Jump to content

Environmentally sound caching


Recommended Posts

I'm a little concerned that some cache hiders aren't taking into consideration the delicate nature of some of the areas where they hide their caches. It's part of the fun of geocaching to discover new and beautiful places via caching but it's also very important that no one needs to destroy an area to get to a cache. If you put one near a place that can't handle traffic, say so and give directions so the cachers can safely get to your cache. Some people have been very conscientious to do so, others seem oblivious to the problem. What has been your experience or have you considered this problem?

Link to comment

One of the oldest caches in my area is placed in a rather unfriendly way, in my opinion. I don't want to name names, but where the cache is placed it is very easy to ruin the terrain (pushing down dirt by walking on it, breaking branches of bushes, etc). The worst that happens with many of the caches out here is that you get some four inch deep footprints in the ground and maybe disturb one of the bazillion anthills, but with this particular cache I'm concerned that worse damage could result over time.

 

Its been there since February of 2001, and the area didn't look too bad, but then again I never saw it before the cache was placed. I myself did a fair amount of dirt shifting while looking for it, despite trying my best to be careful.

 

In general though, cachers in my area seem to be respectful of the environment, although its hard to tell because of the nature of the high desert.

Link to comment

I have around 25 finds and I don't recall any that were placed in an manner that presented a danger to, or had an obvious impact on, the surrounding environment.

 

I'm sure as I find more caches, I may encounter a few that present a problem (and I will be sure to e-mail the owner). So far the ratio around here appears to be less than one in 25.

Link to comment

When I hide a cache, I make a point to place it in an obvious spot. If you arrive in the vicinity, it'll be in one of the fist two or three places you look.

 

That said, I have been frustrated by people who want to add to the level of difficulty by placing the caches in holes in the ground or crevaces covered by leavess. This kind of hiding only invites the searcher to disrupt 3,000 square-feet of ground cover.

 

I think it is more responsible (environmentally speaking) to make the cache difficult to get to but not find once you're there. Some caches can take 30-60 minutes to find ... all the while one or two people are walking around in circles kicking layers of leaves and turning over rocks ... it's terrible.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by DisQuoi:

...This kind of hiding only invites the searcher to disrupt 3,000 square-feet of ground cover.

 

...Some caches can take 30-60 minutes to find ... all the while one or two people are walking around in circles kicking layers of leaves and turning over rocks ... it's terrible.


 

And here in the East, it's always in the kind of low vegetation where ticks love to hide out. And there you are walking around in all that stuff. Frankly, I don't know what the answer is. In the city parks I hid my caches ou pretty much have to throw some begetation on them or they'll get plundered. HOwever, I have been pretty specifi in the encrypted note on the cache page. "It's in the hole of the big tree" for example. Of course that won't help finders who don' de-crypt before they'v spent 30 minutes looking.

 

However, in the final analysis, at least here in the Eastern woods where vegetation grows pretty fast, the "trails" created will grow over prety quickly and ou'll never know thre was a cache there.

Alan

Link to comment

I would echo DisQuoi's statements. We were at a boulderfield cache site recently...the hint said the cache was hidden "under two rocks." We didn't know it then, but the cache had been taken. We ended up turning a lot of rocks over, and despite our efforts to place them back the way they were, I'm sure we made our mark on the site.

 

It's sometimes hard to envision how others will impact a site when you know where the cache is because you hid it. If the site can't sustain traffic well, explicit instructions can help; perhaps they are better placed in the description than the hint. Responsible maintenance would involve regular monitoring and allowing "healing" time when needed, either by archiving the site periodically or varying the coordinates slightly.

 

It's ironic that success (i.e., popularity) of a sport can harm some of the things that make it attractive in the first place.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by DisQuoi:

When I hide a cache, I make a point to place it in an obvious spot.


 

That may work well for you, but in my area where caches have been plundered, hiding it in an obvious spot does not work well. I started a thread about having coordinates hidden to non registered cachers and even though there were two surveys with voting in favor of this idea, nothing has been done. I wonder if anyone even cares about the results of surveys around here. I received many responses in the thread saying that I should just do a better job hiding my caches, making them more difficult to find. I'm not sure what the answer is, since they were hidden well to begin with. From now on any cache I hide will be more difficult to find, the searcher will just have to work harder to find it.

Link to comment

quote:
That may work well for you, but in my area where caches have been plundered, hiding it in an obvious spot does not work well.

 

Point well taken. Let me clarify that to me "obvious" does not mean "in plain view". I hide all of my caches out of sight of potential passersby. But if you walk until your GPSr tells you that you're there, you'll look around you and before you start turning over habitats, you'll probably look in the huge hollow tree or fallen log.

 

I won't say which one it is but there's a great cache in Maryland that is a cloth wine bottle bag hanging up inside a walk-in hollow tree. You can't see it without a flashlight. But I must say, it was an "obvious" hiding spot ... which is good because it's located near the banks of the Potomac River in a park full of rocks and leaves.

 

Perhaps one question I'd ask is, when you (not you, cachew nut, specifically) place a cache, you you decide the coordinates first, or do you look for great places to hide something? I've found caches where I've passed scores of cool hiding spots just to find the cache on the ground under piles of branches or leaves. Very dissapointing and a bad trend in my oppinion.

Link to comment

I worry that my cache, which is placed carelessly in the forest, may be causing jealousy between the trees that are getting attention and the trees that are not. Also, what about those water drinking cachers who fertilize around the cache area? This could cause shame and severe psychological distress to the animals there. I think I’ll give up on caching altogether…….

 

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

What is the price of experience, do men buy it for a song,

Or wisdom for a dance in the street.................

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Criminal:

I worry that my cache, which is placed carelessly in the forest, may be causing jealousy between the trees that are getting attention and the trees that are not. Also, what about those water drinking cachers who fertilize around the cache area? This could cause shame and severe psychological distress to the animals there. I think I’ll give up on caching altogether…….

 

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

What is the price of experience, do men buy it for a song,

Or wisdom for a dance in the street.................


 

OK Criminal,

 

I thought I was the only Sarcastic Funny-boy in these discussions...

 

Wonderful to see a fellow funny-type person in here!.

 

maj-gps.gif

 

Always trade UP in both quantity and quality and Geocaches will be both self-sustaining and self-improving!

 

--majicman

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Criminal:

I worry that my cache, which is placed carelessly in the forest, may be causing jealousy between the trees that are getting attention and the trees that are not. Also, what about those water drinking cachers who fertilize around the cache area? This could cause shame and severe psychological distress to the animals there. I think I’ll give up on caching altogether…….


 

Criminal (and everyone),

 

What I like to do when I get in a situation like that, where some of the trees are obviously moaning and groaning that they are too far from the cache and therefore not receiving the same attention that their brother trees are... well, I just walk right up to the neglected and whining tree and perform a personal fertilization service for them.

 

Now I know that the near-cache trees will be jealous of such rich fertilizer and that should even out the score.

 

Typically, those trees along the path in to the cache are the best recipients of this service, as they often see many cachers walk right by them, but then spend all there time breathing that severely tree-desired carbon dioxide into the lucky cache-local trees.

 

I find that these trees (along the path in) are usually psychologically damaged, and therefore most in need of my fertilizing services.

 

Also, I try to perform this service right near the trail so that future fellow geocachers will see my example and perhaps drop their own nutrients in similar fashion.

 

Shoot, I can forsee a day when entire paths to the cache will be dotted with the rich remnants of generous geocachers, and we will truly be doing a service to the trees and plants, rather than causing them stress.

 

Heck, if we perform this service enough (what I shall now hereafter refer to as PFS - Personal Fertilization Service) we might even be allowed into the national forests and parks!

 

Heck, PFS might very well one day replace the old Geocaching and the central focus of the new Recreational Activity (/sport/game/pasttime) and we will have people going into forrests to just perform PFS and not even look for caches!

 

We might even get our own website and travel-bugs (ooohhh - bad idea! OK, skip the travel bug idea.)

 

My only regret is that I can perform PFS only about once per day, so, I ask all true tree-huggin' fellow geocachers to assist me in my PFS quest and truly leave your mark in a positive and personal way!

 

P.S. This will tie in real well with the cross-post on F.I. and that might very well become a sub-section of PFS, kinda like "virtual caches".

 

maj-gps.gif

 

Always trade UP in both quantity and quality and Geocaches will be both self-sustaining and self-improving!

 

--majicman

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by cachew nut:

 

That may work well for you, but in my area where caches have been plundered, hiding it in an obvious spot does not work well. I started a thread about having coordinates hidden to non registered cachers and even though there were two surveys with voting in favor of this idea, nothing has been done. I wonder if anyone even cares about the results of surveys around here. I received many responses in the thread saying that I should just do a better job hiding my caches, making them more difficult to find. I'm not sure what the answer is, since they were hidden well to begin with. From now on any cache I hide will be more difficult to find, the searcher will just have to work harder to find it.


 

A local cacher was having his cache plundered by some he suspected he upset. A few caches he placed were posted with general, but false coordinates. The coordinates for the caches were hidden in other caches under a similar theme. So if you wanted to plunder the cache you'd have to find 1 or 2 other caches. But he only gave clues as to which caches they were. Keywords to search for but no actual names of caches.

 

I found half of a coordinate a few days ago and I'm not sure which cache holds the other half. I'm sure I'll come across it sooner or later.

 

george

 

Remember: Half the people you meet are below average.

Link to comment

We seem to have gotten off topic. Obviously some people don't care whether they make a nasty impact in the non-paved world. I still think geocachers have a responsiblity to think about what their actions in placing or hunting for a cache will have on an otherwise untrampled environment. Thanks for your comments and consideration about this problem.

Link to comment

“Obviously some people don't care whether they make a nasty impact………..”

 

On the off chance you’re referring to the Criminal, nothing is obvious. There are other possibilities you know. Maybe I live in the northwest where a person can trample their butts off and the vegetation will recover in a few days. Maybe I am simply a smart-***. Actually if every single geocacher in the US came out and found one of my caches here in Washington, stomped, snorted, pried and clawed the vegetation to find it, the earth would be really no worse off than it is (or isn’t) now. Read some of my other posts, I often default to believing that people in general and geocahers especially, are good people who wouldn’t do damage intentionally. I guess that makes me irresponsible. Oh, and what exactly was the “problem”? I’ve never noticed one in my neck of the woods………….

 

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

What is the price of experience, do men buy it for a song,

Or wisdom for a dance in the street.................

Link to comment
Originally posted by YukonShadow:

I'm a little concerned that some cache hiders aren't taking into consideration the delicate nature of some of the areas where they hide their caches. ]

 

My guess would be that those sensitive area caches are placed without full knowledge of the land manager. (waiting to beg for forgiveness rather than ask up front) In my experience, the permission grantor is very interested in exactly where the cache is located. And they are knowledgable enough about that area to make a recommendation as to the suitability of off trail traffic.

Having been one of those who would have been giving the permission years ago, I rarely had time to chase down every questionable use of the park. If I was still there today, a cache hider could describe a stump near a ravine in the 320 acres, and I could tell him/her whether it would be a good spot or not and why.

As responsible seekers, we always take care to use designated trails whenever possible, watch were we step, and strive for leaving no trace. Broken mayapples or trampled grass leading right to the area kind of spoils the final stages of the adventure. We even move away from the cache hiding spot to examine the contents and sign the log. The five minutes of standing there shuffling about creates a bullseye at the spot. And we want the next person to have just as much fun as we did.

For what it's worth.

 

Gary

 

"I'm not lost. I'm field checking."

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Criminal:

 

Actually if every single geocacher in the US came out and found one of my caches here in Washington, stomped, snorted, pried and clawed the vegetation to find it, the earth would be really no worse off than it is (or isn’t) now.

 


 

Different people are going to have different ideas about what is reasonable and logical concerning preservation and environmental impact. That is true in any sport. I don't mind seasonal (and a few outright) closures for things like falcon nesting in climbing. Others do...

 

But, there is another impact that is worth considering in caching. If everyone who searchs for the cache moves a lot of stones, duff, rotten logs, or whatever, it doesn't take long until the caches is basically surrounded by a 15-30 foot bullseye. Sort of a 'search here stupid!' sign for even the most mediocre tracker.

 

So, even if you are not (or at least don't think you are) having a long term environmental impact, a leave-no-trace ethic can help keep the game more interesting for the cachers who follow.

 

-jjf

Link to comment

Let me see if I get this right.

We HIDE a container from view, in a place that is not heavily traveled - the better the hiding spot, the better the game. No specific directions are given as to the exact placement of the container or the precise route to travel to it. The instrument used to locate the container REQUIRES you to search X amount of square feet around the spot, uncovering POSSIBLE hiding spots as you wander. And we have people concerned about stepping on grass, lifting rocks, bending branches, yadda, yadda, yadda?

Seems like a conflict of interest to me. Maybe we should make a rule that caches can only be placed in sand-dunes. Nope, that won't work, can't disturb the native bugs. How about only searching by helicopter. Can't do that either - noise pollution.

icon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gif

Link to comment

Let me see if I get this right.

We HIDE a container from view, in a place that is not heavily traveled - the better the hiding spot, the better the game. No specific directions are given as to the exact placement of the container or the precise route to travel to it. The instrument used to locate the container REQUIRES you to search X amount of square feet around the spot, uncovering POSSIBLE hiding spots as you wander. And we have people concerned about stepping on grass, lifting rocks, bending branches, yadda, yadda, yadda?

Seems like a conflict of interest to me. Maybe we should make a rule that caches can only be placed in sand-dunes. Nope, that won't work, can't disturb the native bugs. How about only searching by helicopter. Can't do that either - noise pollution.

icon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gif

Link to comment

Well, I don’t know about anybody else, but the caches around here only get visited two or three time per week. Some of the posts make it sound like there’s a train station out there in the woods. I am an advocate of the concept of hiding a cache in plain sight. You may have to poke a bit to find it. I don’t intentionally create a cache (or find one for that matter) that requires a lot of thrashing about. It seems a bit sanctimonious to worry and fret about the very minute amount of distress on the cache area after you drove your mondo SUV to the site. I understand that some cache-hunt in more delicate areas like the desert or California. As for me, if I inadvertently stomp a small plant or squirrel on my way to the cache, I think the earth overall will be just fine.

 

Besides, who’s standard of “environmentally sound” are we supposed to use?

 

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

What is the price of experience, do men buy it for a song,

Or wisdom for a dance in the street.................

Link to comment

I am tired of having people act like we were dropped here from space ships and not actually part of the environment. In almost all cases my walking in and out of an area has NO environmental impact. Did I leave a footprint? Its no worse than the HUGE footprint right beside it from the Elk that walked this way. The world IS NOT a museum it is an ever changing complex system. We are part of that system. My simple movements through the ecosystem are NOT a danger to its continued existence.

 

I also like managed forests much better than what has been foisted on us today by the "NO CUT, NO CLEAR" types. The huge fires in Colorado are a direct result of that philosophy.

 

nuff said

Link to comment

There are hidden contradictions in the minds of people who "love Nature" while deploring the "artificialities" with which "Man has spoiled 'Nature.'" The obvious contradiction lies in their choice of words, which imply that Man and his artifacts are not part of "Nature" - but beavers and their dams are. But the contradictions go deeper than this prima-facie absurdity. In declaring his love for a beaver dam (erected by beavers for beavers' purposes) and his hatred for dams erected by men (for the purposes of men) the "Naturist" reveals his hatred for his own race - i.e., his own self hatred.

 

In the case of "Naturists" such self-hatred is understandable; they are such a sorry lot. But hatred is too strong an emotion to feel toward them; pity and contempt are the most they rate.

 

As for me, willy-nilly I am a man, not a beaver, and H. sapiens is the only race I have or can have. Fortunately for me, I like being part of a race made up of men and women - it strikes me as a fine arrangement and perfectly "natural."

 

Believe it or not, there were "Naturists" who opposed the first flight to old Earth's Moon as being "unnatural" and a "despoiling of Nature."

 

- Lazarus Long as quoted by Robert A. Heinlein

 

Be Seeing You!

Link to comment

headmj I like your viewpoint. Thats exactly the way I look at it too. We are simply part of a complex life supporting sytem here on earth. And humans are a curious lot. Our level of curiosity is a big part of what separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. It drives our level of learning.

Link to comment

Attila I just want to make a few comments about your post. Some people are hypocryts thats a given. Believe one thing but carry through with certain actions. Thats natural. And, you are right we cannot just place caches on beaches - that would limit things wouldn't it.

A point I'd like to bring up. If the effects on ecology is becoming an issue, as geocachers it should be our responsability to implimant a policy of cache removal after a certain period of time. Say after one year(or longer??) a notice should go out on the cache page that the cache be removed. This would allow the geocache area to grow back to its original state. This would be a very good ecologically responsable approach to geocaching.

Link to comment

I must say, I like the way this thread has turned. I have long advocated that we are part of “nature” and thus everything we do is natural. If you ask any of these environmentalists whether they believe in creation or evolution they will, 99% of the time, say evolution. The whole premise of evolution revolves around the concept of “survival of the fittest” or “adapt or die”. Logic follows then that if the spotted owl can’t learn to adapt by making a nest in a phone pole, or a manatee can’t adapt by growing propeller proof skin on it’s back, it is a crime of nature and a disservice to evolution to let them continue to exist. Think about it. Then think about all the major and real impacts to the environment that are a result of our everyday existence. Is it better to sit on our duffs and watch TV instead of geocaching? (Electricity, plastics, and mining used to make the TV, etc.) Or read a book instead? (Paper is used to make books which come from those precious (and jealous) trees) All in all, the most severe geothrasher is still doing less damage than almost all other activities. I would probably not place a cache that required a machete (another thread) to find, but if I did, the earth would recover (at least where I live) in no more than a month. I also wouldn’t intentionally do damage that wasn’t required for a number of reasons, better stated by others above. How about everybody just relax a bit, it’s all just fine.

 

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

What is the price of experience, do men buy it for a song,

Or wisdom for a dance in the street.................

Link to comment

Criminal,

 

My dad thought much like yourself. One day, an environmentalist was going door to door seeking contributions for the Audobon Society. He made the mistake of stopping at my father's house.

 

He bagan his spheel by stating, "Mr. Johnson, did you know that there are only nine Yellow-breasted Lark Finches left in the world?"

 

My father therupon abruptly ended this conversation with the reply, "If one of them sh-ts on my car, there are only gonna be eight left!"

 

'Nuff said...

 

--majicman

 

(Always trade UP in both quantity and quality and Geocaches will be both self-sustaining and self-improving!)

Link to comment

I'm obviously not a tree hugger, but do believe we have responsibilities such as not cutting down or damaging a tree just for the sake of a cache. When approaching caches we need to respect erosion controls and not leave behind burning campfires.

 

Burying caches should generally be avoided, but there are circumstances that might be proper such as on private land with permission where the burial adds to the fun of the cache.

 

Footprints seem like a reasonable level of "littering" unless they cause erosion or create new undesirable trails (as defined by the property owner or manager such as the NPS - the Brown Rule, he who has the land rules).

 

Some of the things I like about Geocaching.com include "Cache In, Trash Out" and simple rules of respect.

 

A wise monk from Shangri-La once said,

quote:
Moderation in all things including moderation.

 

Be Seeing You!

Link to comment

“We are part of nature”, I agree with you (Number 6) completely.

I read,

One of the oldest caches in my area is placed in a rather unfriendly way, in my opinion. I don't want to name names, but where the cache is placed it is very easy to ruin the terrain (pushing down dirt by walking on it, breaking branches of bushes, etc).

 

Breaking off branches?!?!?

 

Later I read:,

 

all the while one or two people are walking around in circles kicking layers of leaves and turning over rocks ... it's terrible

 

and:

 

Obviously some people don't care whether they make a nasty impact in the non-paved world.

 

Oh those precious little bushes, rocks and dead leaves! Like Number 6, I don’t believe in doing intentional damage but if a few branches require sacrifice then so be it.

 

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

What is the price of experience, do men buy it for a song,

Or wisdom for a dance in the street.................

Link to comment

Just for the record, I am not a chain saw massacre type. I spent 9 years as a scout master and have taught low impact camping methods. However, WE BELONG in the woods, we just need to use our noodles when we are to avoid unnecessary damage. My boys learned this, "leave nothing but footprints, take nothing but pictures." Get into the woods and enjoy!

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...