Jump to content

Geocachers trampling all over the land and destroying the landscape.


Recommended Posts

I've had concerns about Geocachers having too much of an impact on the land as we go about our hobby. Then this weekend I went to an archery shoot. It was raining. As a result mud trails were everywhere. Mud was running down draws caused by the impact of hundress of people walking from target to target. Trails were dug and dug wider as people tried to stay out of the mud. Cars that didn't need to to off the main dirt/mud road to get out, drove on the non trail parts. All in all the place was trashed. This is a once a year event, on private land, and obviousy with permission since 'no trespassing' signs were posted. But after seeing that, I don't feel so bad about a few cachers finding a cache in the woods.

 

Should we try to minimize our impact? Yes. Should we lose sleep over it? No. After all a group of tree huggers walking a picket against timber harvesting will have more impact on a location than Geocachers ever would.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by james f weisbeck kd7mxi terra utah:

even developers have a bigger impact the we do!!! icon_biggrin.gif

 

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

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest_cache.asp?u=KD7MXI

http://www.cachunuts.com

 

Funny you should mention that. My work depends in a large part on Developers. And I flat out hate the way development occures. In Fairbanks if a developer built a subdivision and a builder built a house on the lot there was an excellent chance your lot would come complete with a forest in the back yard because they didn't flatten more than they needed to. Here in Boise, Idaho they pretty much turn the entire subdivion into a mud pile in the winter, and a dust bowl in the summer. I'm going to ingore the fact that they only seem to develope prime farm land. That's another topic!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by james f weisbeck kd7mxi terra utah:

even developers have a bigger impact the we do!!! icon_biggrin.gif

 

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

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest_cache.asp?u=KD7MXI

http://www.cachunuts.com

 

Funny you should mention that. My work depends in a large part on Developers. And I flat out hate the way development occures. In Fairbanks if a developer built a subdivision and a builder built a house on the lot there was an excellent chance your lot would come complete with a forest in the back yard because they didn't flatten more than they needed to. Here in Boise, Idaho they pretty much turn the entire subdivion into a mud pile in the winter, and a dust bowl in the summer. I'm going to ingore the fact that they only seem to develope prime farm land. That's another topic!

Link to comment

quote:
JeepCache

Geocacher posted March 25, 2002 09:23 PM

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

Small Potatoes

 

I'm an active off-pavement driving enthusiast. The ongoing issue of Geocaching's impact on the environment is laughable in comparison.


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

 

have you been to southern utah lately?

 

look at all of those black marks on the slickrocks

rubber takes forever to dissapear!!! icon_eek.gif

 

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

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest_cache.asp?u=KD7MXI

http://www.cachunuts.com

Link to comment

quote:
JeepCache

Geocacher posted March 25, 2002 09:23 PM

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

Small Potatoes

 

I'm an active off-pavement driving enthusiast. The ongoing issue of Geocaching's impact on the environment is laughable in comparison.


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

 

have you been to southern utah lately?

 

look at all of those black marks on the slickrocks

rubber takes forever to dissapear!!! icon_eek.gif

 

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

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest_cache.asp?u=KD7MXI

http://www.cachunuts.com

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Irvingdog:

Environmentalists want to turn the outdoors into their own private playground. They don't aprove of your game, so they don't approve of you. Environmentalism is a religion and don't you forget it. That said, the seperation of church and state should remain..........


 

I've long had a personal theory. I think that 30% to 40% of the population see everything in black and white. These folks wind up at the margins, ultra liberal democrat, ultra conservative republican, tree hugging murdering terrorists, environmental-concerns-are-completely-a-liberal-conspiracy nuts...

 

You can almost flip a coin to determine what end of the spectrum they will be. Certainly, extreme switches aren't uncommon. James Rogan went from liberal Democrat to ultra-conservative Republic impeachment House Manager. I've seen many swings between self-absorbed hedonist and fundementalist Christian.

 

The rest of us cover a spectrum, but because we can see shades of gray, we can almost always find some common ground. For example, someone may feel strongly about a society's obligation to its weakest members, but at least acknowledge that a country needs a sound economy to support a social safety net.

 

Fortunately, when viewed with perspective, conservative and liberal goals often coincide on many issues. IE, compassion and profit often coincide. That is why there is increasing cooperation between industry and environmental groups. And, conservative money, like insurance trusts, is increasingly invested in 'green' areas.

 

Now that the science is mounting and the long term economic impacts are better understood, there is a lot of hope for rational, moderate, and more effective environmental policies. That is, if the whackos at the margins don't kick down the barn.

 

It makes my blood boil every time I read about an injury or death related to eco terrorism. Likewise, watching the recent "Lynxgate" unfold, which, if anyone bothers to look beyond unsubstantiated ranting, is utter crapola, has convinced me that destructive morons are not unified in their political views.

 

-jjf

Link to comment

It seems to me to be like everyting else, you need to "follow the money". When someone is able to make money off of a "cause" that cause will never go away. They talk about global warming, but people will believe what they want to believe. You can get equal number of scientist on the issue, 1/2 say global warming is occuring the other 1/2 says global warming is a flasehood. My personal opinion is that the weatherman can't accurately tell me what the weather will be like a year from now on this date, so how can he tell me what is goin to happen 100 years form now with anymore accuracy. There is evidence to support both sides. When the head of the Sierra Club marches on paper mills and lumber companies for cutting down trees, spiking trees etc... nobody seems to take notice when the same man clear cuts several acres of land on his own property ,which is quite extensive, to help cover the cost of his taxes.

Follwo the money. Is my walking on the ground going to cause the end of the world. I remember in the 80's experts like Ted Danson form "Cheers" warning us that the 90's will lead to thousands od deats from flooding due to global warming, tat Florida would be covered in water for miles inland. I am 15 miles from the beach and it still looks the same to me.

I will walk where I want to walk. I think the earth is a pretty tough place and is able to recover pretty well. We have had millions of years of volcanos,spewing ash and lave for hunders of thousands of miles and the earth is still here. We have had millions of years of floods, earthquakes, tornados, mudslides and forest fires and the earth is still here, still green and I can still breathe very well. My house in not underwater and the summer here in Florida is going to be hot and the winter next year is going to be cold, but nor South Dakota cold and it has nothing to do with global warming. As far back as I can remember it has always been hot in summer and cold in winter, some more mild than others and some more severe than others. I think using common sense is all that can be asked. I mean don't clutter up the woodd with beer cans, but don't be afraid to go "off trail" and walk through mother nature, it is there and is wonderful to appreciate.

My feet are not instruments of destruction and my walking or driving on the ground will not announce the second coming.

COMMON SENSE WOULD DO THIS WORLD A BUNCH OF GOOD>

Just my humble opinion.

 

46113_400.jpg

The KGB

guy.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Jake.Hazelip:

Comparing people going out caching solo, in pairs, or with a small family and an event that draws hundreds of people with poor management and respect for the host's land is asinine. It's like comparing the erosion damage of a home sprinkler system to that of a flash flood.


 

That was the point. I've seen discussions on erosion caused by cachers, then I went to this even, and stopped worrying about it. It made geocaching seem tame. Which of course it mostly is.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Irvingdog:

Environmentalists want to turn the outdoors into their own private playground. They don't aprove of your game, so they don't approve of you. Environmentalism is a religion and don't you forget it. That said, the seperation of church and state should remain..........

 

http://www.hunting-pictures.com/members/Irvingdog/boo2.jpg


 

I've coined a term for what environmentalists want. They want us to "Live inside the box" as opposed to thinking outside of it.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by MissJenn:

I am lighter than an adult deer, and only have 2 legs compared to its 4. Should deer not be allowed in the outdoors because it leaves more impact?

 

What was it that Aristotle said? "Everything in moderation, even moderation itself." icon_biggrin.gif

 

-----

http://users.beanstalk.net/jsk/images/dartfrogsmall.jpg


 

Good point. Not to mention that at best you have rubber souls and deer have hard hooves. I'd rather you stomp on my foot while jumping up and down than have a deer grind it in with the point of their hoof. Hows that for a rating of 'impact'? One other bonus, geocachers don't overgraze the land as they walk on it.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by MissJenn:

I am lighter than an adult deer, and only have 2 legs compared to its 4. Should deer not be allowed in the outdoors because it leaves more impact?

 

What was it that Aristotle said? "Everything in moderation, even moderation itself." icon_biggrin.gif

 

-----

http://users.beanstalk.net/jsk/images/dartfrogsmall.jpg


 

Good point. Not to mention that at best you have rubber souls and deer have hard hooves. I'd rather you stomp on my foot while jumping up and down than have a deer grind it in with the point of their hoof. Hows that for a rating of 'impact'? One other bonus, geocachers don't overgraze the land as they walk on it.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Irvingdog:

Environmentalists want to turn the outdoors into their own private playground. They don't aprove of your game, so they don't approve of you. Environmentalism is a religion and don't you forget it. That said, the seperation of church and state should remain...


 

Wow. There are some incredibly thoughtless posts in these forums. As an environmentalist, I really enjoy geocaching and see it as a great way to experience the great outdoors with minimal damage to the planet. The 'I'm the highest thing on the foodchain' type posts are just scary.

 

We've only been burning fossil fuels with any regularity for the past 100 years. Are people really so stupid that they don't think it will eventually cause damage? Can six billion people really suck the resources out of the planet at no cost? Get a clue!

 

But to lump geocaching in with urban sprawl, toxic waste, and habitat destruction is equally ridiculous. On the other hand, I haven't heard very many environmentalists decrying our sport. Is this just speculation?

 

It amazes me and saddens me that so many people think every issue is black or white. Please stop generalizing and picking fights where there aren't any. Or at least make a good case and try to understand the other person's point of view.

 

- Seth!

 

"Veggies are what food eats."

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Seth!:

 

But to lump geocaching in with urban sprawl, toxic waste, and habitat destruction is equally ridiculous. On the other hand, I haven't heard very many environmentalists decrying our sport. Is this just speculation?

 

- Seth!

 

"Veggies are what food eats."


 

Seth! thanks for the input here.

 

I haven't heard or seen a lot of Environmentalists bashing Geocaching, but the same statements being stated in this forum are being used by BLM, NPS, and Forestry Service personnel when talking about Geocaching. The arguements against Geocaching on federal lands is an environmental one- thousands tearing up fragile ecosystems chasing an ammo box full of toys. Caches as abandoned property "littering" parks. Meanwhile, the same agencies allow, endorse and/or participate in activities with much more impact.

 

How many caches are had more than 20 visitors since their placement? How many with 30, 40, 50? In fact, we aren't talking about thousands of Geocachers, we're talking a fraction of that.

 

Richard

Link to comment

Mojave National Preserve, where the desert's water could be drained by development, illegal poaching threatens wildlife, and off-raod vehicles damage the habitat.

Oh yeah, and the 20 geocachers.

 

Ocmulgee National Monument, where a proposed highway could cut off the last undeveloped area from the park.

Geocachers are building roads now to get to their caches? The NERVE!

 

Valley Forge National Historical Park, where a luxury home developer wants to build inside the park's boundaries.

Geocachers need a place to stay, too, ya know.

 

Federal Hall National Monument, where there is a lack of operating money to pay for rangers who can explain the site to visitors, and a damaged building foundation.

I'll go up there and tell people about geocaching instead.

 

Glacier Bay national Park and Preserve, where increased boat traffic is creating more pollution and increases the threat of fuel and oil spills.

Too cold for geocaching.

 

Big Bend National Park, threatened by air pollution and reduced water flow.

...and that ammocan. That one. Over there. Behind the big rock that says DOM.

 

Glacier National Park, troubled by development near the park's boundaries, crumbling roads and other infrastructure problems.

Of course, if more geocachers paid to use the park, they might could address the road problem.

 

Great Smokey Mountains National Park, where air pollution threatens more than 30 species of plant life.

Great Smokey Restaurants threaten 30 species of humans.

 

Everglades and Big Cypress parks, where water levels and pollution continue to pose significant problems. All-terain vehicles also are damaging Big Cypress.

Hydrocache anyone?

 

Yellowstone National Park, air pollution from snowmobiles.

What? Snowmobiles are harmful to the park? I I I just don't understand!?!? It's not NEAR as impacting as a Rubbermaid container!

 

Not one park listed blamed overuse by tourists as a reason. Sheesh.

 

Confront absurdity with absurdity.

 

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

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by VentureForth:

 

Not one park listed blamed overuse by tourists as a reason. Sheesh.

 

Confront absurdity with absurdity.

 

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


 

Actually, 7 of the parks on the list are in trouble at least partially because of "overuse by tourists", provided that you meant 'visitors'. See the original report, not just the news story.

 

I'd have to agree with an earlier poster. There are some amazingly silly things in this thread.

 

I don't mean to pick on anyone, but arguing that a human being has less impact than a deer is precisely the sort of thing that gives a relatively benign sport a bad rep with land managers.

 

Most land managers, even the not particularly 'green' ones like the NFS and BLM, realize that such a statement is absurd. Deer don't drive vehicles to get to the park. They don't wear clothes (no textile mills or synthetic manufacturing capacity). Deer don't leave, on average, pounds of trash each in trash recepticles at the park. Nor do deer leave tons of trash outside of the recepticles in parks which, amazingly, human visitors do.

 

I don't recall families of deer generating, on average, over a ton of household garbage each year. Nor do I recall deer using nitrogen pumped fertilizer, the runoff from which is a major problem in the water supply of several national parks, forests, and monuments.

 

In over 30 years of camping and hiking, I've never seen a deer spray paint graffiti. Also never seen one setup a campfire or scare away other wildlife with a loud boom box. Deer don't dump detergents into the streams when they camp (a problem that is so bad in some popular areas that it has required bans and active cleanups).

 

I don't recall seeing problems with leftover food from deer picnics causing GI and disease problems in small mammals that live near the site. Also, although deer live in the park, us visitors account for most of the urine and feces. Of course, the deer also don't use paper and, generally, have the sense not to foul the local water supply - a feat that rangers can't seem to teach casual campers.

 

Again, I don't want to pick on anyone. For all I know, the poster is not only lighter than a deer, but wears only palm fronds, lives in a cave, consumes no durable goods, and has never accidentally dropped so much as a gum wrapper outdoors.

 

But, if you like to geocache and you want long term access to public lands do real research and accept the real problems that land managers currently deal with as a starting point. Believe what you want, but if you don't acknowledge human impact and fail to work with land managers to minimize the sport's, be prepared to not only lose access, but to have most of your fellow citizens not give a hoot.

 

-jjf

Link to comment

I never could quite fit neatly into any particular political box but for the most part, I consider myself libertarian (small l, thank you very much). In my younger years, however, I was very much a rabid environmentalist although never militant about it. I have to admit that I still have my tree-hugging moments but have developed what I feel to be a more balanced perspective.

 

The one thing that always amazes me is that when an animal does something (like a beaver damming a creek to make a pond), it is *natural* and therefore O.K. When humans do something similar (damming a river to make a lake) it is *messing up an ecosystem* and therefore bad. I realize there is often a large difference in magnitude but the fact remains that both are having a significant impact on the environment.

 

This is not to say that I support environmental degredation. Where I draw the line, is when someone's actions (be they individual, gov't entity, or private coportation) negatively impact someone else's life or property. For example, if my neighbor's hog operation is polluting my well (a real example in my county), then I have a problem with that. If a neighbor objects to my fencing my horses in my own front yard (another real example), well, too bad. Just for the record, neither of these examples directly involved me but I did find it hilarious when the horse fencer placed pink flamingos on all of the fence posts in response to the neighbor's complaint of the horses being in the front yard. The objecting neighbor now has a for sale sign up... icon_razz.gif

 

What does this have to do with geocaching? Well, as far as I am concerned, public land is owned by all taxpaying citizens. This includes taxpaying geocachers (or those willing to pay a user-fee). Is placing a geocache going to negatively impact the other owners? If it is well placed (i.e. well hidden with consideration given to environmental impact) and diligently maintained, I don't see how it would. As has been pointed out, there are much more environmentally degrading activities already being legally conducted on public land. I personally think that we have a valid, non-threatening sport that we have every right to conduct on land that belongs to all of us. I also think that if necessary, we should fight for that right. If there were a federal ban being proposed, I would certainly contact my representatives to express my views. In the meantime, I think it is imperative that we represent ourselves well and minimize environmental impact. It's not only in the best interest of our sport, it's in the best interest of our planet. Had to get one tree-hugger comment in! icon_smile.gif

 

Hoosiermom -team leader of GeoStars

Link to comment

I never could quite fit neatly into any particular political box but for the most part, I consider myself libertarian (small l, thank you very much). In my younger years, however, I was very much a rabid environmentalist although never militant about it. I have to admit that I still have my tree-hugging moments but have developed what I feel to be a more balanced perspective.

 

The one thing that always amazes me is that when an animal does something (like a beaver damming a creek to make a pond), it is *natural* and therefore O.K. When humans do something similar (damming a river to make a lake) it is *messing up an ecosystem* and therefore bad. I realize there is often a large difference in magnitude but the fact remains that both are having a significant impact on the environment.

 

This is not to say that I support environmental degredation. Where I draw the line, is when someone's actions (be they individual, gov't entity, or private coportation) negatively impact someone else's life or property. For example, if my neighbor's hog operation is polluting my well (a real example in my county), then I have a problem with that. If a neighbor objects to my fencing my horses in my own front yard (another real example), well, too bad. Just for the record, neither of these examples directly involved me but I did find it hilarious when the horse fencer placed pink flamingos on all of the fence posts in response to the neighbor's complaint of the horses being in the front yard. The objecting neighbor now has a for sale sign up... icon_razz.gif

 

What does this have to do with geocaching? Well, as far as I am concerned, public land is owned by all taxpaying citizens. This includes taxpaying geocachers (or those willing to pay a user-fee). Is placing a geocache going to negatively impact the other owners? If it is well placed (i.e. well hidden with consideration given to environmental impact) and diligently maintained, I don't see how it would. As has been pointed out, there are much more environmentally degrading activities already being legally conducted on public land. I personally think that we have a valid, non-threatening sport that we have every right to conduct on land that belongs to all of us. I also think that if necessary, we should fight for that right. If there were a federal ban being proposed, I would certainly contact my representatives to express my views. In the meantime, I think it is imperative that we represent ourselves well and minimize environmental impact. It's not only in the best interest of our sport, it's in the best interest of our planet. Had to get one tree-hugger comment in! icon_smile.gif

 

Hoosiermom -team leader of GeoStars

Link to comment

Your last paragraph nails the the crux of the problem.

As a geocacher you have to acknowledge that there can be human impact. If we all don't start thinking about what land managers think of all this then this activity is toast. The summer of 2002 is going to be a big deal. The numbers are going up exponentially and what land managers think is going to make or break this activity real soon. BLM is leaning positively right now but a few stupid geocache moves and that is gone. A few reports in the morning NPS report that are negative and the bad feelings just multiply.

Park managers are reading this board. A few thoughtless posts about stupid tree hugging environmentalists and they come away with a not too favorable take on geocaching.

 

If geocaching becomes confrontational with land managers then geocaching doesn't exist by the fall 2002.

 

If geocaching is looked on as "cache in trash out", getting more people to enjoy the outdoors while helping land managers and not causing headaches for them then the sport has a chance.

 

I belong to the Sierra Club and I also 4WD. Believe it or not 4WD is also a very low impact activity. You rarely go above 5 miles an hour as wou crawl through terrain. But people who 4WD are their own worst enemies. Their organizations are for the most part confrontational about land use. They don't have a clue about getting their way by being cooperative. And about 1% of people who 4WD are complete idiots who don't give a whit about what they are doing. And so 4WD trails are closing.

 

If geocaching goes the confrontational route then geocaching is toast.

 

1.jpg

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by jfitzpat:

I don't mean to pick on anyone, but arguing that a human being has less impact than a deer is precisely the sort of thing that gives a relatively benign sport a bad rep with land managers.

-jjf


 

Impact is relative. When I walk in the woods I have less impact than a deer in the deer's own habitat. Why? I dont' graze, I don't have hooves, I don't paw the ground, or rub my antlers aginst trees let alone eat them in a pinch. I don't urinate on sensative plant, or scatter my fecal matter where I happen to walk. Granted Humans have an impact on the planet, but you completely missed the point that was made about the deer. A deer in my garden would have more impact in MY Habitat than I would in it's. The point is that Geocaching is a form of 'tread lightly' to borrow the automotive slogan.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Knight:

 

Impact is relative. When I walk in the woods I have less impact than a deer in the deer's own habitat. Why? I dont' graze, I don't have hooves, I don't paw the ground, or rub my antlers aginst trees let alone eat them in a pinch. I don't urinate on sensative plant, or scatter my fecal matter where I happen to walk. Granted Humans have an impact on the planet, but you completely missed the point that was made about the deer. A deer in my garden would have more impact in MY Habitat than I would in it's. The point is that Geocaching is a form of 'tread lightly' to borrow the automotive slogan.


 

Unless you are standing buck naked and have led a dramatically different life than most of us, you have already had a greater impact on the habitat than every deer in it - before you ever take a step.

 

If that point, which I covered extensively before, is missed. We can focus on your narrow point. It is false. An experienced and conciencious visitor can leave impact on par with an elk or large deer, though it is hard with a tent at even moderate altitude. An average visitor to a park or wilderness area does not even come close.

 

It is actually an interesting area of study. You should spend some time with a master tracker. Many National Parks and Wilderness Areas have a reference for one (for S&R, etc.)

 

The reasons for the exceptionally high individual impact are numerous, but the biggest ones are probably that day trippers aren't generally aware of what they are walking on or potential consequences, no sense of stealth (we seldom see ourselves as "prey" or "predator"), and "subvert vs. avoid" - ie, a tendancy to push fauna aside instead of ducking or going around.

 

You can try to 'reason' otherwise, but there is actually science to backup the experience of hunters and trackers. Casual human visitation is often detectable in aerial imagery, small population, large weight mammals generally are not. Again, a lot of this is no particular prey or predator behavior. Neither hunter nor hunted want to broadcast their existance to the world. Not limited by such constraints, humans tend to take paths of convenience, which are often errosive.

 

Again, believe whatever you want, but spout it to a ranger with decades of wilderness experience while he/she is gagging on snow mobile fumes and you won't win a friend for your sport.

 

Also, just to make it clear, I am not saying that Geocaching is particularly high impact. I've argued numerous times that exactly the opposite is true. I'm just saying that telling land managers that the problems they struggle with, trash, waste, noise, pollution, errosion, etc. on tiny budgets don't exist isn't going to help win any access battles.

 

On another subject, for another poster, beaver dams are often partially dismantled to avoid negatively impacting an area. We also use hunting to control overpopulation and the resulting defoiliation. We use termination and relocation to deal with "natural" animal aggression to keep parks and areas visitor friendly. Only a few extremists argue 'animal good, people bad'. Most environmentalists simply point out that we, supposedly, have an intellect and can decide to preserve, instead of simply following instict and accepting the "natural" consequences.

 

-jjf

Link to comment

It seems to me that it is not only bad to walk on a path but is just as bad to go off path. So you can't win for losing.

I just havea hard time believing that a plant that gets "pushed" out of the way is in any real danger of certain death, I mean come on they sit out in the woods everyday of their lives in the heat and cold, maybe even freezing solid, and you know what, that plant is still there. It also runs the risk of being eaten by a violent and deadly deer. One thing to keep in mind is we are jsut as much a part of this environmnent as a deer and I have a very hard time swallowing that the earth can't handle me taking a hike through the woods.

 

46113_400.jpg

The KGB

guy.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by The KGB:

It seems to me that it is not only bad to walk on a path but is just as bad to go off path. So you can't win for losing.

I just havea hard time believing that a plant that gets "pushed" out of the way is in any real danger of certain death, I mean come on they sit out in the woods everyday of their lives in the heat and cold, maybe even freezing solid, and you know what, that plant is still there. It also runs the risk of being eaten by a violent and deadly deer. One thing to keep in mind is we are jsut as much a part of this environmnent as a deer and I have a very hard time swallowing that the earth can't handle me taking a hike through the woods.


 

I said before, there are basically two types of people. It is the same thing with science, some people accept and apply the scientific method, some people apply psuedo science (ie, accept any data that agrees with what they already believe, regardless of the source, reject any data that disagrees with what they believe, regardless of the source).

 

We have trails to minimize overall impact. Duh. When people ignore switchbacks, shortcuts, etc., because, like, deer do it, we get erosion and have to periodically close trail sections for revegetation. Duh. I'm not talking moral precept or politics, just day to day reality in National Park land management.

 

Yes, you and I are a member of a species. We can tell from our DNA that we are closely related to virtually every living thing on the planet (there are sources of RNA that branch from ours waaaaaay back in time, but in general our genes are amazingly close to most other species).

 

We are very sexual, as far as mammals go, so it is little wonder that reproduction (or at least the surrounding biological acts) is a prominent theme in our lives. We developed during very lean times, so it is not surprising that we produce and store body fat very effectively, and store gobs of it now that times aren't so lean.

 

Like all species with some habitat adaptibility and no serious predatory threat, we spread and reproduce at a geometric rate until something (food supply, space, disease, whatever) brings our population growth in balance. Our spread, like any other species', creates competition.

 

But, for some reason, Divine spark, evolutionary fluke..., we possess certain cognitive powers. Most notably, we can previsualize cause-and-effect at a distance and can communicate it.

 

Eating, yum, coach, nice - but we grasp long range consequences (heart attack, diabetes, etc.) so many people fight biological desire with diet and exercise. And, like most orally fixated pleasures (ex. smoking), most people find fighting biology difficult, but it is possible.

 

Land Management is the same thing. Joshua Tree, nice, rocks fun, trees pretty, cozy spot...

 

But, more than a million people a year visit the park. If a million people did as they please, because, after all, one person is not much bigger than a coyote, big stretches of the park would become a desolate dust bowl, and much of the wildlife would disappear. So, there is a trail system, designated campsites, and certain areas of the park are closed to certain activities (ex. climbing). It is a compromise, trying to preserve as much as possible for the most number of people to enjoy. Duh.

 

-jjf

Link to comment

The issue is not what we believe but what the land managers in charge believe. I believe that a dozen visitors to a cache site over a period of months is going to have little impact. But land managers could believe differently for lots of reasons well mentioned already. we have to be careful, work double time in "doing the right thing" so that we can get and keep the support we need to continue our hobby in areas we want to cache in.

 

Anything else and we'll be shooting ourselves in the foot.

 

Alan

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Alan2:

Anything else and we'll be shooting ourselves in the foot.

 

Alan


 

As much as I've already said on this issue, I have to loudly agree. I love backpacking, back country camping, and climbing. I've watched all three struggle with access issues.

 

Enthusiasts always spout the same stuff, 'we are more environmentally sensitive than most land users...', 'our impact is miniscule, look at activity X...', 'it is OUR land, so we should get to do what we want with it...'

 

A few loud mouthed, high impact, cretins always trigger a backlash. Then, everyone is shocked that Joe-Q-Public isn't outraged at the 'injustice' to the sport when the powers-that-be over react.

 

Each time, I look to skip a few steps, but maybe they are inevitable icon_frown.gif

 

-jjf

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Alan2:

Anything else and we'll be shooting ourselves in the foot.

 

Alan


 

As much as I've already said on this issue, I have to loudly agree. I love backpacking, back country camping, and climbing. I've watched all three struggle with access issues.

 

Enthusiasts always spout the same stuff, 'we are more environmentally sensitive than most land users...', 'our impact is miniscule, look at activity X...', 'it is OUR land, so we should get to do what we want with it...'

 

A few loud mouthed, high impact, cretins always trigger a backlash. Then, everyone is shocked that Joe-Q-Public isn't outraged at the 'injustice' to the sport when the powers-that-be over react.

 

Each time, I look to skip a few steps, but maybe they are inevitable icon_frown.gif

 

-jjf

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...