Environmental Impact

November 27, 2000

I think that Geocaching is fun and interesting. However, I am a little concerned about there being lots of caches (i.e. man-made objects) in nature areas if the sport becomes popular. How does everyone feel about this? Are there any solutions? An idea I had was to have caches available for a limited time (6 months, say), and then have it be the responsibility of the cache placer to go and retrieve it. That way, at least we're not leaving stuff all over parks and other natural areas.

November 27, 2000

At the risk of dredging up the "Sierra" thread again, here's my opinion which, I'm sure, does not necessarily reflect the views of other geocachers or the views of www.geocaching.com...

Most, if not all, geocaches contain objects which are not harmful to the environment. Additionally, most of the contents are contained within sealed baggies within sealed containers, which also are not detrimental to the environment. The only issue, really, is are they an eyesore to those who expect a view unobstructed by man made objects. Since most are hidden to some degree, this too is not much of an issue.

Those that are plainly visible might be replaced in such a way that they do not obstruct the natural beauty of the location in which they are placed.

As has been previously noted, people 'stash' items in nature quite regularly. Many hikers pre-run their routes and stash water and food items at certain points along the trail in order to lighten their load and provide sustenance as they make their trek. Climbers are notorious for stashing rope and climbing gear near their favorite climbs to avoid carrying these heavy items back and forth each time they decide to make the climb. They also leave pitons they've hammered into the cliff walls for the next climber to use. Speelunkers (cavers) leave gear deep within caves to provide staging areas from which to descend deeper.

As I see it, as long as these items are not harmful to the environment, there is no problem. If someone finds them and determines them to be detrimental, or just an eyesore, there is nothing stopping them from removing the item. Who knows, the next time I stumble across 300' of nylon rope, I may consider it ugly and take it home

November 27, 2000

At the risk of dredging up the "Sierra" thread again, here's my opinion which, I'm sure, does not necessarily reflect the views of other geocachers or the views of www.geocaching.com...

Most, if not all, geocaches contain objects which are not harmful to the environment. Additionally, most of the contents are contained within sealed baggies within sealed containers, which also are not detrimental to the environment. The only issue, really, is are they an eyesore to those who expect a view unobstructed by man made objects. Since most are hidden to some degree, this too is not much of an issue.

Those that are plainly visible might be replaced in such a way that they do not obstruct the natural beauty of the location in which they are placed.

As has been previously noted, people 'stash' items in nature quite regularly. Many hikers pre-run their routes and stash water and food items at certain points along the trail in order to lighten their load and provide sustenance as they make their trek. Climbers are notorious for stashing rope and climbing gear near their favorite climbs to avoid carrying these heavy items back and forth each time they decide to make the climb. They also leave pitons they've hammered into the cliff walls for the next climber to use. Speelunkers (cavers) leave gear deep within caves to provide staging areas from which to descend deeper.

As I see it, as long as these items are not harmful to the environment, there is no problem. If someone finds them and determines them to be detrimental, or just an eyesore, there is nothing stopping them from removing the item. Who knows, the next time I stumble across 300' of nylon rope, I may consider it ugly and take it home

November 28, 2000

The fear that wild areas will be trampled by Geocachers is based on the assumption that hundreds or even thousands of people will be traveling to each cache location every season - thus tearing up grass, meadows and the like.

I really don't think that this will be a problem because the number of caches will grow as more people join the sport and the cache/seeker ratio will remain about the same as it is today. Yes, there will be more geocachers out there, but they will go to more places so environmental inpact in any one spot should not be great.

On the other hand, in rare instances, a cache may contribute to environmental damage - i.e. a cache on sentitive alpine tundra. In such cases, a policy is needed to retire a cache that is causing damage or should be removed for another reason. Does anyone have any suggestions as to what that process should be?

November 28, 2000

environment one of us will agree to remove it and report the cache removed based on this reason.

If we continue to encourage reducing environmental impact and at the same time encouraging people to go out and appreciate the outdoors, it all rounds out.

Ah, one extra note - I agree that the people playing will increase along with the number of geocaches, but I'm sure there'll be some very popular ones (read: easy) - These we'll probably have to be more wary of environmental impact than the others. The LAX cache in California is one example of a pretty popular cache.

Jeremy

[This message has been edited by jeremy (edited 11-28-2000).]

November 28, 2000

environment one of us will agree to remove it and report the cache removed based on this reason.

If we continue to encourage reducing environmental impact and at the same time encouraging people to go out and appreciate the outdoors, it all rounds out.

Ah, one extra note - I agree that the people playing will increase along with the number of geocaches, but I'm sure there'll be some very popular ones (read: easy) - These we'll probably have to be more wary of environmental impact than the others. The LAX cache in California is one example of a pretty popular cache.

Jeremy

[This message has been edited by jeremy (edited 11-28-2000).]

March 14, 2002

test

March 14, 2002

test

24.7k · March 14, 2002

By and large most caches seem to be in already trampled areas. If by placing them all over we lessin the load on the over trampled zones so be it.

March 14, 2002

This has been pretty well beat into the ground, but a couple of FWIW's:

makaio: Fixed gear (bolts and pins (pitons)) for climbing is probably not a good example to use when discussing Geocaching with land managers. Although most climbers now use camflaged bolt hangers and look for inconspicuous fixed placements (pins are generally left because it means less scaring in the long run (insert, remove, etc.), this is a really touchy subject.

Bolts have been yanked as "abandoned property", and bans are in place on new fixed gear (or at least placements without permits) in many areas.

GGJohn: The 'fear' is right, but the numbers are high. Land Managers will be concerned about any activity that would draw even 10-20 people off trail to the same spot. This is not (or should not) be an issue in areas that already see a lot of human impact, but is a legitimate concern for wilderness areas.

Anyone who has bushwacked several times to a neat spot can tell you that it does not take many visits to wear a visible trail and cause errosion.

In my opinion, this should not preclude wilderness caching, but it might warrant some guidelines and limits from land managers.

-jjf

March 14, 2002

A good topic. As I see the number of geocaches/geocachers increase in my area I worry about this. I think the burden lies with the seeker and not neccesarily the cache owner. It doesnt take too much effort to leave an area as you found it...meaning no evidence that anyone was ever there. I am not overly concerned about the cache contents themself, provided they are out of sight and not dangerous to the environment. The concern I have is for folks tearing up a natural area searching for the cache. There is really no justification for that. Most caches I have seen require very little if any perturbation of the surrounding environment. That being said, many folks trample wildflowers, overturn boulders and make a mess. If that type of behaviour can be eliminated, I believe impact would be virtually nill.

March 14, 2002

Last time I checked, I was an inhabitant of this planet and all of the land was here for me, at the top of the food chain, to use as I see fit.

March 14, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Jake.Hazelip:
Last time I checked, I was an inhabitant of this planet and all of the land was here for me, at the top of the food chain, to use as I see fit.

Me, too. And that guy over there, and his brother. And their cousins and their kids. You don't mind if we tag along with you, do you?

Truth is, there are a whole bunch of us and we can't all do what we feel like all the time everywhere. I'm sure you're an upstanding guy, but some of my cousins kids are real slobs. There's rules against *them*.

As far as being on top of the food chain ... I'd not push it, if I were you!

Bluespreacher

March 14, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Jake.Hazelip:
Last time I checked, I was an inhabitant of this planet and all of the land was here for me, at the top of the food chain, to use as I see fit.

Me, too. And that guy over there, and his brother. And their cousins and their kids. You don't mind if we tag along with you, do you?

Truth is, there are a whole bunch of us and we can't all do what we feel like all the time everywhere. I'm sure you're an upstanding guy, but some of my cousins kids are real slobs. There's rules against *them*.

As far as being on top of the food chain ... I'd not push it, if I were you!

Bluespreacher

9.2k · March 14, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Jake.Hazelip:
Last time I checked, I was an inhabitant of this planet and all of the land was here for me, at the top of the food chain, to use as I see fit.

I can think of several animals that might disagree with you on exactly who's on top of the food chain.

9.2k · March 14, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Jake.Hazelip:
Last time I checked, I was an inhabitant of this planet and all of the land was here for me, at the top of the food chain, to use as I see fit.

I can think of several animals that might disagree with you on exactly who's on top of the food chain.

March 14, 2002

The concern over the environmental impact of a geocache is understandable in light of the times in which we live. However, I think we really need to keep this issue in focus. How many of us can say that on any given cache hunt the cache is the trashiest item we see? On one of my latest cache hunts I ran across (and picked up) one crushed water bottle, three beer cans, and one old pair of shoes. All items that anybody would consider trash. All were out in the open, visible to anybody on the trail. All items impacted my wilderness experience in a negative way. The cache on the other hand, was hidden, invisible to anybody not actively searching for it. The cache was in a sealed container. Judging from the logbook I'd say it had a positive impact on the wilderness experience of the individuals who found it. To me, it's a non-issue. Cache-in, trash-out says it all.

March 14, 2002

The concern over the environmental impact of a geocache is understandable in light of the times in which we live. However, I think we really need to keep this issue in focus. How many of us can say that on any given cache hunt the cache is the trashiest item we see? On one of my latest cache hunts I ran across (and picked up) one crushed water bottle, three beer cans, and one old pair of shoes. All items that anybody would consider trash. All were out in the open, visible to anybody on the trail. All items impacted my wilderness experience in a negative way. The cache on the other hand, was hidden, invisible to anybody not actively searching for it. The cache was in a sealed container. Judging from the logbook I'd say it had a positive impact on the wilderness experience of the individuals who found it. To me, it's a non-issue. Cache-in, trash-out says it all.

March 14, 2002

quote:
How many of us can say that on any given cache hunt the cache is the trashiest item we see?

Sorry I’m going off topic, but I had to shake my head when I read this line. This is what I saw a couple weeks ago across the street from a park while hunting a cache.

http://home.earthlink.net/~whidbeywalk/_images/trashy_house.JPG

March 15, 2002

All I'm saying is I have a right to fair access to the land upon which I live...the planet. Yes, I can't go around dumping toxic waste whereever I may roam, but I have a right to roam.

3k · March 15, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Jake.Hazelip:
Last time I checked, I was an inhabitant of this planet and all of the land was here for me, at the top of the food chain, to use as I see fit.

quote:
Originally posted by Jake.Hazelip:

All I'm saying is I have a right to fair access to the land upon which I live...the planet. Yes, I can't go around dumping toxic waste whereever I may roam, but I have a right to roam.

How ironic then that the person presenting this most insular position appears to "roam" so very little, at least as a participant in the activity providing him the soapbox.

8.9k · March 15, 2002

Ummm...

While I think this is a viable topic and one that we should all keep in mind, anyone notice that this was a thread that didn't convert completely. Jeremy's final post on the subject from November of 2000 was truncated, and the next post we have is Peanuthead's test - which bumped the topic to the top.

Just wanted everyone to notice that some of the posts you're replying to are 16 months old.

Markwell

Non omnes vagi perditi sunt

March 15, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Jake.Hazelip:
Last time I checked, I was an inhabitant of this planet and all of the land was here for me, at the top of the food chain, to use as I see fit.

The thing to keep in mind is that you are only at the top of the food chain because, as a species, we band together and work collectively. As an individual, without the support of a huge collective society around you, you are one of the least fearsome and least capable mammals on the plant.

If you want to reap the benefits of "we", but answer only to "I", that is your largely your right. However, the luxury of that right is only afforded because of the efforts of the society around you.

-jjf

March 15, 2002

We taste bad to most animals, too.

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

March 15, 2002

But our collective society is not unique to humans. Lots of critters out there use this for it many benifits. I personlly think that the human animal's intellegence makes him the most ferrocious critter on this planet. We as a collective can make any one individual in our collective more powerefull then any other single critter. The intellegence of humans has made us far greater than anything else that lives on this planet by orders of magnitude. This does not always make us better. But there is not a creature on this planet that can't be ruled or destroyed by a single societally equip human. We are the only creature that has a chance to actually wipe ourselves out. What makes us so formadible is our brains and what lie within. Our biggest enemy is ourselves.

mcb

March 15, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by mcb:
But our collective society is not unique to humans. Lots of critters out there use this for it many benifits. I personlly think that the human animal's intellegence makes him the most ferrocious critter on this planet. We as a collective can make any one individual in our collective more powerefull then any other single critter. The intellegence of humans has made us far greater than anything else that lives on this planet by orders of magnitude. This does not always make us better. But there is not a creature on this planet that can't be ruled or destroyed by a single societally equip human. We are the only creature that has a chance to actually wipe ourselves out. What makes us so formadible is our brains and what lie within. Our biggest enemy is ourselves.

mcb

I'd completely agree. A research neurologist named Schwinger makes the argument that, the vast majority of the time, we use our intellect to pursue only primal desires. But, as a social group, we find it very hard to curb those primal desires in response to what our intellect tells us.

That is, a person of average intelligence posesses the reasoning skills to see that certain group behaviors (even 'government policies') will be very destructive in the long run. But, it is almost impossible to gain the societal momentum to stop those activities until the primal gratification they cause is outweighed by the primal sensation of threat or fear to a majority, or powerful minority of the social group.

IE, We can see that something is bad with reason, but we can't curb the self gratifaction (as a group) until our noses are rubbed in it.

I don't necessarily agree with the whole premise, but it is an interesting thought. Many theorists are intrigued by the contradition between our great powers of reason and our great powers of self delusion and rationalization.

Uh oh... Too depressing. Time to CLIMB!

-jjf

March 15, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Markwell:

Just wanted everyone to notice that some of the posts you're replying to are 16 months old.

Markwell

Non omnes vagi perditi sunt

Gee Markwell, we could start a new thread on the same topic, how would that be?

[P]Seriously, impact is an issue, for what Macro says and also the wearing in of new trails to the cache. There have been some here in NJ that have been moved because of new paths leading right to them. [P]And Whidbey, stop taking pictures of my house! LOL, no mine's not quite that bad!

King Pellinore

8.9k · March 15, 2002

I wasn't suggesting starting a new thread - just making a comment that if you start quoting someone in the thread from before March 2002, A) they might not remember they said it and they're views might have changed.

So far, all the quotes are from posts after March 2002, so the point is still moot. I just wanted everyone to be aware that this is a resurrected thread. Nothing wrong with that at all.

Markwell

Non omnes vagi perditi sunt

March 15, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by mcb:
The intellegence of humans has made us far greater than anything else that lives on this planet by orders of magnitude.

mcb

Of course we could all have been created by God and placed on this planet with dominion over every other living creature with the freedom to use any other creature or plant for food, clothing, etc.

Nah - how crazy is THAT Too much responsibility. We're liable to screw THAT up.

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

March 15, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by mcb:
The intellegence of humans has made us far greater than anything else that lives on this planet by orders of magnitude.

mcb

Of course we could all have been created by God and placed on this planet with dominion over every other living creature with the freedom to use any other creature or plant for food, clothing, etc.

Nah - how crazy is THAT Too much responsibility. We're liable to screw THAT up.

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

March 15, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Markwell:
Ummm...

Just wanted everyone to notice that some of the posts you're replying to are 16 months old.

Markwell

Non omnes vagi perditi sunt

Ummm.... Ok, so a 'test' can be an expression of our collective strength as a species?

March 15, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Markwell:
Ummm...

Just wanted everyone to notice that some of the posts you're replying to are 16 months old.

Markwell

Non omnes vagi perditi sunt

Ummm.... Ok, so a 'test' can be an expression of our collective strength as a species?

March 15, 2002

ok i agree, but when you go for a walk in the woods you should know what your walking on,were your walking, an most of important thought should be (i'm i putting these cach in a place that is a save heaven for specical speceies of plants an animals,) if so don't.

we are only renting this earth from our chidlren

March 15, 2002

quote:
How ironic then that the person presenting this most insular position appears to "roam" so very little, at least as a participant in the activity providing him the soapbox.

Ahhh...the old experiential knowledge argument. You must be intellectually challenged to believe that only those who do may discuss what has been done.

Anyway, I just dropped an OptiPlex GXa on my big left toe and I broke it. Toenail's been removed, swelling's gone down, and I have to soak it in Epsom salt twice daily until the nail grows back. Does this meet with your approval, oh Grand Wizard of geocacher status approval?

As I've stated before, I have hunted other caches with a friend of mine. Several, in fact. Since I didn't have a GPS and download the waypoints, I chose not to log those finds. Due to some physical setbacks other than the toe (none of which are any of your f**king business), I've only been able to hunt one cache solo.

In short, piss off.

3k · March 16, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Jake.Hazelip:

the old experiential knowledge argument. ... In short, piss off.

Such eloquence. I would humbly suggest you try reading for content. Many have noted your inability, or unwillingness, to comprehend even the most simple of statements.

March 16, 2002

You couldn't contradict what I stated factually, so you made a snide remark about me personally. I simply returned the favor. If you don't like it, too bad.

March 16, 2002

rdw

March 16, 2002

rdw

2.6k · March 16, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Prime Suspect:

I can think of several animals that might disagree with you on exactly who's on top of the food chain.

http://gdbclub.org/GeoCache/PS_sig.gif

And they're all quite tasty.

george

2.6k · March 16, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Prime Suspect:

I can think of several animals that might disagree with you on exactly who's on top of the food chain.

http://gdbclub.org/GeoCache/PS_sig.gif

And they're all quite tasty.

george

3k · March 16, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Jake.Hazelip:
You couldn't contradict what I stated factually, so you made a snide remark about me personally. I simply returned the favor. If you don't like it, too bad.

It's almost too painfully obvious to point out, but you stated nothing factual. You stated your belief. My response was not a snide remark; it was an observation of the fact that your profile indicates you have "roamed very little" as a geocacher.

March 16, 2002

Member only flames is probably less controversial than the caches...

March 17, 2002

It is a fact that the human being is an animal inhabitant of this planet.

It is a fact that the human being is an animal that is a *part* of nature, and not a force against it, as many like Sierra Club morons would have you believe.

It is a fact that I have a natural right to roam this planet's surface and explore its natural beauty.

It is a fact that I do NOT have the right to destroy it, thusly preventing my fellow human animals from also enjoying it.

It is a fact that geocaching, when properly done (no food, no burying, no damage to the area of the cache), presents little environmental impact to the land of the planet to which I have a right to use for my needs as an inhabitant thereof.

Is that clear enough for you? I have a broken toe, I have had a rather serious illness, and now my car is in the shop. Is this ok with you? Should I put this in my profile so that it may meet with your approval? Can I go on and plan my cache (cleaning out olive containers, painting them, collecting items for planting) and plan my travel bugs (finding unique items, figuring out how to change their color safely, etc) in peace and quiet now that I have submitted my application for geocacher to you for your stamp of arrogance...er, approval?

[This message was edited by Jake.Hazelip on March 17, 2002 at 06:03 AM.]

3k · March 17, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Jake.Hazelip:
Last time I checked, I was an inhabitant of this planet and all of the land was here for me, at the top of the food chain, to use as I see fit.

That statement represents the absolute epitome of arrogance. In later posts you attempted to mitigate that statement, in a way that contradicts your original "postulate." But you may have the final, if ineloquent, words:

quote:
Originally posted by Jake.Hazelip:

In short, piss off

March 17, 2002

I didn't contradict myself. I further expanded on the premise. Both my two statements were issued before you jumped up my ***. I don't really give a rip if you like it or not, it's true and you're wrong.

I do have a right at the top of the food chain to use this planet for my needs and wants. I do have a responsibility not to ruin it for others. My original intent is to illustrate that the NPS has no damned good reason to keep me out of *my* wilderness areas as both an inhabitant of this planet and a citizen of this country.

You're just pissed because I called you out on your arrogant stance that since you've found more caches, you can use that as a reason to shout me down. Well, I say again, piss off.

March 18, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Jake.Hazelip:
I didn't contradict myself. I further expanded on the premise. _Both_ my two statements were issued before you jumped up my ***. I don't really give a rip if you like it or not, it's true and you're wrong.

I do have a right at the top of the food chain to use this planet for my needs and wants. I do have a responsibility not to ruin it for others. My original intent is to illustrate that the NPS has no damned good reason to keep me out of *my* wilderness areas as both an inhabitant of this planet and a citizen of this country.

You're just pissed because I called you out on your arrogant stance that since you've found more caches, you can use that as a reason to shout me down. Well, I say again, piss off.

The last time I checked, it was *our* public lands. The NPS, NFS, BLM, and state land management agencies are far from perfect, but they answer to one of the most representative democratic governments on the planet.

Further, their administration of *our* in-trust resources is answerable to the US judiciary. IE, groups of citizens, or even a single citizen, can challenge policy in the courts.

You, personally, are not the top of the food chain. You are, by your own statements, the sick and weak. We, collectively, have decided that, in our just society, it is better to not let natural selection take its course and let you be culled from the herd by stronger predators.

The same societal system that keeps people from stomping on your bad toe, slapping you around, and taking all your stuff is what empowers the "NPS" to put constraints on your use of *our* land.

Now, it is a free country. There are many places that you can loudly express even the most stupid and illogical things. But, in a moderated forum, your 'speech' is constrained by the agreement posted when you signed up.

I suggest you keep on 'point' (assuming you have one) and keep your personal insults to yourself.

BassoonPilot: Please, do us all a favor and turn the other cheek. Some threads should just die.

-jjf

March 18, 2002

We share your concern. We recently placed a cache in a rather high traffic area. If it appears that the surrounding immediate area is being impacted, we'll remove it and log the removal on the web site. I don't think it should be a problem though.

I think we as Geocachers should be sensitive about the environment. The greatest part of Geocaching is exploring the wilderness. We try to follow these three very basic rules when we're Geocaching:

1. Stay on existing trails as long as possible.

2. Avoid bushwhacking as much as humanly possible.

3. Cache-In, Trash-Out

If Geocachers are known as hikers/explorers who actually pack out trash in search of caches that have almost no impact on the surrounding environment, I think we'll possibly avoid what the mountain bikers (I'm included in this group) have had to deal with in the last several years; trail closures, fines etc.

Let's all be pro-active and make it known that we're concerned, and we're leaving areas better looking when we leave than when we got there!

3.5k · March 18, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Whidbey Walk:
Sorry I’m going off topic, but I had to shake my head when I read this line. This is what I saw a couple weeks ago across the street from a park while hunting a cache.

http://home.earthlink.net/~whidbeywalk/_images/trashy_house.JPG

Whidbey! Yeah! I saw that very same house! Holy Smoke!

March 19, 2002

quote:
This is what I saw a couple weeks ago across the street from a park while hunting a cache.
http://home.earthlink.net/~whidbeywalk/_images/trashy_house.JPG

Why are people always taking pictues of my house?

(You didn't happen to notice a pair of car keys did you?)

MajBach

You can't have everything.

where would you put it?

2.3k · March 19, 2002

This thread has been concerned with the actual caches only (if we disregard the personal vendetta; Can't you make your minds up in a regular gunfight? ). Is it anyone more than me that thinks that the pollution made by the cars when going to and from the caches probably has a greater impact on the planet than the cahce itself?

I guess we don't walk all the way to all the caches, do we?

Anders

Environmental Impact

Recommended Posts

Guest swangner

Guest makaio

Guest makaio

Guest GGJohn

Guest jeremy

Guest jeremy

Join the conversation