Forum Wars Ii

[+Renegade Knight]

A little over two years ago the forums had a lot of posts on cache containers, places to hide caches, how to paint camo patterns, and other things like the drunken bee dance vs. the hula. We were all newbies then. Caches were few and far between. We didn’t have a complete grasp on caches and cache listings yet. These were the days when 30 finds made you a contender and some states and most countries still didn’t have caches.

 

Now we know how to hide a cache, we have figured that out ammo cans are the best, we have spoken to parks departments, and teach goecaching classes. We know how to work a GPS, and have stocked our backpacks with the lessons of experience. The body of newbies is now a smaller component of the overall community. The questions of old come up, but they are now only a small segment of the communities concerns compared to what they used to be.

 

What we now face is losing areas to goecaching bans, a growing backlash by environmentalists who see demons in tupperware, a looming shortage of McToys, and a growing body of rules, regulations and provisos on how to place a cache that are starting to impact even the lauded person who just caches for fun. Talk has turned to the politics of goecaching. Emotions are now getting involved. There are issues to be solved. Geocacing.com is the lightning rod because it is “the site” The old forums are gone forever and can not be forced to be what they were, because we are no longer what we were. In spite of the politics we are still a community and wish to discuss other things with geocachers as well.

 

In the future we will have worked out most of the politics and things will turn to business as usual or the occasional geo-crisis. We are not there yet. But we will get there sooner or later, one way or another.

[+Snoogans]

Excellent summation!

 

Ummmmm, what he said.........

 

Sn gans

[+DustyJacket]

What we now face is shooting ourselves in the foot.

We tell land Managers about the web site and they see posts of dubious nature such as caching drunk, carrying guns, and so on. Even though the threads may have valid points of view, it is something that would scare land managers, I think.

 

Even though those posts are from a minority of folks, it presents us in a bad light.

I wonder if our forums ever caused a land manager to say NO.

 

I really wish we could all clean up our act here, and stop giving ourselves bad PR.

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

I do wonder sometimes why we might ask permission if hiding a cache isn't against a local law anyway? Are we just shooting ourselves in the foot doing that?

[+Bloencustoms]

I wonder if our forums ever caused a land manager to say NO.

That's a good question. I'd like to know the answer, but a thread asking the question would likely not be posted to by the only people who really could answer it, the land managers. It would be great if we could truly know the reasons any given person sees caching in a bad light. With that knowledge, the way the activity is conducted could be adjusted to give it a better image. Unfortunately, the instances where land managers have spoken up in these forums about why they feel caching is an unsuitable activity are rare. Without their input, all we can do is speculate, and suppose.

[+bons]

Odd. I was reading a discussion about micro containers, seeing some nice pipe caches, checking out Criminal's excellent camo job, learning how to lock an ammo box, and checking out lots of other similar conversations lately.

 

Maybe it's because I'm new that I'm noticing and reading these threads. Maybe you're not seeing them because they're "old news" to you.

 

Sure, there are some conversations on admins, rules, boring caches, permission, missing TBs and other less than fun topics, but there's also a lot of cool stuff going on too, at least to me.

[+Bloencustoms]

Maybe it's because I'm new that I'm noticing and reading these threads. Maybe you're not seeing them because they're "old news" to you.

 

Good point. I (and probably many others) sometimes skip threads with topics that we have seen discussed before. New people are joining all the time, and they might bring new perspective to the same tired topics.

[+Renegade Knight]

Maybe it's because I'm new that I'm noticing and reading these threads. Maybe you're not seeing them because they're "old news" to you.

 

Good point. I (and probably many others) sometimes skip threads with topics that we have seen discussed before. New people are joining all the time, and they might bring new perspective to the same tired topics.

That's part of the mix. Every now and then I learn something. The point was that now, it's only part of the mix.

[+El Diablo]

Maybe it's because I'm new that I'm noticing and reading these threads. Maybe you're not seeing them because they're "old news" to you.

 

Good point. I (and probably many others) sometimes skip threads with topics that we have seen discussed before. New people are joining all the time, and they might bring new perspective to the same tired topics.

That's why I hate to see someone "Markwelled" We have discussed the issue before the newbie got here, and now we're telling them that we are not interested in their opinions because we already discussed it.

 

El Diablo

[+nincehelser]

What we now face is shooting ourselves in the foot.

We tell land Managers about the web site and they see posts of dubious nature such as caching drunk, carrying guns, and so on. Even though the threads may have valid points of view, it is something that would scare land managers, I think.

 

Even though those posts are from a minority of folks, it presents us in a bad light.

I wonder if our forums ever caused a land manager to say NO.

 

I really wish we could all clean up our act here, and stop giving ourselves bad PR.

I have to agree that the forums could be a liability at times.

 

Two big issues I see are:

 

1) A land manager just happens to read the wrong "hot topics of the day", and comes away with a distorted view of geocaching.

 

or

 

2) A land manager anonymously posts a simple, but loaded, question to the forums like "Does Geocaching damage the environment?" and a large dogpile of indignant replies ensues. Usually resulting in the poster being called a "troll" or "sockpuppet".

 

Have the forums resulted in a "no"? Hard to say for sure, but I think we all know somebody who got "turned off" by the activity on the open forums at one time or another.

 

George

[+cachew nut]

What we now face is shooting ourselves in the foot.

We tell land Managers about the web site and they see posts of dubious nature such as caching drunk, carrying guns, and so on.

I don't think caching drunk is a good idea. I don't see the problem with carrying guns where it is allowed. I hope you weren't implying that those carrying guns are caching drunk and then shooting themselves in the foot.

[+erik88l-r]

It's refreshing to read a thread and be able to agree with the eleven posts above mine. Good point you made, RK, to start it.

 

~erik~

[Jomarac5]

RK wrote:

In the future we will have worked out most of the politics and things will turn to business as usual or the occasional geo-crisis. We are not there yet. But we will get there sooner or later, one way or another.

I sure hope that some of the long running underlying issues are worked out. That would certainly be helpful in diffusing a lot of what is going on.

 

*****

[+El Diablo]

What we now face is shooting ourselves in the foot.

We tell land Managers about the web site and they see posts of dubious nature such as caching drunk, carrying guns, and so on.

I don't think caching drunk is a good idea. I don't see the problem with carrying guns where it is allowed. I hope you weren't implying that those carrying guns are caching drunk and then shooting themselves in the foot.

O.k a little humility here. I wasn't drunk..nor caching, but I have shot myself in the foot. I would highly reccomend that you don't try it.

 

El Diablo

[+GrizzlyJohn]

You know RK if you had said this a couple of weeks ago you would have save a lot of people a bunch of posts. :-)

[+Doc-Dean]

Wow a civil thread!!!

 

I think the sport is experience its "Growing Pains" since it has grown popular enough to catch the media's eye as well as the attention of the environmentalists.

 

I tend to think of things like these growth problems as a pendulum and right now the pendulum has swung to the side of restrictions and suspecion. Eventually it will settle and reach an equilibrium and compromises will be attained.

 

 

[+Breaktrack]

Wow a civil thread!!!

 

I think the sport is experience its "Growing Pains" since it has grown popular enough to catch the media's eye as well as the attention of the environmentalists.

 

I tend to think of things like these growth problems as a pendulum and right now the pendulum has swung to the side of restrictions and suspecion. Eventually it will settle and reach an equilibrium and compromises will be attained.

 

 

Wow, very well said.

 

In life, as in our hobbies, if we use a degree of "reasonableness" I think things will go much better for all. I try to do that in everything I do. If an employee makes a decision I don't necessarily agree with I still ask myself, "Was it a reasonable decision?" or, "Were their actions reasonable, even if not actually what they should have done?"

 

If someone posts a topic, or expresses an opinion, a "reasonable" response is in order if a response is needed at all.

 

Courtesy, consideration, and a reasonable demeanor would help out quite a few folks of late.....LOL.

 

A sense of humor wouldn't hurt either..... LOL.

 

[+seneca]

What we now face is losing areas to goecaching bans, a growing backlash by environmentalists who see demons in tupperware... 

 

I think the sport is experience its "Growing Pains" since it has grown popular enough to catch the media's eye as well as the attention of the environmentalists.

 

Where is this environmental backlash/concern that is being talked of? I have not seen or heard of any statements by credible environmentalists to the effect that geocaching is detrimental to the environment. There are so many truly horrific things that humans do to their environment, that I seriously doubt that a genuine environmentalist would waste their valuable time and energy raising any concern over anything as relatively benign as geocaching. I may be wrong - if genuine environmental concerns have been raised regarding geocaching please let me know, but in the meantime I do not think it is helpful to simply presume that there is growing opposition to Geocaching by environmentalists.

[+worldtraveler]

Where is this environmental backlash/concern that is being talked of?    I have not seen or heard of any statements by credible environmentalists to the effect that geocaching is detrimental to the environment.

Well, here's one that may qualify. The land manager builds a straw man (geocachers are likely to go off trail) and then uses it as justification to oppose geocaching in that area. They even posted a photo of a boot-trampled flower with a caption reading "OUCH" for effect. Certainly not good science, but it's a sad fact that it's not an isolated perception. It only took me about 5 minutes using Google to find this one. Chances are there are others.

 

I think it's also worth noting at least one "environmentalist" organization (the Sierra Club) appears to have accepted and even promoted geocaching. See this web page.

[+The Leprechauns]

I agree with RK's summation of the growth cycle in these forums. While I sometimes disagree with his opinions, I almost always enjoy reading what he has to say, and this topic is a great example.

 

I have corresponded privately with three land managers (two in Pennsylvania and one in Ohio) who have commented on the negativity of the forums and, specifically in two cases, about the debates concerning the need for permission. Interestingly, none of these land managers believes that geocaching is "bad for the environment" and they welcome caches placed on the lands they manage. They only ask to know where the caches are, so they could suggest areas to be avoided. But I do worry about the image the forums sometimes present to those land managers who have not yet been convinced of geocaching's many benefits. They ARE reading along. They read the cache pages and logs, too.... the ones where we brag about parking along the road, entering the park at night and bushwacking to the cache. They check on our caches from time to time. Some of them leave notes in the logbook.

 

I think the best example of the forums having a negative effect on land manager relations comes from the U.K., where a land manager posted a topic which then generated replies, resulting in the near-derailment of ongoing efforts to establish a geocaching policy. All turned out well in the end but it was quite a tempest.

Edited December 5, 2003 by The Leprechauns

[+hikemeister]

Where is this environmental backlash/concern that is being talked of? I have not seen or heard of any statements by credible environmentalists to the effect that geocaching is detrimental to the environment. There are so many truly horrific things that humans do to their environment, that I seriously doubt that a genuine environmentalist would waste their valuable time and energy raising any concern over anything as relatively benign as geocaching. I may be wrong - if genuine environmental concerns have been raised regarding geocaching please let me know, but in the meantime I do not think it is helpful to simply presume that there is growing opposition to Geocaching by environmentalists.

I am an environmental scientist, a 20-year member of the Ecological Society of America, and an avid geocacher. One thing to keep in mind is that geocaching has the potential to get many folks out into natural areas who normally would not do so -- this, in turn, can lead to a greater appreciation of those areas -- and ultimately this is important, because as taxpayers and voters, they are the ones supporting important environmental restoration programs in the USA and elsewhere. I have seen only limited evidence of 'damage' done by geocachers, and some simple steps, like not putting geocaches in places that require blazing new trails through undisturbed lands, can cut down any damage to near zero.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I have not seen or heard of any statements by credible environmentalists to the effect that geocaching is detrimental to the environment...

With that qualification I can't disagree. However I work in a world where comments like "I don't like off-road trails because they are ugly and my view is not as pretty as it would be otherwise" have power and derail projects.

 

While there certainly are people who look at things objectively there are many, many more who look at things with their emotions and shut off their brains. The "Ouch" photo is a great example of trying to elicit an emotional reaction. The archaeological story in Arizona that slammed geocaching is another.

 

Locally we have a group that formed to promote non motorized use of the excellent trail system we have here in the surrounding hills. Their primary objective ended up being not promoting their stated activity but instead to lobby for the removal of off-road vehicle access to anything. I walk, hike, bike, and 4x4 so I can understand the need for a balance. For some there is no balance and they see demons in Tupperware. All the land managers I work with though are in the balance things out category. They are however subject to pressure from above and that pressure is driven by politics. Politics is a great source of demon slaying.

[+The Leprechauns]

Where is this environmental backlash/concern that is being talked of?    I have not seen or heard of any statements by credible environmentalists to the effect that geocaching is detrimental to the environment.

Well, here's one that may qualify. The land manager builds a straw man (geocachers are likely to go off trail) and then uses it as justification to oppose geocaching in that area. They even posted a photo of a boot-trampled flower with a caption reading "OUCH" for effect. Certainly not good science, but it's a sad fact that it's not an isolated perception. It only took me about 5 minutes using Google to find this one. Chances are there are others.

 

I think it's also worth noting at least one "environmentalist" organization (the Sierra Club) appears to have accepted and even promoted geocaching. See this web page.

In reading that linked website some more during my lunch hour, I was struck by the contrast between the land manager's treatment of geocachers and rock climbers. (And I am not bashing rock climbers, I've enjoyed that activity in the past.)

 

The rock climbing page explains that new permanent anchors are not allowed, but they decided to compromise and allow all the anchors on existing popular climbing routes to remain in place. Marking with chalk on boulders is O.K., but please try to use tasteful colored chalk. And getting to the climbing areas? Well, using a social trail or going off-trail seems to be OK... just try not to trample anything and don't prune anything back to make the climbing easier. The trampled flower picture is recycled on that page. Oh, and they say they will build some new trails to get to the climbing spots that currently can't be reached by an official trail

 

Should I wait for an update when they decide to build trails for use by geocachers?

[+southdeltan]

QUOTE (seneca @ Dec 5 2003, 07:09 AM)

...I have not seen or heard of any statements by credible environmentalists to the effect that geocaching is detrimental to the environment... 

 

With that qualification I can't disagree. However I work in a world where comments like "I don't like off-road trails because they are ugly and my view is not as pretty as it would be otherwise" have power and derail projects.

 

Don't forget the fact that not all environmentalists are credible, there are plenty of well meaning people out there that attack things they don't understand.

 

I have to agree this is one of the least irritating threads in a long while (irritating to read due to all of the flaming/arguing/etc).

 

southdeltan

[+seneca]

Don't forget the fact that not all environmentalists are credible, there are plenty of well meaning people out there that attack things they don't understand.

I wasn't talking about the nutbars out there who have overdosed on granola. The concern that I raised was an attitude that I am sensing from some geoacahers that environmentally, maybe we do have something to apologize for, and that what we are doing is catching up with us. I very sincerely believe that environmentally, we are on very firm ground, and that we should stand up straight and proud in this regard, and always represent ourselves in that way.

 

Here's an interesting calculation: If the average geocache has a footprint of 6 inches by 6 inches, the amount of land covered by over 200,000 out-of-view caches is smaller than the size of a typical playing field! That playing field was likely made by totally decimating a forest. So long as geocachers respect the land they walk on, (which should be required of any person entering public lands) that tiny, harmless footprint is the only impact that we are having on the land. In fact, the time that we spend geoaching, is probably taking away from the time that we might otherwise be involved in an activity that actually does damage to the environment.

Edited December 5, 2003 by seneca

[SLCDave]

Where is this environmental backlash/concern that is being talked of?    I have not seen or heard of any statements by credible environmentalists to the effect that geocaching is detrimental to the environment.

Well, here's one that may qualify. The land manager builds a straw man (geocachers are likely to go off trail) and then uses it as justification to oppose geocaching in that area. They even posted a photo of a boot-trampled flower with a caption reading "OUCH" for effect. Certainly not good science, but it's a sad fact that it's not an isolated perception. It only took me about 5 minutes using Google to find this one. Chances are there are others.

 

I think it's also worth noting at least one "environmentalist" organization (the Sierra Club) appears to have accepted and even promoted geocaching. See this web page.

In reading that linked website some more during my lunch hour, I was struck by the contrast between the land manager's treatment of geocachers and rock climbers. (And I am not bashing rock climbers, I've enjoyed that activity in the past.)

 

The rock climbing page explains that new permanent anchors are not allowed, but they decided to compromise and allow all the anchors on existing popular climbing routes to remain in place. Marking with chalk on boulders is O.K., but please try to use tasteful colored chalk. And getting to the climbing areas? Well, using a social trail or going off-trail seems to be OK... just try not to trample anything and don't prune anything back to make the climbing easier. The trampled flower picture is recycled on that page. Oh, and they say they will build some new trails to get to the climbing spots that currently can't be reached by an official trail

 

Should I wait for an update when they decide to build trails for use by geocachers?

I agree with your observations. It also appears that if the author could find a way to build a wall around their park without harming any flowers in the process, they would. I think they want us to view nature from our rear ends through an internet site, and the truth is, they are out of a job if everyone does that. I don't seem the harm in hiking through a national forest, and enjoying nature. If a flower is trampled in the process, in the whole scheme of things, I doubt it's the last one, and it's not like they will all be trampled in a given period of time. Nature is a lot more resilliant than we give it credit for. I'm not going to intentionally trample anything, but I'm also not going to give up my right and freedom to enjoy these things for the sake of a jumping mouse or flower either.

Edited December 5, 2003 by SLCDave

[bug and snake]

A response to SLCDave - I don't want to quote all that stuff in the very next post so I will just say - YES! Exactly!

 

All this looking after nature stuff is fine but, come on folks - we are part of 'nature' too.....

 

The attitude seems to be that the best way to protect stuff is to hide it away so no one can see it. Is there logic in there? What are we protecting it FOR?

Edited December 6, 2003 by bug&snake

[+Alan2]

Geocaching isn't strip mining!

[+nincehelser]

The attitude seems to be that the best way to protect stuff is to hide it away so no one can see it. Is there logic in there? What are we protecting it FOR?

This is a fallacy. It's hidden away not so no one can see it, but for access to be regulated, keeping the system in good shape.

 

Some systems can handle a few human visits per period without major disruptions.

 

Some systems can handle 10s of human vists per period before major disruptions.

 

Some systems can hande 1000s of human visits per period before disruptions.

 

It's a matter of regulating human traffic to the level that the ecology can sustain without damage. That's why to gain entrance to certain rivers, parks, and trails, you have to participate in a lottery and have to win access.

 

Sometimes a system could be viewed by more, but it lacks the money necessary to do so.

 

If you really want to view something, there are channels to go through, but don't be suprised if you're rejected of put on a long waiting list. That's just the way it is for some things.

 

George

[+Alan2]

There is an "elitism" by many environmentalists who wish to keep really wonderful areas as the personal preserve and prohibiting the "riff raff" who might not be young enough, strong enough or rich enough to use these areas like them. So they push rules and regulations that have an appearance of care but are basically self-serving.

 

edit:grammar

Edited December 6, 2003 by Alan2

[+9Key]

There is an "elitism" by many environmentalists who wish to keep really wonderful areas as the personal preserve and prohibiting the "riff raff" who might not be young enough, strong enough or rich enough to use these areas like them. So they push rules and regulations that have an appearance of care but are basically self-serving.

I find that to be true when "environmentalists" (choose your own term) allow horses on trails. Horse owners are *not* poor folk here in the US. Their horses might tear up a creek or a trail but since their owners have $$, they have power.

All kidding aside, have you ever seen a cache or cacher tear up a trail like a horse?!

 

Golden Rule:

He who has the gold makes the rules.

 

Maybe someday geocachers will have the gold.

[+Alan2]

It's not just rich people. As I said, young and strong environmentalists who can hike with a 60 lb pack do not want to see vehicles and other modes of transportation that older and less capable citizens can use only. So they argue that the parks should be kept pristine to protect the environment when their real motives is to keep others out.

 

Why shouldn't there be road for cars, Jeeps, off-road vehicals, cross country skiing, mountain biking, etc. so others can enjoy the woods too? Everyone should be able to get a shot at it within their llimitations and desires. Even geocachers?

 

I'm not saying we should not have areas that do not have these other mods of transportation; the backpacker should have his clear space too. Just set it up so different areas can be set up to accomodate different people, not just the few.

[+nincehelser]

It's not just rich people. As I said, young and strong environmentalists who can hike with a 60 lb pack do not want to see vehicles and other modes of transportation that older and less capable citizens can use only. So they argue that the parks should be kept pristine to protect the environment when their real motives is to keep others out.

Yeah! I just can't wait until those young and strong environmentalists do something about the ugly people!

 

They're unsightly and scare the animals!

 

George

[+Woodbutcher68]

LazyBoy wrote:

I do wonder sometimes why we might ask permission if hiding a cache isn't against a local law anyway? Are we just shooting ourselves in the foot doing that?

 

This is one activity where the old phrase "Sometimes it's easier to beg forgiveness than it is to get permission" doesn't apply. If it gets to the point where you have to beg for forgiveness, you've probably already destroyed any chance of getting permission, besides losing your cache.

[mufasa1023]

"It's not just rich people. As I said, young and strong environmentalists who can hike with a 60 lb pack do not want to see vehicles and other modes of transportation that older and less capable citizens can use only."

 

Ya those darned whipper-snappers, how dare they use their youth to carry themselves through rough terrain!!! I demand a paved road to EVERYWHERE!!!!!! We need to pave a raod straight up Mt. Everest so I can drive my 10 M.P.G. H2 to the top and never get off my butt. Besides MY car doesnt polute or make noise...it's everybody elses car that does it.

Everybody holding that position needs to go read "Harrison Bergeron" from Welcome to the Monkey House by the author Kurt Vonnegut. (sp?)

Edited December 6, 2003 by mufasa1023

[+Bloencustoms]

Whoa! Uh, no one wants to pave Everest.

[+Woodbutcher68]

Whoa! Uh, no one wants to pave Everest.

 

Maybe nobody here does, but somewhere out there, is some dreamer thinking about it.

[+nincehelser]

Whoa! Uh, no one wants to pave Everest.

 

Maybe nobody here does, but somewhere out there, is some dreamer thinking about it.

I thought about it for a while, but then realized how much salt it would take to keep the road ice-free.

 

George

[+Alan2]

I'm not suggesting stupidity. what I'm suggesting that instead of making a 60 square mile area off-limits to everything but hiking, set aside a few of those miles for other activities, such as mountain biking or ATV's or snowmobiles. Many parks do that already. what's wrong with allowing others who cannot or do not want to hike not enjoy these public areas too?

Edited December 7, 2003 by Alan2