Jump to content

Caches banned in wilderness areas?


briansnat

Recommended Posts

I agree some places need to be protected from people who tend to trash areas and cause damage to the area. In my limited experience with geocaching I find that almost all are in favor of keeping the place as nice or even better then when they arrived. Take the CITO for instance. Why wouldn't the rangers want to have people who willing pick up after themselves and others in the area. Seems to me its a win/win, we get to cache, they get free labor.

 

I see your lips moving but all I hear is blah blah blah

Link to comment

There will come a time that every inch of public lands will be off limits to the public, and only elite groups will be granted access. This is the special interests main goal. When that time comes, I will become a criminal trespasser. I won't be locked out because some asshat spray painted a cave wall, or dumped his beercans in a parking lot. They are my lands just as much as the Sierra clubs.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BadAndy:

There will come a time that every inch of public lands will be off limits to the public, and only elite groups will be granted access. This is the special interests main goal. When that time comes, I will become a criminal trespasser. I won't be locked out because some asshat spray painted a cave wall, or dumped his beercans in a parking lot. They are my lands just as much as the Sierra clubs.


 

Hey, there we go! Folks are naming names, putting a face on their boogymen. Oh, wait, you said the Sierra Club...

 

Perhaps you've missed this. Yep, this particular 'elite group' is in favor of numerous outdoor pursuits, including geocaching. Maybe it's time to realign your stereotypes.

 

Protecting limited-use areas does not equate to 'locking up' all public lands.

 

Ron/yumitori

 

---

 

Remember what the dormouse said...

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by yumitori:

the Sierra Club...

Perhaps you've missed http://www.sierraclub.org/e-files/geocaching.asp.

I think it is Sierra Club which missed something here. Cacheing can *not* be equated with gizmo-enhanced hiking.

Around here, overwhelming majority of caches requires ATVing / jeeping (although it may also involve a small hike on top of this). And although responsible use of ATVs and jeeps is about just fine for the environment, it is those irresposible users who leave very visible damage and who give a very bad face to the ORVing community at large, and, by extention, to the geocaching at large.

Link to comment

quote:
Around here, overwhelming majority of caches requires ATVing / jeeping (although it may also involve a small hike on top of this). And although responsible use of ATVs and jeeps is about just fine for the environment, it is those irresposible users who leave very visible damage and who give a very bad face to the ORVing community at large, and, by extention, to the geocaching at large.

 

How is that? Why is it necessary take an ORV to a cache? Ya can't park a distance away and hoof it in? They do hive hiking in Utah, don't they?

 

"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on his hind legs. But by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" - Max Beerbohm

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:

quote:
Around here, overwhelming majority of caches requires ATVing /

How is that? Why is it _necessary_ take an ORV to a cache? Ya can't park a distance away and hoof it in?


well of course it is *not* necessary in this sense, it's just the cache description says that you need a 4WD or ATV or just an HCV; and I think appropriately so, 'cause not having a proper vehicle will extend you hike by orders of magnitude, and also because you don't wanna breathe too much exhaust fumes and rut dust on a hike.

But this is besides the point; the point is that caches are placed by OHV people, for OHV people, and found by OHV people. A find by a foot cacher is a possibility, but not a relevant one.

Check this recent thread for a jeeping-cacher manifesto of sorts. Or another recently approved manifesto cache called No minivans allowed

Don't get me wrong, ATVs and jeeps are quite appropriate in most areas where they are used for caching. It is the Sierra Clubs "cachers = fellow wilderness-minded hikers" equation which I object.

Link to comment

MOCKBA said:

quote:
I think it is Sierra Club which missed something here. Cacheing can *not* be equated with gizmo-enhanced hiking.

Around here, overwhelming majority of caches requires ATVing / jeeping (although it may also involve a small hike on top of this)


 

I'm missing something here as to what the real concern, or problem is. To begin with, to claim that in Utah the overwhelming majority of caches requires or recommends an ATV is obviously an emotional, rather than factual argument. I did a quick scan of my queries, and would be quite surprised if it works out to 1 percent.

 

As for 4X4 or high clearance vehicles to access the area a cache might be placed in, I'm not sure that should concern the sierra club. As you mentioned, they are in areas appropriate for that purpose. As for the use of a jeep in general, as you know, there are a number of areas in the state where they are the recommended vehicle for access on the maintained roads in the area. The 3 areas I backpacked in the escalante National recreation area this summer all required 4X4 access to the trailheads. The trailhead for the two backpacking trips I'll be doing over the next two weekend in the uintas are both best accessed with a 4X4 vehicle. I don't see how using the appropriate vehicle to get into an area on a prescibed road is any less appropriate than hiking in on a trail, nor why those who choose that method of getting out should be frowned upon. As for the idiots that inappropriately ride, or irresponsible hikers that cut switchbacks etc. They unfortunately do give many a bad name.

 

Are there in caches in particular you're thinking of where people are inapropriately trashing the country with thier ATV's to get to them? If so, I'd be more than happy to help you work the issue. I personally haven't been to any 4X4 required caches as I haven't been able to sneak in the time.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Searching_ut:

to claim that in Utah the overwhelming majority of caches requires or recommends an ATV is obviously an emotional, rather than factual argument.


Oops ... I should have clarified *excluding urban / suburban caches*. I am mostly into *country* caches and there the fraction of "4WD or ATV" caches is quite high. Which is not surprising with all this wild country we've got here beyond the end of pavement. No disagreement on this here.

quote:
The 3 areas I backpacked in the escalante National recreation area this summer all required 4X4 access to the trailheads.

Done Little Death Hollow loop backpack, got there in a minivan with two shovels. They were rather handy since the road was washed off and we had to use creek beds alot on the way there. Won't recommend it to anyone, this is all risk and little reward. No disagreement here either.

But with all the R.S. 2477 controversy, I would just expect that Sierra Club shouldn't be any different from SUWA, i.e. equally against both backcountry 4WD roads and ORVs. Then Sierra's take on geocaching is inexplicable.

Link to comment

Ahhh, SUWA. That explains some on the emotional. They tend to be a little extreme in my opinion, quite possibly do a little more harm than good with what many would consider somewhat extremest views. Many consider the Sierra club somewhat extremest, but as you know SUWA is quite a bit left of them. In the end however, I probably agree with more of their primary goals than I dissagree with. I lived down in the small town of Hanksville for a few years some 35 years or so ago prior to moving up to Idaho. Still consider much of that area to be "my backyard"

 

As an old fart, I recommend using caution in trying to control who should venture where, and by what means. There's probably pretty good justification for those who fear much of the land being put off limits. The deepest cave in the state, and country for that matter is off limits because it has been deemed to dangerous. The highest mountain in the lower 48 can only be climbed by permit, which you may or may not be able to obtain. As you know, there are rivers that take years to get a permit to float if you can obtain one at all, and many canyons in the southern part of the state that are now lottery draw. Despite the use limitations, there are still many out there with somewhat more extreme views who would like to keep people away all together. (Yet always seem to think the rule won't apply to them as they are true environmentalists) Their logic is based on their actually being no way possible to leave absolutely "no trace".

 

I'd offer the perfect solution, but I'm afraid I don't have one. In the meantime, I'm a champion of studying the situation logically, as a group of those dersiring the outdoor experience. Hopefully, by pooling many brains, and with a little cooperation reasonable compromises can be reached to both preserve, yet let people enjoy what the land has to offer. While it may be easy to single groups like ATVers out as doing more harm than good, I think many of them love the land just as much, if not more than I do. In this state at least, I've seen off road groups out participating in trail cleanup, and other backcountry restoration projects more than I've seen the so called environmental groups.

 

But I begin to ramble.........

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by MOCKBA:

quote:
Originally posted by yumitori:

the Sierra Club...

Perhaps you've missed http://www.sierraclub.org/e-files/geocaching.asp.

I think it is Sierra Club which missed something here. Cacheing can *not* be equated with gizmo-enhanced hiking.

Around here, overwhelming majority of caches requires ATVing / jeeping (although it may also involve a small hike on top of this). And although responsible use of ATVs and jeeps is about just fine for the environment, it is those irresposible users who leave very visible damage and who give a very bad face to the ORVing community at large, and, by extention, to the geocaching at large.


 

Wouldn't that make them a "5" for terrain? Surely 4WD is 'special equipment'

 

Bluespreacher

 

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

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by yumitori:

Well now, that didn't take much to go off-topic, did it? You all do remember that we're discussing caches and wilderness areas don't you?


The cache / wilderness issue is all about (mis)perceptions, environmental policies and politics, and self-regulation / self-castration. Given this, I don't think we've ventured off-topic yet.

But DapperDanMan hasn't posted the details on his stuck-in-the-wilderness ammobox yet. That would be a rather welcome move off-topic!

Link to comment

I retrieved the cache at Grizzly Lake icon_biggrin.gif ....unfortunately for me, she archived the cache before I could post it icon_frown.gif

 

It was a great cache, too bad they won't allow micro caches in the wilderness...we hauled out so much litter and so many lost items that calling the tiny film can, completely hidden in a crack litter is really an injustice.

 

Perhaps we may be able to open some dialog with some of the more realistic and understanding Rangers about allowing only micro caches in some areas...I know that we improved the area because we went there (hauling out the trash) and that tiny, hidden cache never intruded on anyone wilderness experience.

 

____________________________________________________________

Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by mtnsteve:

Perhaps we may be able to open some dialog with some of the more realistic and understanding Rangers about allowing only micro caches in some areas...I know that we improved the area because we went there (hauling out the trash) and that tiny, hidden cache never intruded on anyone wilderness experience


Just wanted to paste here from my log @ GCB538 (a wilderness cache converted into a virtual):

quote:
With respect to self-regulation, it is obvious that caches in the wilderness should be low-impact and discrete. This is actually close to the official USFS point of view that "geochaching is *mostly* inappropriate in the widlerness" (not *totally* illegal). I think that this can be achieved by applying the following rules:

1) Caches are appropriate when a site within wilderness is substantially man-made rather than really wild (e.g. Neffs Cave with its grate, or Mule Hollow with its mine dumps and bend rails, or Lake Blanche dam).

2) Caches are inapropriate in high-impact areas (some wetlands, high-erosion slopes, cryptogamic soils should be off-limit)

3) Items in the cache should be more or less natural, able to blend in if a cache is disrupted. E.g. minerals are fine; small wooden or metal objects are passable; but brightly colored molded plastic is no-no).

4) It is the best to set up wilderness caches as multi-caches, with the officially listed entry-point caches located outside of the wilderness boundaries. The actual destination cachesites may be some ways inside.


Link to comment

Moun10Bike...

Thanks for the info, I just posted the find . I will add a picture later.

 

MOCKBA...Your 4 "rules" make sense..I am going to try and continue a dialog with the local Rangers and see if they may try and meet us half way...I wont hold my breath though.

____________________________________________________________

Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.

Link to comment

quote:
MOCKBA...Your 4 "rules" make sense..I am going to try and continue a dialog with the local Rangers and see if they may try and meet us half way...I wont hold my breath though.


 

I'm curious. Who asked you to remove it?

 

The Forest Service has no national policy, leaving it to local managers to decide (let's keep it that way). The Cypress Lake cache is in the Caribou Wilderness, a regular ammo box only about 30 feet from a popular trail. The Forest Service knows it is there and is allowing it because it is a durable site and causing no problems. It has had about a dozen visits in two years, while several hundred people use the trail every summer, walking right by the cache oblivious to its presence.

 

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

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

Link to comment

Apparently each area is different. The first request came from Hemlock, who approves and rejects sites for Geocaching.com...I contacted the Rangers at the Weaverville Ranger District and was told it was considered "litter" and it didn't belong there.

 

There is a little more info in this

thread

 

____________________________________________________________

Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by mtnsteve:

Apparently each area is different. The first request came from Hemlock, who approves and rejects sites for Geocaching.com...I contacted the Rangers at the Weaverville Ranger District and was told it was considered "litter" and it didn't belong there.


 

I asked a Forest Service LEO about the 'litter' excuse and he did some research. Apparently there is no legal definition of 'litter' in the Code of Federal Regulations. Littering is prohibited but 'litter' is undefined. There is a definition under California state law and it cannot be stretched (in his opinion) to include a geocache. Neither can caches be considered abandoned personal property -- there is a legal process to be followed before property can be declared abandoned. He was quite emphatic about that. Seizing the property before it is legally classified as 'abandoned' could be considered theft. 'Disturbing a natural feature' is possible but he conceded that would be a stretch in most cases and he would not want to take that to a federal magistrate.

 

He finally admitted he could find no solid federal regulation that can be used to flatly prohibit geocaches in a wilderness. A local order could be created, but they can only be authorized by a Forest Supervisor after following a very specific process with layers of review. A local Wilderness patrol does not have the authority to create such a policy.

 

Still, we should not create an 'in your face' situation leading to confrontations in a courtroom. That is not in the best interest of the sport or the wilderness. Your intent to discuss geocaches with the appropriate people at Weaverville is probably the best course. The decision will eventually be made in the Redding Supervisor's Office.

 

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

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

Link to comment

Dave, thanks for all your footwork regarding this issue. My guess is that since litter isn't defined under federal regulations, the dictionary definition should be used. And if you read that definition, a geocache is quite the opposite.

 

"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on his hind legs. But by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" - Max Beerbohm

Link to comment

While I have not placed a cache yet I find it hard to believe that someone would have a problem with people coming into their park, searching for a cache and performing cito as long as the person understood what cito was and what it meant.

 

I see your lips moving but all I hear is blah blah blah

Link to comment

I agree with Dave that the issue of geocaching shouldn't be an "in your face" type of thing. In a way, I feel sorry for the National forest service having to try and balance all the different users. On one hand, you have some very vocal people crying out to ban cell phones, GPS receivers, and even rescues in wilderness areas. On the other hand there are those looking to build roads, lodges, mines etc. There is of course a world of would be users in between as well. Given the tough job they have, I'm sure the land custodians would be more receptive to logical well thought out and polite arguments than the old "I pay you salary" sort of yelling matches.

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...