Geocaching, Conservation, and related topics

5.9k · July 28, 2003

This is rehashed over and over. I do so get weary of the BS from the treehuggers.

Here’s the Criminal theory of conservation:

Plants and animals populate the earth. Animals eat plants and animals eat animals. To get to the plant or animal that needs eating, the predator must walk to where the prey is, or wait until the prey walks to by of its own accord. Walking creates paths through the less desirable plants and this is considered quite normal. Nobody faults the elk when he trods upon a sapling to get to some tasty ferns, or do they fault him for eating the fern itself. Likewise, nobody faults the bear when she defecates upon a struggling acorn, or when she uses a fuzzy bunny to wipe away any excess waste material clinging precariously to her hindquarters. We all consider this to be normal and even beautiful because it happens that nature in all its glory is thusly beautiful. Such is the way that God made it. (Or if you choose, evolution. That aspect is moot for the sake of this particular argument.) We can find the splendor in “game trails” because such a splendid animal made it. But what do we say of man and the trails created by him? Is not man an animal? Is he not the most splendid of the animals? His Creator granted him inalienable rights, and he recorded these rights for all, plant and animal, to see and pay heed upon. No plant or animal has matched this magnificence. Their rights, if any, are only the product of man’s grace, as they are not recoded for him. We can thusly only speculate on what their rights are, even the right to continue to be lively itself. I am of the belief that most plants and animals have the immensely important right to be tasty. Any animal or plant that comes within my (or your) realm continues to exist only because of the grace I (or you) bestow thereon. And gracious we are indeed.

I see no distinction between “natural” and “manmade”, for both are animal and both are natural. Should a member of the superior breed of animal choose to impute guilt upon themselves, for reasons of appearing even more superior or otherwise, what does it matter to me? It matters not. I will live and breathe and have my being, granting my grace to the inferior creatures as I see fit to do, the self loathing of those who would like to consider me and themselves inferior notwithstanding. The remorse felt by another for wrongs, real or imagined, are not mine. I will, therefore, feel no related regret. I am flesh and bones, precisely as the elk or bear. Quite the same even as the fuzzy and odiferous bunny. I may step around, upon, or even eat any plant or inferior animal that becomes an obstacle during my natural endeavors. I will not accept the argument of the self-loathers, nor will I accept their judgments.

Criminal has spoken this; you’d do well to listen.

http://fp1.centurytel.net/Criminal_Page/

9.4k · July 28, 2003

quote:
I am of the belief that most plants and animals have the immensely important right to be tasty.

We should all join PETA:

People

Eating

Tasty

Animals

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

3.8k · July 28, 2003

There is a very good book on this subject: Ishmail by Daniel Quinn. It would behoove a lot of folks in these forums to read it. (Also available on audio tape.)

(I voted "...some similarity...")

==============="If it feels good...do it"================

**(the other 9 out of 10 voices in my head say: "Don't do it.")**

.

1.3k · July 29, 2003

I couldn't help but agree. Man is as natural as any other organic thing on this planet. Ever watch films of gorillas moving about in the wild? When they thrash about in the vegetation, they "Aerate the soil" but when humans do it, we "crush the lichens". Interesting.

"Chock full of essential vitamins and waypoints"

38.2k · July 29, 2003

The deer around here are so numerous that they've browsed the entire understory of many wooded areas. There is no next generation of trees to take over.

Relatively speaking, a few people prancing through the woods with a GPS is quite harmless.

"Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll sit in a boat and drink beer all day" - Dave Barry

1.2k · July 29, 2003

Well, while there was no selection for "All of the Above" I went ahead and selected I agree, mainly because I do... so it works out well.

On the other hand, I do not mind trying to be careful to not cause undue damage when I am out. I don't mind picking up my own trash (and usually, quite a bit of that left by others as well, sigh), I don't mind staying on the trails, or not bothering the little woodland creatures, etc, etc, etc. What I do mind is being lumped in with the outdoors buffoons who do not care about any of that and do their best to mess things up as thoroughly as possible. That isn't me, it isn't most people I know, but you'd think we are all environmental A-bombs when you listen to the enviro-nazis (hehehe, had to throw that in so the "internet discussion theories wouldn't be off). If you want to hug trees, more power to ya, but just because you feel noble and have these serious thoughts every once in a while (whenever the dope wears off) does not mean you are right, or correct, or whatever term you wish to use. Things are NOT as bad as they are being made out to be, lands and wilderness areas are not being trashed at an exponential rate, people are MUCH more aware than they used to be about proper use of wilderness, and I'm proud to be a part of all that. Is there still work to be done, sure, no doubt, but get a grip.

The sky is NOT falling Chicken Little. Good job Criminal.

"Trade up, trade even, or don't trade!!!" My philosophy of life.

July 29, 2003

While I agree with criminal on the so-called "animal rights" issue, true conservation ethic has it's roots in the self-interest of man. It is counterproductive for man to destroy needlessly. To that degree, I am a conservationist. When conservation takes on religious or even moral overtones, I step away...

"...clear as mud?"

1.1k · July 29, 2003

I must be tired still.

I read and understood the whole statement.

It also made sense.

That must be why I checked the first little fuzzy button.

But I do want to get that bear/Bunny act on film. Heck, It could be worth $10,000.00 or $100,000.00 on National T.V.!

logscaler.

"It is not fair to have a battle of wits with unarmed people."

July 29, 2003

When reading about or dealing with the Environmentalists or other Green types I keep in mind that the Environmental movement has become a refuge for the former Communists and other anti-capitalists since the fall of the Soviet Bloc.

From the cover of the woods, they can attack capitalists not on ideological or revolutionary terms but on environmental terms and still keep the same objective, the destruction of American capitalism.

We'll pause while you mull that over.

Mickey

Max Entropy

More than just a name, a lifestyle.

5.9k · July 29, 2003

quote:
And gracious we are indeed.

I want to clarify a part of my diatribe that was somewhat understated. I really do believe in conservation. I am not a proponent of stomping everything flat while finding or hiding a geocache. I spent the weekend camping at the upper south fork Skokomish River in the Olympic National Forest. The awesome beauty of the forest there is unlike any I’ve seen anywhere in the world. We saw “feeder” trees, deer, giant slugs, some sort of duck-looking birds, and more. I have a picture of TroubleChild standing next to a tree that is wider than he is tall. I am very much in favor of keeping areas such as this in as pristine condition as possible.

Keeping in mind, though, that pristine forests that do not allow man to use and appreciate it might as well be logged. What I dislike the most is the idea that by hiking therein, I am somehow destroying the forest. We put our tent down on some plants and they were flattened by it. So what? They will spring back or they won’t.

Similarly, I dislike those that think they “know better” than I (or you) about conservation, and try to impose their ideas on me (or you). I like to believe that most of us, especially geocachers, have enough common sense to avoid needless trampling and plant murder. Please don’t “what if” by mentioning the few who will geocache with a bush bladed weedeater. I know such people exist, in this as well as other outdoor endeavors. They and their impact are minimal.

And in my opinion, the whole “black-eye” concept is a load of crap. There are good and bad people in every sport.

http://fp1.centurytel.net/Criminal_Page/

July 29, 2003

I agree with you Criminal and I voted as such.

I have to admit that I'm still chewing on what MaxEnthropy wrote.

OG

Prophetically Challenged (or is that Pathetically?)

1.3k · July 29, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by MaxEntropy:
When reading about or dealing with the Environmentalists or other Green types I keep in mind that the Environmental movement has become a refuge for the former Communists and other anti-capitalists since the fall of the Soviet Bloc.

From the cover of the woods, they can attack capitalists not on ideological or revolutionary terms but on environmental terms and still keep the same objective, the destruction of American capitalism.

We'll pause while you mull that over.

It is sad that the fringe of the conservation movment of the early 20th century became the mainstream of the environmental movment of the late 20th/early 21st century. It has alienated many people that would get behind conservation efforts if not for the constant preaching and unreasonable demands you often get from that camp.

My hero Teddy Roosevelt (hence Bull Moose) set aside huge portions of land (including the Olympic NF and NP), but intended for the public to use them and their resources one way or another.

Criminal is right, if we don't use and show interest in lands for recreation, etc. someone else will use the resources on the lands. I think geocaching is a great use of these places that were set aside for us to use.

July 29, 2003

Since the title of your thread had the words "and related topics" , I decided to point people here.

When you see what mother nature can do to herself, it puts our little footprints and occasional fern moving into perspective.

OG

Prophetically Challenged (or is that Pathetically?)

July 29, 2003

"I find only some similarity to that spoken by Criminal within myself"

Why?

It's somewhat of a fallacy to think that what we do, or do not do, has no impact on what surrounds us, and ultimately ourselves.

If we endlessly pollute our air, we will eventually cause plants and animals to dies, weakening our eco system, and eventually doing some serious harm to ourselves. No doubt, no matter what we do, something will survive, but we won't. This is somewhat of an extreme, and something that we won't experience in our grandchildren's lifetimes, let alone our own.

It's all about personal survival - have respect for the things around us, because otherwise it will come round to bite us on the ***.

I eat meat. I like the way it tastes, but prefer the taste when it has been raised on Organic food and in an open environment, rather than cooped up in boxes or warehouses.

However - things are often taken to extremes. Why, for example, should we not play on the grass?

Why should I not ride my mountain bike in the forest? - Actually, this is something that really gets my goat, as no one has ever explained this to me. Any offers?

------

An it harm none, do what ye will

5.9k · July 29, 2003

quote:
It's somewhat of a fallacy to think that what we do, or do not do, has no impact on what surrounds us, and ultimately ourselves.

I said that?

http://fp1.centurytel.net/Criminal_Page/

July 29, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Criminal:

quote:
It's somewhat of a fallacy to think that what we do, or do not do, has no impact on what surrounds us, and ultimately ourselves.

I said that?

No, and I didn't mean to attribute it to you.

Actually, now I've reread your first post, I actually think I may fully agree with what you say, rather than only partially. I think I read your original post as more black/white than it really is. My bad.

------

An it harm none, do what ye will

1.6k · July 29, 2003

What really nags at me is that some ecology is pristine and must be protected from man (or atleast other men), while other areas are pretty much just trampled over. Some activities are cool and allowed even though they do tangible damage and others where the popularity is smaller get slammed. Its like these ecofascists want to pick the easiest targets to abuse simply to make themselves seem powerful.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nebraskache/

July 29, 2003

The animals are fighing back! My most recent Mt Bike ride included me being nearly broadsided by a doe not once, but TWICE!

This space for rent

24.7k · July 29, 2003

When I was a kid I would throw rocks in the river. My parents would say "It took a million years for that rock to get there!" and I would feel guilty for having commited a crime against nature.

Then one day it occured that it took a million years and two seconds for that rock to get back into the river and life was good again.

Now people are telling me it takes a billion years to evolve anything. So after thinking about this it occured to me that if evolution is real it's happening right now. So now I look around for those lucky moments of evolution that might happen under my very eyes. Alas the closest I've ever been to witnessing one of them magic moments was when I came upon a parked car all fogged up this winter that was rocking back and forth. That was evolution. Then I picked up a rock and threw it so it made a real loud noise. The car stopped rocking and I'm pretty sure that evolution stopped too. I suspect they would find another place for evolution to happen at You can't stop a force of nature. Man is a force of nature.

Either way I'll toss my vote in with Criminal.

1.1k · July 29, 2003

Myself, I used to do a lot of highlead logging as well as some cat yarding. I cut a lot of trees down.

I sent a lot of trees to be houses and such.

I plowed a lot of brush under and ripped out a lot of saplings.

More than likely, I buried a lot of critters deep under ground, never to see the light of day again.

Do I regret it? No.

Would I do it again? Yes.

Why? Because I think that I did more good then harm.

I can go back through those stands of trees where I took out logs and see acres and acres of forage for Deer, Elk, Bear, Mountain Beavers, Bobcat, Cougars, Mice, Owls, etcetc.

What I do not find are the skid roads - they are are overgrown and teaming with brush, saplings, and life.

When we where taking out those trees, there where animal trails through the stands. Going to and from bedding areas, water and forage. No beds. No critters staying over. No sheds. No bones. Just trails.

Now, there are beds, sheds, bones and life from the top of the stands to the bottom, including moles, voles, bugs and worms.

Western Juniper trees use about 32 gallons of water a day, for a 10 inch diameter tree. They drop a lot of needles and berries. Very acidic and stops just about everything else from growing under them. Now, ranchers are taking out thousands of trees and clearing thousands of acres. Why? Because with the supression of fire, those trees are outside of their natural growing cycle. They are takin over everything. After the trees are ripped out, the water flow instream has came back to it's normal flow, therefore increasing the chance for the water critters to come back to where they used to be.

Anyway, If anyone thinks that they will be able to locate any damage I did in 10,000 years, they can use time travel and come back and chat with me about it.

Until that time, I think I will just keep strolling through life as I see it in the here and now.

logscaler.

"It is not fair to have a battle of wits with unarmed people."

2.3k · July 29, 2003

The same people that scream "Wildlife refuge! Save the plants!" will sell their land to housing developers for the $$. GUARANTEED.

The hypocrisy runs deep.

July 29, 2003

When I use to hunt with my brothers (don't anymore, sort of lost interest) in the "thumb" area of Mi, the locals, mostly farmers, would get downright mad if everyone didn't tag a deer! They call them "rats with hooves". I guess they eat and wreak havoc on the farmer’s crops, not to mention what they do to autos due to accidents! We own the cities and the animals own the woods. They have the right to be there also. I'm sort of sitting on the fence on this one...

July 29, 2003

MaxEntropy's claim is well documented. That the environmental industry is dominated by the refugees from the defunct 'world peace' (AKA communism) movement is not in dispute. This is not to tar brush all who claim to be environmentalists, but the headlines are being grabbed by the eco-froot loops of the lunatic fringe. If the environmental industry is to regain credibility they must openly condemn the radical elements, not just distance themselves from it.

Just visit the web pages of the wildands project, earth first, Michael Vandeman, et al, and you will agree there are some bizzare and scary philosophies floating through the enviro movement.

===========================================================

"The time has come" the Walrus said "to speak of many things; of shoes and ships and sealing wax, of cabbages and Kings".

July 29, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:
The deer around here are so numerous that they've browsed the entire understory of many wooded areas. There is no next generation of trees to take over.

Relatively speaking, a few people prancing through the woods with a GPS is quite harmless.

_"Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll sit in a boat and drink beer all day" - Dave Barry_

It's all in the quantity. We had a similar deer situation here in Indiana at Brown County State Park. The deer had eaten everything in the place (or very nearly). They had become, because of their sheer numbers, an enviromental disaster. Since then, the park, and others, has been opened to hunting pressure. Several hundred deer have been killed in that one park alone. We can't do that with people, though, so when the use gets too high in an area, certain regulations and practices become neccessary.

I've seen popular caches near population centers where seekers have made a real mess. Too many people. On the other hand there are caches in more remote locations that only get a dozen finds in a year. I don't think there's a lot a seeker could do (short of starting a fire) that would be noticable to the next cacher. There just isn't that much traffic.

As far as the poll goes, I had a hard time picking between the last two. But I know Criminal to be a stand-up guy, so I went with sleep-deprived.

Keep on caching,but remember to wake up before you leave the house,

Bluespreacher

"We've got the hardware and the software, the plans and the maps ..." -- Citizen Wayne Kramer

July 29, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Knight:
When I was a kid I would throw rocks in the river. My parents would say "It took a million years for that rock to get there!" and I would feel guilty for having commited a crime against nature.

Then one day it occured that it took a million years and two seconds for that rock to get back into the river and life was good again.

Now people are telling me it takes a billion years to evolve anything. So after thinking about this it occured to me that if evolution is real it's happening right now. So now I look around for those lucky moments of evolution that might happen under my very eyes. Alas the closest I've ever been to witnessing one of them magic moments was when I came upon a parked car all fogged up this winter that was rocking back and forth. That was evolution. Then I picked up a rock and threw it so it made a real loud noise. The car stopped rocking and I'm pretty sure that evolution stopped too. I suspect they would find another place for evolution to happen at You can't stop a force of nature. Man is a force of nature.

Either way I'll toss my vote in with Criminal.

Hehe...you said "...commited a crime against nature." Heh...hmm...uhhh....

"...clear as mud?"

6.5k · July 29, 2003

From Emerson, Lake, and Palmer: Karn Evil 9

quote:
Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends
We`re so glad you could attend

Come inside! Come inside!

There behind a glass is a real blade of grass.

Move along! Move along!

Come inside, the show`s about to start

guaranteed to blow your head apart

Rest assured you`ll get your money`s worth

The greatest show in Heaven, Hell or Earth.

You`ve got to see the show, it`s a dynamo.

You`ve got to see the show, it`s rock and roll

Criminal I AGREE! Where do I sign the petition.

Oh yeah, get some sleep pal. PS The rat is loose.

These changes in latitudes, changes in attitudes;

Nothing remains quite the same.

Through all of the islands and all of the highlands,

If we couldn't laugh we would all go insane

July 29, 2003

Um, the only difference is too many humans in too small a place with tools to destroy more than our fair share!

We moved beyond the natural balance when we started cultivating and killing animals for sport (which I condone by the way).

But we DO have to manage ourselves. To do anything less is pointless, irresponsible and causes huge problems for our offspring.

So, I manage myself.

Enjoy,

Randy

PS: Didn't vote as there wasn't an option of partial agreement and partial dissagreement.

PPS: On Logscaler's comment, but nature only rebounds when left alone...that very example proves that!

July 30, 2003

Okay, head in the noose time...

quote:
Originally posted by logscaler:

Anyway, If anyone thinks that they will be able to locate any damage I did in 10,000 years, they can use time travel and come back and chat with me about it.

Until that time, I think I will just keep strolling through life as I see it in the here and now.

logscaler.

Logscaler, I'm not excessively concerned with what your efforts look like in 10,000 years. I'm interested in the 'here and now', as you say, and in the next few generations.

I've got no problem with properly managed timber harvesting, but too often man has failed both historically and today. It shouldn't be too difficult to understand why destroying (as opposed to using) resources is a bad idea in the long run.

To bring this back to geocaching, there's another thread that's more or less current, about lame caches. One common opinion is that caches in trashy, unappealing locations are often viewed as being lame.

Why are folks heading into the woods to hunt caches, after all? Is it just because you can more easily hide or find larger containers? Or is there something actually of value to the location itself? Does this question really need answered?

So, if we as geocachers enjoy these natural places, why do some folks get so upset at the suggestion that we should then take care of them? Not so that they are pretty in 10,000 years, but so they are still worth visiting next month, and next year, and in ten years.

Ron/yumitori

---

Remember what the dormouse said...

20.7k · July 30, 2003

I haven't kept up with this thread for a couple of days. Just looking at a few posts, it seems to me that it has turned into the same rehashing that all of the 'don't leave the trail' threads had become. Is this the case, or should I read more?

Geocaching, Conservation, and related topics

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation