Leave No Trace

[+hikemeister]

Many of the locations where caches are hidden, especially in south Florida, are environmentally sensitive. I frequently see considerable damage to plants in areas near caches. It sometimes looks like folks just rip stuff aside or trample it with their boots to find a cache or get through some brush. When you hide a cache, keep this in mind and try to select a location with at least a rough existing trail up to the site. When hunting, please consider taking some care. My concern is that this activity could reflect badly on geocaching and end up having preserve managers not allow for future caches.

[+briansnat]

Caches certainly shouldn't be placed in sensitive areas and people shouldn't rip up the area around a cache during their search. If the cache is causing real damage, it should be reported to the owner and this website.

 

But what exactly is a "sensitive area" and what is "environmental damage"? A little trampled grass is no big deal. It will grow right back. Generally a cacher walking through the grass has about the same impact as a deer (and you should see the "trampling" deer do when they bed down for the night...you can tell where they slept for days afterward sometimes).

 

Of course the placement of a cache will concentrate activity in an area. In the northeast impact is usually negligible because of the rocky ground, but in grassy areas, the cache probably should be removed (or moved) after a period of time to allow the area time to recover.

 

Hiding a cache far off the trail also helps cut down on "social trails". With the inherent inaccuracy of GPS units, it's unlikely any two geocachers would take the exact path to a cache, which spreads out impact and allows time for recovery.

 

Remember, there is no such thing as "leave no trace". No matter how hard we try, we'll leave some trace simply because we passed through. But we can strive to leave as little trace as possible.

 

 

"Au pays des aveugles, les borgnes sont rois"

 

[This message was edited by BrianSnat on June 20, 2003 at 07:51 AM.]

[+Kouros]

A well thought out, and mature response to a contentious issue, in my opinion Brian.

 

hikemeister, can I also point you towards Geocaching's Cache In, Trash Out discussion forum? 'CITO' is a geocaching policy that you may find of interest.

 

------

An it harm none, do what ye will

[dsandbro]

How many people recognize a site as sensitive versus more durable? The differences can be subtle or hidden.

 

Many of us have enough experience to discern the difference. It is unrealistic to expect it of everyone.

 

If you see an inappropriately placed cache, email the owner, explain the problem, and ask that they move it. Offer suggestions as to more appropriate location.

 

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

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

[WolfPack2099]

I think the idea of "leave no trace" has really escaped some cachers, sensative ecological areas or not. Most of my caching is done in desert regions, and it is very obvious to tell where previous cachers have tread. While I agree with Brian when he said that there really is no such thing as leaving no trace, many cachers (especially in my area) could be a bit more careful when disrupting the area around a cache.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

It's one thing to hike through an area and leave your footprints behind. That's considered normal by most people (unless you're an eco-terrorist).

Trampling (or ripping up) all vegetation within a 10-20 foot radius of the cache is another matter.

Leaving trash behind is completely unacceptable, but I've yet to see a littering Geocacher. They're usually the ones picking up the trash left by people who don't have a GPS and McToys with them.

 

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

[+hikemeister]

These are all very good responses, clearly from folks who are responsible about this great sport. Right on about grass, but not so for even some very small types of moss and other plants that are common down here in the Florida pinelands. Many of the areas with caches are in parks where you can get an information flyer at the trailhead, almost always indicating why it is important to stay on the trail. Anyway, it is for this reason that I have placed caches just within arms reach of clear trails. In the cases where damage was observed, I sent an email to the cache owner. Good point.

[+Searching_ut]

I hate the term “Leave No Trace”. It’s something I associate with those political activist so called environmentalists who’s short sighted, misguided “absolute” sort of stupidity has done more damage to the great outdoors here in the western states than all the logging, mining, energy drilling, so called "capitalists" combined. There, I had to vent…. Now that’s out of my system:

 

I think reminding people of the impact they have on the environment is great. I like to believe that many do the harm they do out of ignorance. Hopefully pointing out the sorts of damage that can be done, or is being done will educate people in a pyramiding sort of way that benefits all. Part of the rules for placing caches includes monitoring the cache for area impact. We all need to do this, and notify the cache owners if we see negative impacts as a result of the cache. With luck, and constructive input from others, those freshly drawn to the outdoors as a result of geocaching will become knowledgable champions of the environment.

 

As for “leave no trace”, it’s not possible of course unless none of us venture into the wilds at all. It’s all about learning minimal impact techniques, and finding and abiding by a well thought out consensus as to just how much human impact is acceptable in different areas, and how much natures healing process can endure.

[+Bluespreacher]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Searching_ut:

I hate the term “Leave No Trace”. It’s something I associate with those political activist so called environmentalists who’s short sighted, misguided

 

As for “leave no trace”, it’s not possible .

---

 

You might be interested in LNT's web site.

 

http://www.lnt.org/

 

LNT is not about some radical agenda, it's a practicle program for back country use that minimizes the imapct of recreational users. The point is, when the next visitor comes to an area, they should not be confronted with your waste, trash, fire-rings, etc. It is really a very balanced and reasonable approach, in my opinion.

 

Geocaching can fit quite well with LNT philosophy, I think. Check it out, there may be some things you'd find useful.

 

Bluespreacher

 

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

[+aka Monkey]

Check out this log entry I just got today on one of my caches (which was placed at the top of a rugged mountain):

 

"4-wheeled to within 1000 feet of the cache. (Pat is handicapped an unable to hike much) It was starting to rain when we found the cache. Took Zandi's T.B. and left a mini biner."

 

Geez Louise... I'm all for handicapped people getting out more, but if it means tearing up the side of a mountain to get to my cache...

[+Alan2]

My impression of LNT has to do with allowing the person who follows you to have as natural environment that does not indicate impact of people who were there before. However, since a geocaching knows others were there at the cache, he would expect to see some trace at the minimum the container itself. As for non-cachers, unless they are walking off trail at exactly that spot, for the most part they won't even be around the cache proper to spot any trace.

 

As far as long term "damage", I doubt if there's one cache in a thousand where the environment doesn't "heal" itself within days, weeks or one season after the caching stops or even from one weekend to the next. For the 1 in a thousand, certainly those areaws can be considered more carefully. It's just that for the most part, 999 caches are not going to be a problem

 

alan

[+RobRee]

nice website

http://www.lnt.org/

 

if we are talking Low Impact hiking/camping/caching then we are in. i belv, and practice these ideals to the best of my ability. i have been teaching my children low impact practices, and it seems to be taking. we study plants, trees, animals and they are growing to appreciate their surroundings.

 

the eco-terrorists do more harm for nature than good. there are ways to get things done, and ways to alienate the world.

 

i drive a pretty big 4wd (not huge) and can get places pretty easily without tearing up trails. it is a matter of taking it easy. 33"x12.5" tires could be devestating if spun without need. i hope your cacher didn't tear up the area.

 

looks to be a nice cache by the way

 

low impact to the environment all the way.

 

robbie

 

A family that Geocaches together... eventually gets wet.

 

required reading

My first bible

Great Orienteering Site!

[+briansnat]

quote:

---

LNT is not about some radical agenda, it's a practicle program for back country use that minimizes the imapct of recreational users. The point is, when the next visitor comes to an area, they should not be confronted with your waste, trash, fire-rings, etc. It is really a very balanced and reasonable approach, in my opinion.

---

 

LNT looks like a great idea on the surface, but many LNT'ers are quite radical. Among the things they espouse are the packing out of human waste (I bury it, but I ain't carrying it around in my pack!). I've butted heads with these folk in many newsgroups and they are absolutely intolerant of anybody who doesn't toe their line. I had an extensive debate with one fellow who wanted to ban trekking poles because they scratched rocks and he wasn't alone.

 

"Au pays des aveugles, les borgnes sont rois"

[+Searching_ut]

Regarding the LNT organization, I’m familiar with the webpage, and some of the local groups running under the banner. I think we can agree on the merit of the stated objectives. It’s something I’ve practiced for as long as I can remember, and something I’ve gone to great lengths to try and encourage in others. I’m not convinced on the organization itself however. Unfortunately, it, and many other groups in my area seem to attract “Cause” people, who are often more about elitism, identifying causes to champion, etc. than any real environmental protection and conservation. Local priorities are often important subjects like banning cell phones and GPS on federal land, hoping to keep out the less than pure who may become bold enough to venture into the wilderness with these devices along to help insure their safety. LNT organizations in my area for the most part are not willing to work with geocachers in any way shape or form. It brings people into the outdoors for less than proper reasons It’s geotrashing, and not geocaching. There is a trace even though it’s something you might have to search hard to find. Anyway, I’ll end my ramblings here as it’s not the organizations or causes I have a problem with, but the groups of individuals I’ve encountered flying the flags.

 

As for Brians comments about carrying out human waste, it makes sense in many areas, especially the paper if any. Many basecamp areas for peak climbs, and a lot of the desert areas I like to explore aren’t conducive to this sort of stuff being reclaimed by nature in a hurry, or are simply unable to absorb the impact from large numbers of people. It’s one of those things that needs be addressed on an area by area basis though, and I can understand your frustration with those who get into absolutes. As for the trekking poles, I agree they shouldn’t be used on slickrock trails in areas such as southern Utah, or certain mountain trails. To try and apply the same standards to every area and situation however again doesn’t make sense, although it seems high on the priority list for many people I’ve encountered.

[+Bluespreacher]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrianSnat:

quote:

---

LNT is not about some radical agenda, it's a practicle program for back country use that minimizes the imapct of recreational users. The point is, when the next visitor comes to an area, they should not be confronted with your waste, trash, fire-rings, etc. It is really a very balanced and reasonable approach, in my opinion.

---

 

I think we and searching-ut are on the same page. I'm not a member of any group or advocating membership. I know that the LNT people have a dim view of geocaching. I do like the basic principles, though. I have seen many caches that have spawned social trails and lots of trampled ground. One especially was bad because the coords were way off (300 ft). Most of it heals, though, especially after the initial interest wears off.

 

I do think we need to show some concern for the impact caching can have.

 

Pack out human waste? No, I'm not going to do that. I'll not travel to places where that's required. I've heard of others being insenced when a hiker threw an apple core into the woods. Of course, that might be a problem in some high-use areas, but mostly I don't get it!

 

Keep on caching,

 

Bluespreacher

 

LNT looks like a great idea on the surface, but many LNT'ers are quite radical. Among the things they espouse are the packing out of human waste (I bury it, but I ain't carrying it around in my pack!). I've butted heads with these folk in many newsgroups and they are absolutely intolerant of anybody who doesn't toe their line. I had an extensive debate with one fellow who wanted to ban trekking poles because they scratched rocks and he wasn't alone.

 

_"Au pays des aveugles, les borgnes sont rois"_

---

 

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