Bushwhacking!!!

[+opey one]

In relation to rubbertoe's thread---Theft-- the inevitable death of a geocache---sparked this topic... (Sorry , toe, but I felt this one needed a heading, too)

 

Bushwhacking is common in a lot of caches that I've visited (luckily, the same handful of cachers usually find and hide caches in my area-they are good at the "cover up". They do not take quick routes and they do follow the rules, so to say). And I have great respect for all the ones who hide and find here. I have a great community of cachers in my area!!

 

But, I have seen, where novice cachers, first finders and such, completely tear through the area like a tornado, find the cache, and tear back out again- with no regard of what a humongous path they've worn, maybe not knowing any better. This leads to the demise of non geocachers spotting an obvious "Let's go see what went up that trail" kind of situation. There's where the teenage plunderers (I don't want any riff on teenage plunderers, I was one too, probably would've done the same) "Hey guys!! Let's trash the cache!!!! Cool!!

 

It's okay to come in a different route than the blessed arrow points you, but be aware and discreet, constantly remembering what the reaction of the cache hider would be if you knew you were the one who invited those "evil ones" to the cache.

 

I've used the term "bushwhacking" in a thread or two, saying I did so, but there's a fine line between bushwhacking and reaking havoc. A good geocacher can bushwhack anytime he/she wants. It's the obvious that we can rule out.

[Rubbertoe]

http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/11396_1000.jpg

 

I have a feeling that a small percentage of geocachers don't really care about the cache owner, or any possible geocachers that come after them. They will do what it takes to add to their totals, even if it means tearing a path through a roped off section of endangered toebushes.

 

Not only do I not care for bushwhacking due to the damage to the immediate area - but it also makes the location of the hiding spot far too obvious, for geocachers and the general public alike.

 

- Toe.

 

--==< Rubbertoe's Webcam, Photo Albums, and Homepage >==--

[+brdad]

quote:

---

I've used the term "bushwhacking" in a thread or two, saying I did so, but there's a fine line between bushwhacking and reaking havoc. A good geocacher can bushwhack anytime he/she wants. It's the obvious that we can rule out.

---

 

I've often wondered the meaning of the term bushwhacking here.

 

My pre-caching definition of the word meant to create an obvious trail by clearing brush and branches and any other debris. I am guilty of this myself creating ATV trails or even walking trails to a stream or a fishing spot on the shore of a lake.

 

But in these forums "bushwhacking" appears to be used often for not using the same trail as the cache placer intended. There must be another word for this than bushwhacking?

 

In the interest of maintaining a caches find difficulty (either cachers or non-cachers), I agree with not bushwhacking by my terms.

 

But I do not see where using a different trail than intended is always a bad thing. Obviously, it could be bad if everyone started using that same trail.

 

I often wonder if it is even a cacher that makes some of the "bushwhacking" evidence that is descibed here. No doubt a lot of the time it is. But animals can give the appearance as well, their curiosity will often make then walk in the scent of tracks left being other animals and humans.

 

Someday I hope to visit other states & caches to better understand why this is such an issue. Do hunters in these other states follow a trail or do they "walk the woods" as we do here?

 

I think your problem is low self-esteem. It is very common among losers.

[+opey one]

For brdad: Now this topic is intended for geocaching only... We need to be discreet.....For hunting and fishing in this area, more power to the bushwhacking.. If it gets you to your stand quicker or to the great fishing hole... Bushwhacking is sometimes the ONLY way!! Never really considered the aspect of bushwhacking..... until geocaching....

[+opey one]

For brdad: Now this topic is intended for geocaching only... We need to be discreet.....For hunting and fishing in this area, more power to the bushwhacking.. If it gets you to your stand quicker or to the great fishing hole... Bushwhacking is sometimes the ONLY way!! Never really considered the aspect of bushwhacking..... until geocaching....

[+Zartimus]

As long as you don't push a lawnmower to the cache, or lead with a machete I have no probs with bushwacking. Homo Sapiens has every right to walk in the forest along with the animals. But with discression. We tend to leave a mess in our wake. Broken branches and the white of crunched dead logs are a dead giveaway to human activity, and possibly the cache itself. What bugs me more is the odd Coke Can or cigarette pack I find out there deep in the bush. Litterbugs have no class as far as I'm concerned.

[Rubbertoe]

quote:

---

Originally posted by brdad:

My pre-caching definition of the word meant to create an obvious trail by clearing brush and branches and any other debris.

 

But in these forums "bushwhacking" appears to be used often for not using the same trail as the cache placer intended. There must be another word for this than bushwhacking?

---

 

Well, I consider it more like your first definition than the second... when I say "bushwhacking" I mean that someone has created a new trail, by cutting or trampling down the plantlife in the area leading to the cache.

 

I'd guess that 90% of the caches don't require such 'extreme' methods. I only say extreme, because when you CAN get to a cache without whacking down and killing lots of plantlife, bushwhacking does seem a bit extreme to me.

 

In the middle of some woods, in the middle of Nowhere, WA - I can understand a little bushwhacking. But here in central/southern Ohio, I don't really see a great need for it - and besides that, it tends to get the park custodians a bit cheezed off.

 

The benefits of NOT bushwhacking seem obvious to me. It keeps the cache well hidden, no plantlife is damaged without need, no park custodians or rangers are upset, and the cache will be just as difficult for the next guy.

 

- Toe.

 

--==< Rubbertoe's Webcam, Photo Albums, and Homepage >==--

[Rubbertoe]

quote:

---

Originally posted by brdad:

My pre-caching definition of the word meant to create an obvious trail by clearing brush and branches and any other debris.

 

But in these forums "bushwhacking" appears to be used often for not using the same trail as the cache placer intended. There must be another word for this than bushwhacking?

---

 

Well, I consider it more like your first definition than the second... when I say "bushwhacking" I mean that someone has created a new trail, by cutting or trampling down the plantlife in the area leading to the cache.

 

I'd guess that 90% of the caches don't require such 'extreme' methods. I only say extreme, because when you CAN get to a cache without whacking down and killing lots of plantlife, bushwhacking does seem a bit extreme to me.

 

In the middle of some woods, in the middle of Nowhere, WA - I can understand a little bushwhacking. But here in central/southern Ohio, I don't really see a great need for it - and besides that, it tends to get the park custodians a bit cheezed off.

 

The benefits of NOT bushwhacking seem obvious to me. It keeps the cache well hidden, no plantlife is damaged without need, no park custodians or rangers are upset, and the cache will be just as difficult for the next guy.

 

- Toe.

 

--==< Rubbertoe's Webcam, Photo Albums, and Homepage >==--

[Couch_Potato]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rubbertoe:

quote:

---

Originally posted by brdad:

My pre-caching definition of the word meant to create an obvious trail by clearing brush and branches and any other debris.

 

But in these forums "bushwhacking" appears to be used often for not using the same trail as the cache placer intended. There must be another word for this than bushwhacking?

---

 

Well, I consider it more like your first definition than the second... when I say "bushwhacking" I mean that someone has created a new trail, by cutting or trampling down the plantlife in the area leading to the cache.

---

 

Odd, I've always used "bushwacking" as a description of going through areas that have no trail while not creating a trail for others to follow. I have cut trails with machette and chainsaw (in an approved areas of state forest) but don't consider that to be bushwacking. To me the whole concept of bushwacking has nothing to do with any trail, if you're on a trail or creating a trail then it's not bushwacking.

 

I generally try to aviod bushwacking as much as possible when caching, hiking, and mountain biking (especially when mountain biking).

 

I'm not lost!

I just don't know where I am.

[+brdad]

I got curious, so I decided to look it up:

 

quote:

---

Main Entry: bush·whack

Pronunciation: 'bush-"hwak, -"wak

Function: verb

Etymology: back-formation from bushwhacker

Date: 1866

transitive senses : AMBUSH; broadly : to attack suddenly : ASSAULT

intransitive senses : to clear a path through thick woods especially by chopping down bushes and low branches

- bush·whack·er noun]

---

 

So my initial interpretation was correct, but obviously definitions can get "adjustments" with different cultures and time.

 

I'd also agree that opey one's original post, stating "...completely tear through the area like a tornado, find the cache, and tear back out again- with no regard of what a humongous path they've worn..." might also fit that description. But only if the path was created by one person or group of persons.

 

If people, or animals for that matter used the same trail over and over, it would just be the natural making of a trail. There oughta be a word for this too!

 

So we all can agree BUSHWHACKING is not a good way to access a cache. My next question is, how do we know a trail was bushwhacked as opposed to created by numerous visits, and how do we know it was geocachers that did it? I have no doubt sometimes this can be proved, but not sure we always can.

 

I think your problem is low self-esteem. It is very common among losers.

[+briansnat]

Bushwacking to me means simply walking off trail.

Most of my caches require some bushwacking. This doesn't mean I expect a seeker to come in with a machette to cut a trail to the cache. Maybe if it was in the rainforests of Costa Rica it would be OK, but in the US the practice is frowned upon by the authorities and environmentalist.

[+opey one]

O.K. A little hasty on naming the term "bushwhacking".....but you get my drift... How about the "Costa Rica Syndrome"???? Yeah, that's it!!

[+Rebel]

Very few hiders bushwhack to place the cache, so why do it? Patience, you'll find the trail.

 

Trust me.

 

Really.

 

BTW - I've got a used Ford Bronco for sale.

 

-----------

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

 

[This message was edited by Da Rebel on September 18, 2002 at 08:58 PM.]

[+brdad]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Da Rebel:

BTW - I've got a used Ford Bronco for sale.

---

 

I imagine it was only used for bushwhacking by a little old lady on Sundays?

 

I think your problem is low self-esteem. It is very common among losers.

[+brdad]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Da Rebel:

BTW - I've got a used Ford Bronco for sale.

---

 

I imagine it was only used for bushwhacking by a little old lady on Sundays?

 

I think your problem is low self-esteem. It is very common among losers.

[+GypsyMoth]

Originally posted by brdad:

 

If people, or animals for that matter used the same trail over and over, it would just be the natural making of a trail. There oughta be a word for this too!

 

QUOTE]

 

Park rangers call these "social paths" and do not care for them by any name: sociopaths?

 

Judy

 

Just don't let Kirk show you what he affectionately calls the 'Captain's Log'

[+brdad]

quote:

---

Originally posted by GypsyMoth:

Park rangers call these "social paths" and do not care for them by any name: sociopaths?

---

 

Sounds like a good description to me! I've heard it before but wasn't sharp enough to think of it.

 

But now...Do park rangers ban deer from a park for creating social paths?

 

Any time we walk to a cache, which is off the designated trail, using a previously used social path, we are contributing to the growth of that social path. So the only way I see it is, the best way to access a cache is to avoid any social paths, taking a path which no one else has, yet not in a direction that would reqiure us to bushwhack.

 

Agreed?

 

I think your problem is low self-esteem. It is very common among losers.

[+brdad]

quote:

---

Originally posted by GypsyMoth:

Park rangers call these "social paths" and do not care for them by any name: sociopaths?

---

 

Sounds like a good description to me! I've heard it before but wasn't sharp enough to think of it.

 

But now...Do park rangers ban deer from a park for creating social paths?

 

Any time we walk to a cache, which is off the designated trail, using a previously used social path, we are contributing to the growth of that social path. So the only way I see it is, the best way to access a cache is to avoid any social paths, taking a path which no one else has, yet not in a direction that would reqiure us to bushwhack.

 

Agreed?

 

I think your problem is low self-esteem. It is very common among losers.

[+Markwell]

I've also heard of these "new" paths being called volunteer trails.

 

Actually it's kind of disappointing from a hunt perspective to come across a volunteer trail. Tall grass on either side of the trail, except for that path that leads to the fallen tree on the right... Now, I wonder where that cache could be?

 

Markwell

Chicago Geocaching

[Rigour]

There's 100+ kilos of Rigour. Either evolution put him at the top of the chain or God did. Either way, if plants don't wanna get stepped on, they better get outta my way. If they can't, well, too bad for them.

 

You place a cache in a place where I have to whack some bush to get at it, well I'm here to tell you some bush is gonna get whacked. My motto is same as James Earl Jones in the Hunt for Red October: "Make a hole. Make it wide."

 

This is not me saying I go outta my way to trample on flowers or plants. This is me saying that if a tree's braches are between me and where I'm headed, branches can bend or braches can break and I ain't gonna give it any thought at all.

 

Now, trying not to have what I do give away the cache to the next guy, fair enough. But bottom line: you don't want me to trample through the area like the Hulk, don't put the cache there. Heavy is the only way I know how to walk.

[+Planet]

Bush'whack'er n. U.S. One accustomed to beat about or travel through bushes;--applied specific. to certain Confederate guerillas in the Civil War; hence, a guerilla.

 

Let it be known that when I do bushwhack, I never actually whack at the poor darn bushes, I step gingerly and try to avoid crushing any plants, or breaking any branches. I usually aim for a rock to walk on, if there are rocks, so as not to leave a trail. I carry a walking stick (found in the woods each trip) to keep my balance and to push branches out of the way. I don't want it to look like a gorilla went through, let alone a guerilla.

 

Looks like we need a new dictionary in this house.

 

Regarding the socio-paths, we have a nearby 900 acre park that has so many new trails made by mountain bikers that are not blazed, and a friend and I inadvertently walked down one of these one day and next thing we knew we had no clue where we were. It was so worn it looked like one of the intentional paths. We had an hour and a half of daylight left, phone, water and a picnic of sandwiches so we weren't too worried, but we had to keep hiking up and down the steep power line trail until we found a marked path and then we found a passing mountain biker who headed us to the parking area. (No GPS back then.) We called a friend from the phone and said "If we're not outta here by 5:00 please come to the parking area and start honking the horn.

Cache you later,

Planet

 

[This message was edited by Planet on September 19, 2002 at 05:40 AM.]

[+VentureForth]

Why is it that 3 people walking in the same place creates a path, yet I stomp on the same patch of grass on my way into work every day for the last five years, and it's still healthy?

 

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

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

[+Alan2]

quote:

---

Originally posted by VentureForth:

Why is it that 3 people walking in the same place creates a path, yet I stomp on the same patch of grass on my way into work every day for the last five years, and it's still healthy?

 

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

http://www.scubaboard.com/images/smilies/wavey.gif Go! And don't be afraid to get a little wet!

---

 

Aaah? Because you don't live with an environmentalist?

 

Alan

[Islander]

I was a Nat. park ranger for 2 years. People walk off trails all the time, wherever they think they can make a "shortcut" they will, or if a tree goes down and is not removed promptly they will create a new path. The best way to divert humans from walking on the same path (most likely the easiest route) is to through brush and sticks on it making it look like a mess to walk through, works 90% of the time.

 

I have found all my caches by following peoples interferance. The problem is that with todays lugged sole boots it generally only takes a few people to create a noticable "path" to the cache.

 

I found one cache with no gps and I was the first person there, because the hider had scraped off a chunk of bark on a log he had stood on to hide it, dead givaway. Every step you take in the forest where the earth is not trampled, aside from stone will leave a mark. There is nothing we can do about that.

 

Our best bet is to not break branches, try to avoid stepping on decomposing downed trees, or snapping off branches, and scuffing the ground. I know that all sounds crazy but it makes the cache a lot more challenging for the next person to find.

 

As far as the actual ecological damage, there won't be any really. It will grow back in time, the real concern to me is giving away the hiding place of the cache and making it very easy to find.

 

Those of you who are hunters and can track other than on snow know how easy humans are to track. It really only takes one time and you can follow it if you know how. It can make finding a cache pretty easy at times.

[+travisl]

Da Rebel wrote:

quote:

---

Very few hiders bushwhack to place the cache, so why do it? Patience, you'll find the trail.

---

 

I feel like I bushwhack more than I should. Maybe I'm an incompetent geocacher, but after I've searched for half an hour, then decrypted the hint, searched for another half hour... it begins to cross my mind that hmm... maybe the hider is one of the ''very few hiders'' who bushwhacked to place the cache.

 

4 out of 5 fimes, they aren't. But it's always a possibility, so bushwhacking to find the cache always is, too. (Unless it's a 1/1.)

 

"Why don't you just ask somebody?"

"No, no. I've got a map. Don't worry about that."

[river ranger]

... interesting thread. does bring up some points. i see some don't care where or how they walk, they're just gonna trample down the brush on the way to the cache without thought. then they blame the cache owner for putting it there. no, responsible cache hunting doesn't work that way. that's just having plain disregard for natural resources and habitat. step over, not on. step around rather than through.

i cache in a desert environment mostly. this is ALOT more fragile than the woods. out here, 10 cachers looking for the prize makes a trail that will be seen for at least 5 years. i work as a park ranger, that is why we will be asking cachers who place in our parks to show us the sites soon. be responsible, tread light, cache stealthily.

 

having to do what the voices in my GPSr tell me to do...

[Rigour]

I think river ranger is being quite reasonable and responsible in his comments, while I'm being deliberately provocative in mine, but I'll try my point on this another way.

 

I think in anything you do you have to make account for human error and human stupidity. You post co-ordinates to some place and the game is I have to get to that place. Don't kid yourself, there's going to be traffic. It's going to have an impact. You don't know what way people are going to approach your cache in most places.

 

Some of the people are going to be there right after it rains, some of them are going to have dogs with them, some of them are going to have kids. Some of them aren't going to notice the damage they are doing, and some of them really aren't going to care.

 

Now you can bemoan that fact and curse the way things are and couldn't we just all place caches right under spotted owl nests if only people would approach them properly OR you can accept that some people will not have the training, inclination, and/or awareness to do anything other than march right to the cache.

 

So what are your options? For me when I place a cache I try to balance the placement with the impact. If the area is sensitive, I don't place the cache there, I place it a safe distance away or not at all.

Secondly, I add a statement in the description which will provide readers with increased awareness and information. That doesn't solve the inclination problem but it's something anyway.

 

But if you are gonna get bent outta shape because some branches get bent outta shape, then don't bother placing the cache.

 

Some of the finest farmland in North America is buried under highways. Its environmental impact is HUGE. We can try to not deliberately make it worse, but bottom line, if you want a road that transport trucks can rumble through at 110 kmph, you are going to really wreck a lot of habitat. It's called an opportunity cost. Now in a world like that, in world that does a gazillion things to poison itself, there are a lot of things I am prepared to do: recycle, buy carefully, compost in my backyard, put up a solar panel. One thing I am NOT going to sweat about is the damage I do when I walk somewhere. Again, this is not an excuse for trampling deliberately. This is me saying that a bunch of bent branches and a social trail have NO important effect on the future of this planet - at least comparatively.

 

Save your guilt for the next time you buy some overpackaged product or mow your lawn with an engine mower, or do any one of literally a million things you do which are much much worse.

 

[This message was edited by Rigour on September 20, 2002 at 12:10 PM.]

[+Nurse Dave]

I have yet to place my first cache and am very anxious to do so. There are two reasons I haven't placed one yet.

1) Several places that would be "good" for caches have another cache within .2 miles. I think there is no need to oversaturate an area.

2) The latest place I found (even bought an ammo box for) is a walk through tall grasses. I thought to myself that the small trail I followed would be quickly expanded and act like an arrow to the cache and irritate the local neighborhood (not mine).

 

So I am still looking for a place, but my patience I feel, has saved some people getting irritated by geocachers.

 

---I will stand out, I am a raven in the snow.