place the cache in the next couple of days.

 

Obviously you are unfamiliar with our local paper, the ultra-conservative Manchester Union Leader. A real example of the UL's view on environmental issues: They recently ran an editorial sugesting that the logical solution to global warming (if it exists) would be to move the earth to a new orbit further from the sun. Honest, I'm not making this up. Check it out. They have also suggested bulldozing the only bald eagle nest in the area to make way for a new access road to the local airport. I doubt if they would be interested is a 450 year old tree.

 

There is a new weekly alternative paper, The Hippo Press that has taken a more enlightened view on environmental issues, including a recent story mentioning Hackett Hill. They would probably be a good spot to for a geocaching story. I'll look into it. Thanks again.

 

CH

[Guest rusty]

quote:

---

Originally posted by CaptHawke:

They recently ran an editorial sugesting that the logical solution to global warming (if it exists) would be to move the earth to a new orbit further from the sun. Honest, I'm not making this up. Check it out. They have also suggested bulldozing the only bald eagle nest in the area to make way for a new access road to the local airport

---

 

I just followed your link and read that editorial. I am the furthest thing from a tree-hugger but that left me speechless! I kept looking for the punchline but they were serious. I seems there are no limits to how ludicrous (sp?) things can get on the left or the right.

 

Rusty...

 

 

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

Rusty & Libby's Geocache Page

[Guest celts]

"What if the rocket misfires and the comet hits Earth? Not good, obviously. Will we have to move the moon along with the Earth to maintain our current climate and tides?"

Not only am I speechless after reading it---I can barely type!!

[Guest arffer]

quote:

---

They recently ran an editorial sugesting that the logical solution to global warming (if it exists) would be to move the earth to a new orbit further from the sun.

---

 

Could someone please post the new co-ordinates for planet Earth? I'd like to log the first Found It!

[Guest Elwood]

CaptnHawke,

and please keep us posted as to the results of your geocache protest movement, i'm interested in if city hall will listen to us, even if we are a small but growing comunity.

Best of luck in your efforts!

Elwood

...and you can add my name to your petition, dont know if they will count an out of stater , but i am an interested party in this , simply because you never know i might want to visit that area someday, and not just to see an office building!

 

[This message has been edited by Elwood (edited 27 August 2001).]

[Guest CaptHawke]

quote:

---

Originally posted by rusty:

I just followed your link and read that editorial. I am the furthest thing from a tree-hugger but that left me speechless! I kept looking for the punchline but they were serious. I seems there are no limits to how ludicrous (sp?) things can get on the left or the right.

---

 

Getting way off topic, but in case anyone is interested, the actual scientific paper refered to in the UL editorial is here. It had nothing to do with solving global warming due to greenhouse gases, but with the expansion and warming of the sun over the next 1.1 billion years. The astro-physicists proposed a highly theoretical solution of nudging the earth's orbit slightly outwards once every 6,000 years. A 100 km Kuiper Belt object, pushed out of orbit with some sort of giant engine, would cross paths with Earth and Jupiter, transfering energy from Jupiter's orbit to ours. We move out and Jupiter moves in each time the object swings through the inner solar system. (Earth's moon, Mars and the asteroid belt would be bulldozed in the process. Makes an eagle nest look pretty insignificant.) If all the earth's resources were devoted to the project, we would see the first tiny move to Bernadette Malone Connolly's 'spot in the shade' sometime after 3,000 years. Hardly a valid solution for a current problem. But that's nothing out of the ordinary at the Manchester UL. (Remember that this newspaper has the highest circulation in the state with the first presidential primary in the nation. Scary thought.)

 

A local scientist pointed out that a project of such stellar proportions could only take place with a single unified autocratic world government and jokingly (?) accused the Union Leader of promoting an international communist conspiracy. Ha!

 

 

[This message has been edited by CaptHawke (edited 27 August 2001).]

[Guest ground pounder]

"There is little or no buffer zone between the marshes and the proposed development"

 

Consider checking with the State Water

Pollution people and/or the EPA to see whether an environmental impact statement is needed as it pertains to wetland degradation.

 

I am sure the town can't degrade water quality through development. Of course look what has happened to the Everglades!

 

If the city has already jumped through the appropriate hoops, there may be little hope. If not...

 

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

Richard

[Guest Grendel]

I probably take a bit different tack then most people. I don't believe in keeping out of the enviornment because it is there. I believe in getting into the environment because it is there. Within reason and common sense I want to get people's feet a bit muddy so they understand what will be missed if we lose it. The threat is not leaving a footprint (deer do that), it is the power of the exponential; population, expansion, urban growth, over-development! I don't know how to solve this but I know that isolating ourselves from the environment is not altogether helpful. And NO, I'm not talking about trampling across truely fragile environments. I hope some of this makes sense.

 

And we say that the world isn't dying.

And we pray that the world isn't dying.

And just maybe the world isn't dying.

Maybe she's heavy with child.

 

-Jason Webley

 

Lets hope.

[Guest wildkirsten]

I would not be worried about inviting people there. I would have a short note in the description that talks about the sensitive nature of the area. That way folks can enjoy it , but be aware not to tread heavily. I really think that nature is pretty tough in most cases , I am not talking about putting in a gasoline refinery or an airport... but people walking around an area is not a huge impact .