Jump to content

CHECK OUT THIS ARTICLE, "The new game in town: habitat damage"


Recommended Posts

icon_eek.gif

 

This is on the front page of the Orange County Califonia Register news paper today. They handled it pretty evenly I think, but the potential for harm to our game is evident.

 

If we don't all follow the rules about where we place our caches as well as show some sensitivity to the enviroment, we could all suffer the consequenses.

 

I don't want to get on a soapbox, but even if you are placing a cache in a non regulated area, consider the impact of cachers tromping through the surrounding brush etc. Also, when searching for a cache, look up from the GPSr for a minute or two and try to tread lightly with sensitivity to the local enviroment.

 

The new game in town: habitat damage

A game that tests navigational skills also gives rangers headaches.

 

July 30, 2002

 

By PAT BRENNAN

The Orange County Register

 

They began as faint tracks in the brush - perhaps made by animals, O'Neill Wilderness Park ranger Bobbie Calli thought at first.

 

But within a few weeks, as she watched anxiously, they grew into wide scars cutting through sensitive habitat. And where the new paths ended, she found small containers filled with knickknacks.

 

"They were just getting worse, getting wider, getting deeper," Calli said of the paths. "Then, all of a sudden, fences were being cut."

 

It was all part of a game called Geocaching, one that is catching on around the nation and the world. And it sounds like harmless fun: toys, key chains, cameras, journals and other items are placed inside containers, which are hidden in the wilderness.

 

Then, clues about where to find the containers are placed on the Geocaching Web site. Players use handheld satellite tracking instruments called GPS units to find the caches, taking out a few items and putting in some others.

 

But Geocaching, Calli said, has prompted people to bushwhack through the park's scrub brush, not only damaging native plants and animal habitat but unwittingly tracking in invasive, non-native plant seeds that could take root and spread.

 

"The illegal trails caused by people searching for just that one (cache) measured at least a quarter of a mile," she said.

 

Problems linked to Geocaching have been reported at other county wilderness parks, including Aliso & Wood Canyons Regional Wilderness Park and Whiting Ranch Park, said Bruce Buchman, a county parks district superintendent.

 

Ranger Tom Maloney at Aliso & Wood Canyons said he has removed sites from sensitive areas and allowed one to stay after exchanging e-mail with organizers.

 

Rangers said they aren't opposed to the game - they just want to protect native plants and animals. Deer, bobcats, and native birds and rodents can be found in the O'Neill area and other county wilderness parks.

 

"It's not like they're maliciously trying to hurt the park," Calli said. "They really simply don't know any better."

 

Calli has removed three of the caches at O'Neill park in eastern Orange County, the most recent within the past two weeks, and believes there are still two more she hasn't found. She has put up signs warning players that the caches are gone.

 

And she's keeping the caches she's found - including a Tupperware container and an old ammunition box - at the front office, hoping the owners will reclaim them.

 

The game's organizers say their guidelines warn against damaging native habitat or installing caches without permission from property managers or owners.

 

"We have a policy of being very environmentally aware," said Elias Alvord, a technical expert who helps run the Geo caching Web site.

 

But they acknowledge that they've got their hands full simply trying to update their Web site with new cache locations and clues.

 

The 2-year-old game's popularity is growing, and the most caches of any state - some 4,000 - are found in California.

 

"There are well over 100,000 people playing the game worldwide," said Bryan Roth, who handles business development at Groundspeak, a Seattle company that runs the game. "It's in 134 foreign countries, and there are 24,000 ... caches worldwide."

 

No one has approached the rangers, Calli said, to ask permission to install caches at O'Neill.

 

"It would be nice if they would talk to us," Calli said. "We could work with them to figure out a place where they could hide it, and where we would not end up with a bunch of illegal trails."

Link to comment

the article does seem pretty fair and ends with an offer from the park ranger to give information. wouldn't it be a good thing to have some more explicit information on how and where not to place a cache in certain locations?

 

i'm a newbie and i'm sure i'll be breaking rules left and right when i start placing my caches around. it'd be great to have some general and some specifics on park rules and protocol.

 

this sure is the place to have that kind of information...

 

icon_rolleyes.gif

Link to comment

At first the article read like an attack on Geocaching by someone with minimal information, so I am glad that, as the article goes on, the situation is outlined more fully and the writer did the research.

 

Yes, it does sound like an invitation. So far it seems that we have been thwarted at every turn... especially by park rangers. Now it is our own ranks who's actions are being called into question.

 

Pay attention folks! Ask before placing caches in park areas!

 

RedwoodRed - Habitual Cacher

--

 

How much red would a redwood red if a redwood could red wood?

Link to comment

We had similar issues with caches placed within the Tualitin Hills Parks and Recreation District here in the greater Portland area. While it (thankfully) never made headlines, the rangers also pulled caches (one of which was mine) and are working with local geocachers to allow caches within parks in their district, but with input on where they can/can't be placed, how many to allow, etc. to prevent similar problems.

 

I had a very productive conversation with the rangers when I went to retrieve my cache at their office. They said mine was the only one which they would have left as it was placed such that no off-trail activity was needed to locate it (they decided to pull them all until they can establish a policy).

 

I think if this game is going to continue to grow as it has and be around 10-20 years from now, working with land stewards is a must. What's interesting is virtually all of the official land stewards I've dealt with have been positive about the game and want to work with it's players. It's the media and the enviro groups who preach doom and gloom (so what's new?) and give the game a bad name.

 

-

Link to comment

The problem remains that no matter how carefully a cache site is considered, and no matter how directly trails lead to the site, there will always be someone who chooses to ignore the trails and bushwhack to the site.

 

I thought that article was terrible. All the inflammatory stuff about geocaching was at the beginning of the article ... the part that most people will read. If that article gets picked up and redistributed, I have no doubt it will be shortened to end at "Ranger Tom Maloney at Aliso & Wood Canyons said he has removed sites from sensitive areas and allowed one to stay after exchanging e-mail with organizers."

Link to comment

Bassoon Pilot, I think your assessment of the article is spot on.

 

By the way, what is a California "Wilderness Park"? Is it like a national BLM Wilderness Area, or undeveloped land for passive non-motorized recreation, or like a state or National Park or Monument?

 

I suspect that it may to some degree be whatever the tin-star maverick ranger on duty decides it ought to be (see "cache missing in MN" thread-).

 

Isn't it crazy that National Parks that permit snowmobiles, ATV's, Winnebagoes, camping, concessionaires, dam projects, etc. etc. actively oppose us geocaching because of all the supposed terrible environmental chaos we unleash? Sure, if disfiguring "social trails" are eroding the area, the cache should be relocated (or shouldn't have been placed where it was in the first place). Sensitive areas demand sensitive responses (you pervert), but these are OUR public lands for US to responsibly geocache on *&^%&%^$@!@!

Link to comment

I have a problem with the remark about fences being cut. Did they catch a geocacher doing this, or was it simply easier to blame them?

 

We’re on dangerous ground here………..my idealism is wavering…………where are you magicman!?!?!?!?

 

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

What is the price of experience, do men buy it for a song,

Or wisdom for a dance in the street.................

Link to comment

In descriptions for the few caches I left I put in the description. "There is no need for bushwacking or trailblazing".

 

Maybe if some of the descriptions had some things like that or "Please don't create any new trails. cache can be found without making new trails"

 

Just my humble little old opinion.

Link to comment

Whatever the pros and cons of the order of the article, the fact of the matter is that these caches were posted without the permission of the land manager - a violation of the rules of the site, no matter how common.

 

The ranger herself seems to be very accommodating - holding the caches for pickup, offering to assist in placing them in more appropriate areas. If we get all shirty with her (and you know she'll be reading this thread), then the next time she, or a colleague, finds a cache they'll throw it out because we're being irresponsible about land that it's her job to manage.

 

If, on the other hand, the cache owners come in and work with the park officials, then we can get a follow-up article in the paper about how responsible caching can be. icon_smile.gif

 

evilrooster

-the email of the species is deadlier than the mail-

Link to comment

I have to admit that as soon as I read the word 'habitat' followed closely by 'California', I instictively reached for the 'back' button. But, something made me read the article. Here's my two cents (shiny pennies or corroded copper - you decide).

 

Like it or not, the sport is growing. Public attention is, and will be, getting more wide-spread. It is up to us, the responsible cachers, to show that this is a valid and contributing sport for the masses. Also, to demonstrate that those irresponsible cachers are rogue and not appreciated by the vast majority.

 

My sport of 4-wheeling has been critically (fatally?) damaged by non-caring yahoo's who are only interested in their own desires; and the community (that they benefit so much from) can just deal with it. I would hate to see this sport (sorry - RASH) end up in the same position.

 

It's entirely possible that in the coming years you will need to be registered with the local agency (USFS, BLM, Police), to place and search for caches. You already have to have permits to hike, boat, etc. in the National Parks. Some public areas require you to sign in/out when you visit. It's just a matter of time for geocaching. Next year or 20 years - it's up to us.

 

BTW - the figure of 4000 caches in CA may include 'member only' caches.

 

"I've never been lost. However, I did misplace the camp for a few days." - Daniel Boone

 

[This message was edited by Attila on July 30, 2002 at 03:02 PM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Eric K:

In descriptions for the few caches I left I put in the description. "There is no need for bushwacking or trailblazing".

 

Maybe if some of the descriptions had some things like that or "Please don't create any new trails. cache can be found without making new trails"

 

Just my humble little old opinion.


 

I think this is the best way to go. I have one cache out there I specifically state the cache is less than 20 feet off the trail.

 

I also like the idea of posting the parking coords. There have been a few caches I've been to that had I had good parking coords I wouldn't have had to do much if any bushwacking.

 

smile02.gif If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people??

Link to comment

Rico and the Fiddler (fellow locals):

Have been following the missing "O'Neill" caches. Thought this may have been the problem. I agree that this is devistating, but feel that it is not just geocachers that destruct this area. I live near this area and visit quite often. I have seen first hand some of the activities that go on in this park. Some that are very destructive and some that can prove to be quite interesting. These activities are from non-Geocachers.

All the rangers are asking is that the placer of the geocache "ask for their permission" for a proper location. Isn't this required anyway? People just need to follow the rules, ask for permission and make sure that when they visit they are not destroying the surrounding area.

Sad but true, realization has hit. I just hope that this does not give Geocaching a bad reputation in this area.

 

The Geo Chasers

So. Orange County, CA

 

P.S. O'Neill is a "Regional Park"

Link to comment

OK, so trails left by wild animals heading to food and water are OK, but human trails are illegal? Sheesh.

 

There's a vote on the newspaper's site that as of this writing is 16 to 3 in favor of banning Geocaching in the county's parks. You can vote at the Orange County Register web page.

 

-----------

"If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything." - Mark Twain

Link to comment

Like so many other bad ideas, here comes another one out of Granola Land. I have managed to stay away except for one short trip last year. If I am lucky, I will retire before I ever have to go back. Environmentalists, liberals, pollution, electric system problems and prices, traffic, boxer-fineswine-gray... you pays a lot for your ocean sunsets.

 

Well, as far as I can tell, this problem exists here too. AFAIK, I am the only cacher in El Paso with permission to have my cache in the park. But then again, hard to damage sand and rock just by walking. Perhaps our area is more tolerant of geocaching. What grows out here is usually tougher than man !!!

 

I wasn't born a Texan... but I got here as quick as I could.

 

Mike. KD9KC.

El Paso, Texas.

 

Seventeen minutes after her FIRST call for help, police officers arrived to find Ronyale White dead.

 

Prohibiting self defense is the ultimate crime. Police carry guns to protect themselves. What protects YOU ???

Link to comment

quote:
...It's entirely possible that in the coming years you will need to be registered with the local agency (USFS, BLM, Police), to place and search for caches. You already have to have permits to hike, boat, etc. in the National Parks. Some public areas require you to sign in/out when you visit. It's just a matter of time for geocaching. Next year or 20 years - it's up to us...


 

I suggested such a thing in a poll thread awhile back. I think it's human nature to want to be in control especially if it's your job to take care of the property. And there we go into "your" area doing what we want. No accountability. Put yourself in the manager's position and you'll get a feel for what I'm talking about.

 

Alan

Link to comment

Attila wrote:

quote:

My sport of 4-wheeling has been critically (fatally?) damaged by non-caring yahoo's who are only interested in their own desires; and the community (that they benefit so much from) can just deal with it. I would hate to see this sport (sorry - RASH) end up in the same position.


 

A good analogy Attila. I've done 4WD for years and have seen the very low impact of real 4WDing be ruined in reputation and in fact by a few percent who do it with no concern for others or the environment.

4WD is a dirty word to an environmentalist.

It is going to be the same for geocaching if geocachers don't get their act together. You still have some lead time. The word is not out yet. But having stopped in to see how geocaching is going and reading the top hits on this board in only my humble opinion you're a lost cause. As in 4WD there is going to be a vocal 5% that screws the whole game.

It would really suck if you let that happen.

Link to comment

We were in a Pennsylvania state park on Sunday where the cache was removed do to damage done to the area by cachers. This cache was unique in that the cache owner was also the same trail organization that removed it.

 

What upset us most was the fact that the people that removed the cache didn't have the courtesy to notify the site that the cache was removed, thus preventing even more damage to the area!

 

Perhaps it's time for a new paragraph in the cache welcome letter asking anyone of authority who removes a cache to notify the owner or website thus prevent even more bushwacking by people who refuse to give up looking.

 

Also, the above info about the cache description stating how far off of the trail it is placed is excellent.

Link to comment
quote:
Originally posted by Da Rebel:There's a vote on the newspaper's site that as of this writing is 16 to 3 in favor of banning Geocaching in the county's parks.
Not any more. icon_rolleyes.gif Man I would never trust an election where the votes were entered over the internet. icon_wink.gif
Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by littlefrog:

quote:
There's a vote on the newspaper's site that as of this writing is 16 to 3 in favor of banning Geocaching in the county's parks. You can vote at the http://www.ocregister.com/ web page.


Could you possibly post the exact url to the poll instead of just the paper's main page? I searched the site for quite some time, saw nothing at all about geocaching.


 

Here is the exact url of the article Geocache Article

By the way the results were in favor of letting the geocaches stay when I last looked.

 

copcar15.gif

Link to comment

I have over two dozen caches placed. Most are in forests or forested parks. They are well off established trails for the obvious reason of keeping them safe from accidental discovery and plundering. After the first week or two, visits to these caches are very sporadic; perhaps one or two a month and in most cases fewer than that.

 

Despite the fact that these caches require some bushwacking to get to, I've yet to see any social trails or other damage to the areas that they've been placed in.

 

I don't see how these, or any properly placed caches, cause damage to the surrounding area. Heck, the deer in this state create far more "social trails" and environmental damage than any cache I've seen.

 

This article is nothing more than alarmist garbage. There are what, 30,000 some caches out there and they went out of their way to find the handful that cause a "problem". Even where these social trails leading to a cache do develop, its a non issue. Take the cache away and within a year there will be no evidence that it ever existed.

 

"Life is a daring adventure, or it is nothing" - Helen Keller

Link to comment

It seems like great fun, I read the artical because a friend that is a reporter there came to a baja site I go too and asked if anyone would be willing to talk to the reporter for the artical (they were looking for you guys to get your input) sooooooo, I thought I'd stop by here to see what you all though of it. If anyone is interested is seeing the discussion going on about it and geo-caching in general check out www.bajanet.com go to the general discussion board Marla is the reporter that asked for input. (she isn't the one that wrote the story) BTW, I glad to see the responsible talk here and not just the rolling of the eyes at the 'tree-huggers' Happy Hunting, Debra PS: 'Crimimal' hi neighbor! I live in Port Orchard

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Team Screamapillar:

Bassoon Pilot, I think your assessment of the article is spot on.

 

[snip]

 

Isn't it crazy that National Parks that permit snowmobiles, ATV's, Winnebagoes, camping, concessionaires, dam projects, etc. etc. actively oppose us geocaching because of all the supposed terrible environmental chaos we unleash?

 

[snip]

 


 

For what it is worth, it is a lot more effective to negotiate with land managers about an activity when you actually listen to what they say. According to the article, the ranger in question is happy to get the caches back to the owners and work with geocachers to allow the sport to be pursued in a compatible way.

 

As for pointing out hypocrisy in public policy, it only gets you so far. Snowmobiling in Yellowstone may very well vanish, or be greatly reduced two seasons from now.

 

Sooner or later, some people are going to have to decide what they value more, caching in some form, or standing on principle about their God given right to do what they #@$% well please on "our" public land. Too many talking loudly about the later, and access will get a lot worse.

 

-jjf

Link to comment

I just checked and the poll is still there. Upper Right to the article. It says, "What Do You Think?" Click that and a popup window will open with the poll. You will have to answer the question to see the results. I don't want to sway your opinion but be careful and note that the way the question is worded it is YES, you WANT Geocaching BANNEDand NO, you want Geocaching to be ALLOWED.

 

quote:
Originally posted by Da Rebel:

You don't suppose the poll wasn't going the way they wanted it to and they pulled it?

 

Nah, that couldn't happen, could it?

 

icon_rolleyes.gif

 

-----------

"If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything." - Mark Twain

 


Link to comment

Geocaching is extremely vulnerable to public criticism and attack by authorities. Why? Because, unlike any other outdoor activity, Geocaching is open. It lets the whole world know exactly what it is doing and precisely where it is doing it. It is this incredible openess that attracts and keeps many of the participants. But this openess makes it extremely easy for any public land agency to totally shut down Geocaching within its borders.

 

If Geocaching is going to survive on public lands two things are required: a lot more rules and regulations; a lot more active lobbying of public land agencies. Too bad...

 

You may not agree with what I say, but I will defend, to your death, my right to say it!(it's a Joke, OK!)

Link to comment

They'll stop us if we allow it. Dadgum it, we're Americans, the most rascally folks on the planet. It's not "their" land, it's ours. If we want Geocaching bad enough, it'll become mainstream and accepted as the norm.

 

Anyway, I reckon the paper's server got a bit busy when I was checking it last time around. Up and running now. Now at 74 pro Geocaching and 21 against. Good job, folks!

 

-----------

"If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything." - Mark Twain

Link to comment

I was contacted by the recreation mananger of a local state forest and told that seekers of a cache I had placed were causing damage. I volunteered to remove it. When I got to the hiding spot I couldn't believe how much damage had been caused by only four visitors. It really opened my eyes about proper hiding spots. Some areas can handle the traffic while others can't. The hard, cold facts are we either police ourselves or it will be done for us.

 

"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

Here are 2 of the caches which we think the O'Neill Park rangers were referring to as having been confiscated:

 

Easy Find

 

The Dog Walk Cache

 

Coincidentally, I was the first to log a find for both caches. Here's some observations:

 

1. When hunting both caches, I never even knew that I was in O'Neill Park. This is typical of trails/parks/wilderness areas in Southern California where they criss-cross over wide areas. Both of these were in the middle of suburbia, and access to it can be had from quite a few different places. I never even saw any signs saying I was in O'Neill Park --- as far as I was concerned, I was simply traversing on public land (which the park is but little did I know that they had such restrictions).

 

2. Also, as far as I know, per this link, this park is a regional park and not a wilderness park/area (not even sure how they differentiate one from the other specially out here in SoCal).

 

O'Neill Park

 

3. When I first "found" The Dog Walk Cache, there was already a well-trodden trail leading up to it. The cache was hidden inside the hollow of a tree which, obviously, casual hikers/visitors have been checking out simply because the tree was there. It was off the main trail (maybe 20 to 40 feet), no bushwacking required other than walking through a meadow. No signs posted saying that it was illegal to get off the trail (and there shouldn't be).

In fact, this cache was almost MIA (refer to the logs) since some non-geocachers found it, some 17 or 18 cache logs later. I did happen to visit the cache site again at around the same time and the "environment" did not seem any different from what it was when I first found the cache. 7 or 8 logs later, the rangers confiscate it because it was doing damage to the environment..... C'mon, really?

 

4. When I first "found" Easy Find, there was also a well-trodden trail off the main trail, through a meadow, where the cache was hidden in the hollow of a fallen tree. Never came back there again but I can't see how much so-called damage could have been done to that environment.

 

Also, in both cases, there were NO FENCES anywhere within 1000 feet of these caches. So what makes them think that geocachers were responsible for such damage?

 

And how different is hiding a cache from telling a friend, "Hey, go to this beautiful meadow and check out this hollowed-out tree. It's cool!" Is this not PUBLIC LAND that we are allowed to use and enjoy?

 

I really think that the article was a bit one-sided. They should have interviewed local OC geocachers and gotten our side of the story.

 

I guess, in retrospect, what we really need is more dialogue and communication between the 2 groups. Of course, what scares me is that too much dialogue may result in more restrictions by overly possessive land managers.

 

I don't know, I just don't know. Enjoy the great outdoors, but only within a 4 foot wide trail traversing over thousands upon thousands of acres. Make use of public lands, but heaven forbid that 20 to 50 people visit the same spot over a 6 month period. America the beautiful, land of the free, where the deer and antelope (but not geocachers) roam.

 

Enough ranting. Do something about it. Maybe I should, maybe I will. Now where can I get a hold of Ranger Calli?

Link to comment

There's about 700,000 of 'em! I've only got to a dozen or so over the last few weeks. Been having a blast! Some of them in some really cool locations that could be fitting spots for a cache or two.... That would get them screaming wouldn't it! icon_smile.gif

 

~Honest Value Never Fails~

Link to comment

Calling "Rico and the Fiddler" and "Husqui":

 

We are the closest "cachers" to this area who seem to be concerned with this problem. Both of you have expressed some very valid points. I agree with everything that has been posted.

I believe there has been some misinterpretation posted in the article and the Rangers need to be reassured by the people who have experienced this area that it was not caused by them. Should we get together and do something? It is not only O'Neill, but Aliso Woods and other local areas that are experiencing this problem.

Personally, I have been an outdoor enthusiast all of my life. In the time that I have lived in this area, it was my goal to learn its history. In the process of learning we felt priviledged to able to explore the wonderful surrounding area that sits right out our backdoor. My children were taught at an early age to stop and enjoy while you can, without disturbing or destructing and to respect, because what is here now and has been here for generations may not be here for future generations.

I am very new to this game, but have always been an explorer. This game has given my teenage son and I a new opportunity to have fun, bond, explore, learn, and most of all respect. I do not want to see this banned.

If any of our local geocachers would like to organize a "get together" and approach the O'Neill rangers, let me know. I feel very strongly about this issue and feel we are being singled out, for I know of several other activities in this area that cause much more damage than geocaching.

 

Let me know....

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by White Rabbit:

4000 caches in California?? Wonder where she got that number. When I pull up the wonderful state of California, it only shows 2820. Nothing like a little exaggeration to make your point.


 

And I wonder how many of them are virtual?

Link to comment

Now with an introductory headline like that, what chance does he have?

 

"Sooner or later, some people are going to have to decide what they value more, caching in some form, or standing on principle about their God given right to do what they #@$% well please on "our" public land."

 

 

Who are these people? Who are the geocachers demanding to do "what they #@$% well please"? Most of us are HIKERS who both want to use and protect OUR land that we all share. Geocaching is harmonious with the stated purpose of most public land areas, which includes passive recreational use. We're not carving coordinates into trees, stomping on piping plover nests and tossing cigarette butts around. Some of the parks I've gone caching in are parks that I've hiked in for years- only this time I walked across some hemlock needles for thirty feet and peeked under a log for a cache. Allowing public land managers to exclude us without a public review of their policies and acquiescing to them running OUR lands like their own fiefdoms (like they apparently do in MN) is not okay by me. (I am NOT referring to the ranger in the OCCR article- she seems open to working with the cache placers...)

 

Husqui raises some very interesting information about the accuracy of the information contained in the OCCR article.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by The Geo Chasers:

Are you ready?

 

Calling "Rico and the Fiddler" and "Husqui"

 


 

Geo Chaser,

 

I will attempt to contact the O'Neill Park rangers today (assuming nobody else has done so already). I do not profess to speak for all geocachers in our area but I want to at least make contact with them right away.

 

I will let you know the results of my initial conversation (will email you my contact info sometime this morning) and then maybe a couple of us can have an initial meeting with them.

 

From there, maybe we can get together cachers in our area, designate volunteers/representatives, and work closely with these different land managers to see what "rules and regulations" they may have, express our opinions, and hopefully come up with guidelines that will work out in the interests of both parties.

 

Mind you, I don't think we will be dealing with just one organization; in fact, I prefer that we deal with individual parks, etc. on a one-on-one basis rather than try to get a county-wide policy enforced (I can only imagine the bureaucracy that could come out of such a move).

 

Eventually, what I'd like to see is something like a simple website that shows specific do's and don'ts for placing caches in different public lands around our area, maps (so we know at least where such sensitive public lands might be) general guidelines, and contact information for these different public land management teams.

 

Communication is the first step. I've always believed in that though at times I do avoid it. Now if only I can get my dogs to listen to me....

Link to comment

I posted this response to the "Let's all stop geocaching - it's the right thing to do" post. since it applies here as well, here it is:

 

I am stunned. My idealism is faltering. I cannot believe people with a hobby that promotes "Cache in, Trash out" could be like that. Whatever happened to simple common sense? I might expect that from some low IQ yahoos but not from anybody who can figure out how to operate a GPSr. (Apologies to regular IQ yahoos, Low IQ non-yahoos, and people who drink Yahoo. (Shake, it’s great!))

 

My two caches and my son’s one cache are on land that I couldn’t begin to guess who owns. None of them get enough visitors that nature can’t recover before the next visitor.

 

I understand the frustration the rhetorical question presents. I refuse to “dumb down” my caches. I refuse to attempt to create “environmentally perfect” caches because it simply doesn’t apply to where I hide them. I refuse to accept BS from a low level slack jawed park employee who would have us believe he/she “owns” the park.

 

So what do we do, give up like the post suggests? Should we get some of the “holier than thou” cachers to make up some more rules for us?

 

Giving up is not a viable option for me. I enjoy the hobby too much.

More rules will only create fertile ground for the obstinate among us (who me?!) and we’ll end up with a fractured organization. Then there’ll be an underground version of the game which will only further divide us.

 

IMHO: Relax a bit. If we learned nothing from the Clinton administration, we learned that even the most severe storms blow over. Bad press will too. Keep right on navigating the good course; keep the VMG as close to the actual speed as possible. Reprimand the idiots both in the forums and in the field. WE know the good we do. Like all good it will prove self evident.

 

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

What is the price of experience, do men buy it for a song,

Or wisdom for a dance in the street.................

Link to comment

I called O'Neill park today and asked for ranger Calli. She's wasn't in but apparently only works weekends and on Monday and Tuesday nights. I left my number and will follow-up with her regardless.

 

A couple of interesting side notes though... the ranger I spoke with didn't even realize that the article was out (though she did speak with the author a week or so ago). She did not even seem to know much about geocaching or what the issue was about. I asked her a couple of times if should speak to somebody else about this and she said that I probably should talk to Calli since she was the one interviewed (I did not get the impression that Calli is a high-ranking ranger but rather that she spent a lot of time out in the trenches, so to speak). She did not even know that there were caches confiscated in O'Neill Park. She did say that it was nice of us to call to try and clear the air.

 

Bottomline: My impression is that there are no hard and fast rules. It seems that it is left up to the discretion of the individual park ranger. That could be a good thing or a bad thing, though I think we have better chances for open dialogue this way.

 

Maybe this isn't a big deal after all. Maybe, as Criminal stated, we should just let the whole thing blow over. I, for one, still like the idea of not being bound by too many rules and policing ourselves within the boundaries of common sense and moderation.

Link to comment

quote:
It's not "their" land, it's ours. If we want Geocaching bad enough, it'll become mainstream and accepted as the norm.

 


 

Before I begin

I am not for the closing of Public land to caching or the subsquent removal of caches by authorties without notice.

 

BUT

 

I am so sick of that line.

 

Yes It is OUR land.

Yes we all pay taxes to have THEM maintain it.

No we should not let THEM dictate our lives

 

But it is also Our forefathers land and our children's children's land. and dispite what you might think or feel, only a very small handful of us give a hoot what happens to it. Most folks just go where ever by whatever means the see fit and do whatever with no regard for the surronding or future generations.

There are, what 200 million people in the US?

and there's what, 100 thousand Geocachers (minus sock puppets and trolls). that doesn't make 1% of th populace. and how many of us HONESTLY (not counting those here that say they do) Trash OUT!

Heck, I get discouraged when I see the mas of trash in some of our forest preserves. but I still try to remove at least a bag of it every time. But I have to Kick my brother, who caches with me, to do it.

 

And so we use OUR tax dollars to help THEM do what most of us will not; Preserve the land for generations to come so my great grand kids can Geocache. So until you can get everyone to packout what they pack in we will need THEM to help maintain OUR lands

 

As for Geocaching to going mainstream, I will need a defention for mainstream. With so much media coverage and so many memebers. not to mention some 20000+ caches avaible aren't we alreay there?

 

 

Cache On!!

 

James

"Big Dog"

-Clan Ferguson

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Criminal:

....Then there’ll be an underground version of the game which will only further divide us.


 

The problem is, that in order for GeoCaching to be a great game - I think it has to always remain "above ground" - how else can you get 1000's of caches hidden - with their locations communicated to a 100,000 players - couldn't work if it were "underground".

 

Criminal, if you have any really good ideas for an "underground" version of the Geocaching, I honestly would like to hear them (I might even like to play it!) I don't want to divert this thread - so maybe you could start a new thread explaining your "underground version" idea to see what we think.

 

You may not agree with what I say, but I will defend, to your death, my right to say it!(it's a Joke, OK!)

Link to comment

Clan Ferguson, I think you demonstrated one of the most important aspects of it being OUR land- you take responsibility and have pride of ownership. Because it is OURS and we will pass it on to future generations, we care what happens to it. Sure, there are some knuckleheads that abuse public lands, just like there are knuckleheads that abuse everything else on earth. And yes, WE pay THEM to be caretakers telling the knuckleheads to put out fires and leave their machetes in the car. I think MOST people who bother to go visit natural areas DO care about their condition. It's when people have no pride of ownership and no future stake in things that they especially abuse them (as in the cliche "beat him like a rented mule...") A quick way to degrade pride of ownership is to start banning reasonable, responsible activities like geocaching and kite flying and to scold park visitors rather than enlighten them.

Part of it being OUR land is that we have the right to debate DEMOCRATICALLY what policies are best to allow us to all use it in a sustainable manner. Geocaching fits into the scope of outdoor recreation that many areas are in part intended for, and land managers should not be excluding geocaching.

Link to comment

_______________________________________

Can this game be played underground?

_______________________________________

 

No, sorry, no great ideas for an underground version. I really don’t want that anyway. Here’s how I see it happening though.

 

1. The combination of bad and misinformed press (pressure from without) and

2. The desire by some to impose their standard on the rest of us in regards to environmental issues, hazards, and other aspects like cache containers through new rules. (Pressure from within.)

causes the popularity to fall off. The admin element begins to disapprove caches placed in city parks, wilderness areas, etc. based on someone’s (?) perception of proper and improper containers, placements, etc and popularity drops off further. Some cachers who are revolted by the idea of “presumed authority” (from park managers and the like) create a bootleg site and hide caches without regulation, no longer using their real names, and geocache only on the sly. The legitimate site is now purely “vanilla” and the caches are only placed on private property (not to be confused with “primate property”) by the property owner in biodegradable, non- edible, unthreatening, crystal clear, and accurately labeled containers approved and purchased though the site. They will be required to be reachable by wheelchair and must beep when activated by remote to make them blind accessible. Woof-poof the good times are over, (you’re not going to camo up your kids to find a bootleg cache right?).

 

Do I want this? Hell no! Is this realistic? You decide.

 

You want a new thread, OK, I’ll post this to a new thread and see what happens.

 

BTW Seneca, how many hours do you have in that thing? (5600+ in StarLifters for me)

 

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

What is the price of experience, do men buy it for a song,

Or wisdom for a dance in the street.................

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Team Screamapillar:

It's when people have no pride of ownership and no future stake in things that they especially abuse them (as in the cliche "beat him like a rented mule...") A quick way to degrade pride of ownership is to start banning reasonable, responsible activities like geocaching and kite flying and to scold park visitors rather than enlighten them.


 

I think the key term is responsible activities like geocaching

 

You are of course assuming EVERYONE (100% of all) who geocache are actually responsible as much as thoese of us who here give it eaqual lip service. or for that matter aren't just knuckleheads with a GPS unit.

Who says ALL geocachers are responsible?

If we make up less then one percent of the population. then by logic isn't safe to assume less then 1% of us actually care enough to Trash out! and other Earth first ideals? Just because we all share an intrest in geocaching doesn't mean we necessarly share an intrest in the nature portion of it. Some are here for the technology. some are here for the novilty. some are here for the trolling.(yes that was sarcasim)

 

It only takes a few bad abpples to spoil the barrel, as the saying goes. Only here(geocaching.com) do we have no ability to weed out those bad apples. so we must unfortunely leave to THEM to try and do.

 

I agree we should take a stand and have a say in what the THEM say we can do. What I Have a problem with is people thinking that geocaching is being singled out and that as a geocacher and a tax payer you can do whatever you please on YOUR land and THEY can't say otherwise.

 

THEY get to make the decisions in the Short term it is up to US to enlighten them for the LONG term, which ,sad to say, takes longer to take affect then it does for them to implement policy.

 

Thank you

 

Cache On!!

 

James

"Big Dog"

-Clan Ferguson

Link to comment

We had two caches removed, and spoke via email and in person with the Whiting Ranch Wilderness Park rangers (Jennifer & Ron). They also emailed us a list of rules they were creating, and asked for our input. We reviewed their rules-list and added a few things, which they told us they liked and would incorporate into the final draft. The following is the result:

 

Whiting Ranch Wilderness Park

Geocaching Rules

 

1. Park ranger must approve of all geocache sites before placement and a permit must be issued. There is no charge for the permit.

2. All geocache sites must be placed within 3 feet of an authorized trail.

3. Geocache cannot be buried or located in a water body or in/on any sandstone formation.

4. Cutting or modifying vegetation is prohibited.

5. Modification of geographical formations and creation of cairns is prohibited.

6. Altering park signs, fences, posts, trails, trail markers, and kiosks is prohibited.

7. General park rules, available from the park office, and rules regarding geocaching must be kept within the cache, as well as on the geocaching webpage, along with the park-issued permit number.

8. Cache must not be placed in potentially harmful areas-e.g. poison oak, edge of drop-off, etc.

9. Cache must not interfere with wildlife or other park users.

10. Cache must not contain inappropriate materials, including food items.

11. Cache must be in a secure, weather proof container.

12. No climbing (rock features, trees) or digging.

 

Please geocache responsibly!

Whiting Ranch

(949) 589-4729

 

We are very conscientious about the impact our caches may make on the surrounding environment, and didn't even realize these two caches were actually inside park boundaries, as one was in a grassy meadow along an urban bikeway parallel to a major highway (GC34D9). The other (GC3348) was by a vacant field accessed from a neighborhood cul-de-sac and was well-used by the local neighborhood kids for BMX riding and the adults for walking their dogs (But it also just happened to be a back service road into the park). Due to this experience, we decided not to place any more caches in or near any ''official'' nature parks.

We must say, the rangers we spoke with were very friendly, and even apologetic about removing the caches. They really wanted to work with geocachers to place ''approved'' caches in the park. But the whole approval thing was too much for us, and we decided to just not go there.

We'd like to add that these OC parks (Whiting Ranch, Aliso Woods, Peter's Canyon, Irvine Regional, etc.), are hyper-sensitive to public use---They all close down to the public for 24-48 hours after any rain, even just a ground-damping amount, to ''prevent soil errosion from foot traffic''. We fully believe in conservation and land management, but there are extremes at both ends of this subject. And sometimes it comes across as ''us against them'' with no middle path.

It's funny that Whiting Ranch was once a cattle ranch, and most of the trails there now were created by the cattle and ranch-hands roaming there for over a century. And it's all still there and very beautiful. But now, according to the authorities involved, people are very dangerous to this ''fragile'' land and it will all be destroyed if we stray off the official paths or visit it too much. We disagree. But they have the authority and the power. And we will abide by it.

What it comes down to is that some people will abuse the land and not care, others will be overly protective and point fingers and get laws passed, and the ones in the middle (the vast majority) who tread lightly, pickup a bit of trash here and there, and generally are respectful of their surroundings, get the short end of the straw as a result. When hiking in the wilderness is outlawed, only outlaws will hike in the wilderness...

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...