Fragile Sites

February 22, 2004

I have been doing some geocaching along the central Oregon coast and have arrived at some sites hidden in the woods. One site is described as being "in the ferns" and another "under some struggling vegetation". Both locations are within a very fragile ecosystem of plants and mosses and in order to find the cache it is necessary to dig and root around the ground, inadvertently destroying the ground cover. In this rainy climate this will inevitably lead to erosion and permanent damage. No one person is likely a big problem but the cumulative effect of many can overwhelm the ability of the system to regenerate.

I suggest that there be a requirement that caches placed in such areas state that NO DIGGING, TRAMPLING, PROBING etc. is required. If we do not institute such rules I guarantee that our sport will feel the wrath of those trying to protect such delicate areas and it might result in a prohibition of caches in all National Forest land, for example.

1.6k · February 22, 2004

No offense, but erosion is caused by many many people being in an area. The average cache, gets as many as 20 hits in it's first year, but that number signifigantly decreases after that. Seriously, a cache may get 30 visits in its lifetime, or at most, some popular caches may get as many as 90 visits in during their existance, but the ones that get lots of hits aren't in fragile areas.

These are good suggestions, but they aren't really necessairy...

3.9k · February 22, 2004

Uh oh... I'm staying out of this one.

February 22, 2004

The guidlines already say something about not placing them in fragile areas

2.7k · February 22, 2004

I have been doing some geocaching . . .

I guarantee that our sport will feel the wrath of those trying to protect such delicate areas and it might result in a prohibition of caches in all National Forest land, for example.

I doubt we will see "a prohibition of caches in all National Forest land." They have a lot more serious problems than caching.

And if the cache area gets trampled then its up to the cache owner to either move it or disable it.

The greater percentage of my caches are all on NFS lands and they have little to no problems, mainly because of their levels of difficulty. And winter shuts it down for about 6 to 7 months, and the few visits in the summer cause no damage.

1.3k · February 22, 2004

If the ecosystem is fragile enough to be killed by the number of visits the average cache gets , I doubt it could survive a local ground squirrel.

Maybe we should ban all squirrels from National Forests.

3.1k · February 22, 2004

If the ecosystem is fragile enough to be killed by the number of visits the average cache gets , I doubt it could survive a local ground squirrel.

Maybe we should ban all squirrels from National Forests.

I have been banning deer and elk from my property for years now. Great tasting too.

February 22, 2004

I fully expect to raise a few hackles with my response here but so be it - I also expect a few people to agree with what I say. Even if they don't say so.

Firstly, I KNOW that this can be taken to extremes, so, read this in the context of caching and such activities. This is not a treatise in support of strip mining!

We humans are part of nature too and have some rights to use the earth as we see fit. If an area is so fragile that it needs to be protected to survive then I have to ask, 'Does it DESERVE to survive?'

Why is it OK for deer to make trails of raw earth by constant passage through the forrests but it is a big no-no for you and I to leave the hiking path?

If you want my support for the protection of fragile plants then I want to see a VERY good reason why. What is the value of the plant? Do we need it? If it REALLY matters why don't those who care about it MOVE IT to some controlled area or to a green house!

Ruffled feathers there?

(edited for spelling - hope I got 'em all!)

Edited February 22, 2004 by bug&snake

February 22, 2004

In general, I think Ferfel makes a good point. We do need to be aware of how the placement of a cache and the resulting hunting will effect the surrounding area. Taken to an extreme, a large number of caches could be viewed as being detrimental to the environment. I while I don't agree with an extreme perspective on this, some areas should be avoided. It appears to me that Ferfel was referring to such sites. There are of course many caches where our presence far outway any damage we may be doing especially when we CITO.

February 22, 2004

I think we've heard from the other extreme now. I personally would like to think that if there is no good reason to destoy something, such as that it may just be more delicate than we are, we can leave it alone. Especially since I can't believe other none-damaging cache locations can easily be found.

February 22, 2004

The average cache, gets as many as 20 hits in it's first year, but that number signifigantly decreases after that. Seriously, a cache may get 30 visits in its lifetime, or at most, some popular caches may get as many as 90 visits in during their existance, but the ones that get lots of hits aren't in fragile areas.

Around here, it is not unusual for a cache to get around 100 hits the first year.

Closer to the original subject:

The Cleveland Metroparks requires a cacher to get a permit before placing a cache within the park system. The person applying for the permit has to know where the cache will be placed and put the coordinates on the application. This is to allow someone to go out and check the area to see if it is evironmentally sensitive before the cache is placed. The permits also expire on March 1st, and the cache must be removed. This gives the land time to recover from any damage that has been done, even though the damage is minimal.

RichardMoore

February 22, 2004

Without directly addressing any one post (or point of view for that matter) I offer this for your consideration: Report Warns Australian Reef Threatened

When conservation is ignored, the hard cold fact is we all suffer. My fear is that we won't, as a world community, understand this until it is far too late. In other words, regardless of your opinion, this is an issue that will, one day, have a resolution.

February 22, 2004

Good luck with this post -- seriously. I posted something similar about 8 months ago, about geocachers following the principles of 'Leave No Trace,' which I teach to the local Boy Scouts. I think that about 50% of the responses were in agreement, while another 50% were similar to what you are reading about how 'if a few people trampling on the area is bad, then natural events probably would kill the plants anyway.' So about 50% of the folks out there were sensitive to the issue and the others really did not care much about impacting the environment. Hope the former % is higher in your thread.

February 23, 2004

frefel, you raise a valid concern. I'm not sure that a new rule is the best solution though. Rather each of us needs to show personal responsibility when we hide and seek caches so that the environment is not unduly harmed. A new cache in my area is hidden in a fragile area. Several finders have noted in their logs that the cache should be moved - hopefully the cache owner will comply. Have you let the cache owners know of the problem, either in a log or email?

1.6k · February 23, 2004

This is a matter of self control backed up by a willingness to recommend archival by cachers visiting the caches. If I place a cache in an area at the end of the winter and june, its overrun by poison ivy, I really want one of my cachers to pull the alarm on this rather than someone get sick. Same with this. Rules are not enforceable, but seeing some delicate moss or some erosion prone situation as a cache hunter, we should be willing to email the cache owner, post a comment in our find logs, or if all else fails, pull the archive alarm.

As for a ban by the NFS, don't be so sure that they won't join the NPS, and the FWS to ban geocaches, and use this as an easy excuse. They mention some moss or fern and you instantly get 20% of some blue state's population ready to chain themselves to your Etrex to keep you from damaging mother earth. Then the NFS has to "act responsibly" to "diffuse a situation" and they will be "forced to" ban geocaching.

3.3k · February 23, 2004

...We humans are part of nature too and have some rights to use the earth as we see fit. If an area is so fragile that it needs to be protected to survive then I have to ask, 'Does it DESERVE to survive? Why is it OK for deer to make trails of raw earth by constant passage through the forrests but it is a big no-no for you and I to leave the hiking path? If you want my support for the protection of fragile plants then I want to see a VERY good reason why. What is the value of the plant? Do we need it?...

My short answer is because we are not a hunting and gathering society. That is, one that lives off the land.

In breaking away from hunting & gathering, we have produced and introduced artificial/un-natural elements that mother nature cannot easily overcome, i.e. smog, deforestation, erosion, etc... A deer or squirrel that breaks a branch is something mother nature can overcome. But city folk driving motorized vehicles through the wooks/desert is not a natural occurance; this can damage the earth with catastrophic results if we don't take the necessary precautions.

I am new to caching but the 13 or so caches I seen here in San Diego parks are well placed, usurally in cairns, and never more than a step or two from a trail.

February 23, 2004

In our neck of the woods, beavers are reorganizing the landscape at a more rapid rate than the all of the people using the forest for non-motorized recreation.

"If the Sierra Club had known Mount St. Helens was going to blow, they would have sued to stop it."

-WR

Edited February 23, 2004 by WaldenRun

February 23, 2004

Uh oh... I'm staying out of this one.

I suggest that all future caches be placed in caves since they are nothing more than just rock anyway and you can't hurt that....

[runs]

4.1k · February 23, 2004

Leaving the environment aside, I thought the whole idea to Geocaching was to find a cache and rehide it in such a manner as to avoid leaving clues for the next seeker of said cache. Don't give away the hiding spot by tearing everything apart.

Just my thoughts on this.

John

24.7k · February 23, 2004

Generally speaking an area that gets torn up is due to the sheer stupidity of the cache seeker. I sure as heck don't root around when I place a cache. But if someone looking goes on a cache finding frenzy like a pig rooting for truffles, then they just are not using their heads.

Fortunatly I've figured this out and now do a better job hiding caches so that the people using the brute force method won't make the area look like a rototiller has gone through. Alas I can't do a thing for their IQ.

P.S. I've been a rooter before and so I can slam them with impunity.

February 23, 2004

...We humans are part of nature too and have some rights to use the earth as we see fit. If an area is so fragile that it needs to be protected to survive then I have to ask, 'Does it DESERVE to survive? Why is it OK for deer to make trails of raw earth by constant passage through the forrests but it is a big no-no for you and I to leave the hiking path? If you want my support for the protection of fragile plants then I want to see a VERY good reason why. What is the value of the plant? Do we need it?...

My short answer is because we are not a hunting and gathering society. That is, one that lives off the land.

In breaking away from hunting & gathering, we have produced and introduced artificial/un-natural elements that mother nature cannot easily overcome, i.e. smog, deforestation, erosion, etc... A deer or squirrel that breaks a branch is something mother nature can overcome. But city folk driving motorized vehicles through the wooks/desert is not a natural occurance; this can damage the earth with catastrophic results if we don't take the necessary precautions.

I am new to caching but the 13 or so caches I seen here in San Diego parks are well placed, usurally in cairns, and never more than a step or two from a trail.

My short answer is because we are not a hunting and gathering society. That is, one that lives off the land.

Yes, we are - it's just that it has become a bit more formalised than it once was. Now we pay others to do it for us. We have not come too far from the hunter/gatherer days. However, my point was this - we are part of nature too and therefor whatever we do is 'natural'. OK, I will give you this - that is a semantic point but I thought that I had made it clear that I was not supporting the trashing of the natural systems - just keeping a good perspective on it. I will concede that 'we' can be pretty extreme is some of those things. That said, I did make the point that I was not going to stand as the champion of strip mining. (or anything of the kind)

To be quite specific, I never quite understand why the kind of person who is willing to say 'Yes Sir, No Sir - I will never leave the path in case I tread on a lesser stink wort!' ever becomes involved with this passtime. (outside of the urban variety anyhow) It is my own opinion, and that of some others I feel, that the response to whatever engendered the above imaginary response should be, "Why? What is the use of the plant? Teach me, don't give me blind orders." This blind pandering to the guy with a job title is a sign of the times. He has a job to justify and if grabbing a poor unfortunate wandering in the trees can be seen to be doing so then, in many cases, he will take that route.

Now, to make things clear, I do not support the extreme view in any of what I have said. If you think my views are extreme then please read the post again before you reply.

February 23, 2004

The guidlines already say something about not placing them in fragile areas

Amen! It's the cache owner's responsibilty to place a cache in an area that can withstand a certain amount of foot traffic. On the other hand, it is also the cache finder's responsibility to be careful where they tread and not damage the environment.

Happy caching and stuff!

February 23, 2004

Uh oh... I'm staying out of this one.

I suggest that all future caches be placed in caves since they are nothing more than just rock anyway and you can't hurt that....

[runs]

I thought it was place them all in "Wilderness Areas" :mad:

:mad: :mad: :mad:

38.2k · February 23, 2004

In our neck of the woods, beavers are reorganizing the landscape at a more rapid rate than the all of the people using the forest for non-motorized recreation.

In my area its deer. They are destroying the understory and there will be no next generation of trees if their numbers aren't eventually brought into line with the available habitat.

That being said, if you find a cache that is in a truely sensitive area and it is causing real damage, then contact the owner, or ask this webite to archive it. But realize that little trampled grass in most areas isn't real damage.

And as one poster mentioned, the majority of caches, particularly in remote area, where sensitivity can be an issue, don't get a lot of hits. Caches in popular parks will get a lot of hits, but these places have seen so much abuse over the years that a few people seeking out a Tupperware won't make much of a difference.

Bottom line is that if the cache is causing a real problem, then address it. I don't doubt that they exist. But after 200 some finds, I've yet to encounter a single one that caused a problem, so I'm certain that the number problem caches is quite insignificant.

Edited February 23, 2004 by briansnat

February 23, 2004

In caching, like most areas of life, I find common sense, and locating the middle ground (most times), to be most useful.

I agree with Geo Ho - it takes cooperation between cache owner and cache finder to make this game as fun, and respectful, as it can be.

This week I am moving a cache I placed in a stone wall, because it seems that the wall may be sustaining some damage. In my exuberance to make the hide a bit more difficult than usual, I hid it pretty well. Logs came in stating that the wall was suffering - at first I left it alone because I hoped the cache hunters would use more restraint in moving random stones and first LOOK for evidence of the cache (it is visible if you look well enough). But I am still reading that the cache is impacting the wall, so I am moving it. I have also re-located a cache that I accidentally placed in the middle of poison ivy - which I, apparently, am not allergic to.

As a cache owner, I feel it is my responsibilty to place the cache in a place that is healthy for both the location and the cache hunter.

As a cacher, I feel it is my responsibility to read the cache page (which I recently found out a lot of people don't do), and not just go tearing stuff up.

2.7k · February 23, 2004

Good luck with this post -- seriously. I posted something similar about 8 months ago, about geocachers following the principles of 'Leave No Trace,' which I teach to the local Boy Scouts. I think that about 50% of the responses were in agreement, while another 50% were similar to what you are reading about how 'if a few people trampling on the area is bad, then natural events probably would kill the plants anyway.' So about 50% of the folks out there were sensitive to the issue and the others really did not care much about impacting the environment. Hope the former % is higher in your thread.

(emphasis mine CCD)

Why do you label the people who don't see it your way as "insensitive" or "don't care"?

I, insensitive dolt that i am, agree with Bug & Snake.

We ARE a part of nature, and just because we may not agree to what extent we should bow, grovel, and lessen our lifestyles to protect a particular plant or small woodland critter, does not make us "insensitive" to the cause of environmental protection.

We are appointed by our Creator to be stewards of the Earth. When it comes to PROTECTION of sensitive environments, with the exception of The Creator Himself, we are the ONLY creatures capable of protecting it.

This gives us a responsibility to use wisely and not unnecessarily kill or destroy, but it does not give us the right to choose which species survive and which do not.

Who among us decided that the dinosaurs shouldn't survive?

If tyranasaurus rex was alive today, prowling the earth at will, eating people, I wonder how many "environmentalists" would be so "sensitive" to its plight to make sure it was not "endangered" or "threatened" by man?

My point here is, do we REALLY want to take the responsibility for prolonging the natural life span of an organism? Perhaps, in some cases, the extinction of a species is a GOOD thing. We are not forward-looking enough to know the outcome of tampering with nature- in EITHER direction.

1.3k · February 23, 2004

So about 50% of the folks out there were sensitive to the issue and the others really did not care much about impacting the environment.

We're all talking about a 20' radius around a cache right? We're not talking acres of land or the only place in the world where a particular type of lemur exists are we?

I mean, when I compare the total amount of damage I'm likely to do with a lifetime of geocaching with, say, the amount of enviromental damage I've done by having a house and a yard (there's a good chunk of ground that won't be returning to it's natural state anytime soon), well, I'm having a hard time thinking of the geocaching damage as noticeable.

I must be missing the guys with the heavy equipment who go geocaching. Maybe they go to different caches than I do.

February 23, 2004

So about 50% of the folks out there were sensitive to the issue and the others really did not care much about impacting the environment.

... I must be missing the guys with the heavy equipment who go geocaching. Maybe they go to different caches than I do.

Yellow Jeeps & Yellow Bulldozers (& McToys Dozer). :mad: Maybe there is a connection. :mad: :mad: :smile:

:mad:

Edited February 23, 2004 by Cache Viking

February 23, 2004

We are appointed by our Creator to be stewards of the Earth. When it comes to PROTECTION of sensitive environments, with the exception of The Creator Himself, we are the ONLY creatures capable of protecting it.

If true, he/she/it made a very poor choice.

Edited February 23, 2004 by CacheCreatures

February 23, 2004

What I mean is that in fragile areas the cache not be placed such that digging or disturbing plants are required to locate it and that be explicitly stated in the description.

The areas I'm refering to are not like urban parks which are designed for human activities; these are natural places of scenic beauty that other people visit and expect to see untrammeled. If geocachers are disturbing the area they are going to raise hell and for good reason in my opinion.

As for the animal nonsense, I've spent a lot of time in the woods and I've never seen more damaging effects from even bears than from just a few uncaring humans.

This isn't a matter of evolution but rather preservation of the few particularly scenic natural areas that are left (at least where I live) and which are often where caches are placed. Voluntary efforts are good but I think more stress should be evident in the cache placement rules.

2.1k · February 23, 2004

I'd like two clarifications from the "humans are part of nature, too" camp:

1) If humans interacting with nature is "natural", then why worry about emissions levels or our pollution of the water? These things are the results of a natural being using its natural talents to affect nature, are they not? Why should we limit any of our actions if not the ones that affect some of the most sensitive plants?

2) Does everything need to have a purpose in order to be given deference? If the question of "why? what purpose?" is applied to whether we should beg off of trampling entire of species, then other than maple trees and corn fields (exaggeration), we won't *need* any plants...but we still keep roses around. The fact that a species isn't *currently* serving a grand purpose also does not mean that it won't. There are NIH species scans for biological agents that may be drug precursors and things of that like. If the plants are gone, we may lose something we can not determine how to recreate.

If it means moving a geocache 200 ft to a less sensitive area, then I don't understand why a hider wouldn't be consciencious enough to move their cache when someone points out that the current spot is too fragile (for *any* reason). I don't see "because that plant doesn't matter since it doesn't have a special purpose" as being reasonable. It only takes a small effort to be aware of our surroundings and we as humans do a large number of un-natural things. (In fact, a few of the examples above of nature changing land more than us are the results of human interference by removal of natural predators and removal of habitat)

Until we can wholly certain that the loss of a species will not limit our knowledge in some way or destroy a vital portion of a larger chain, I don't see why geocaching should get higher precedence than the survival of fragile species.

38.2k · February 23, 2004

What I mean is that in fragile areas the cache not be placed such that digging or disturbing plants are required to locate it and that be explicitly stated in the description.
The areas I'm refering to are not like urban parks which are designed for human activities; these are natural places of scenic beauty that other people visit and expect to see untrammeled. If geocachers are disturbing the area they are going to raise hell and for good reason in my opinion.

If you do encounter the rare cache that causes a disturbance (and I don't mean a few broken twigs and bent blades of grass), report your concerns to the owner. If you don't get a satisfactory response, then report it to this website. Take pictures and include them with your e-mail. I'm sure it will be addressed.

As for the animal nonsense, I've spent a lot of time in the woods and I've never seen more damaging effects from even bears than from just a few uncaring humans.

Hmmmm, I guess you've never seen a boulder field torn apart by a bear looking for grubs. Visually and effectively, there is little difference between the damage caused by a bear searching for grubs and a geocacher disturbing a few rocks looking for a cache. And I guess you haven't seen trees clawed by bear, their protective bark destroyed and the tree laid open to disease and damaging insects.

You probably also haven't seen grass trampled by deer who bedded down for a nights sleep, or the obvious trails the deer and other animals make, especially to water sources. And I guess you haven't seen a forest so overbrowsed by deer that there are no seedlings and small plants left and where immature and mature trees are stripped of their branches as high as a deer can reach.

What I'm saying is that, with a handful of exceptions, a person looking for a cache causes no more damage than a bear foraging for food, or a few deer wandering around (actually a lot less...since most geocachers I know aren't in the habit of eating all the small plants and stripping off every branch they can reach).

Most remote caches are visited so infrequently that damage really isn't an issue. I've never seen the ground around a geocache firmly packed down and devoid of vegetation because of the cache. So your concern about a cache causing erosion is pretty far fetched.

Edited February 23, 2004 by briansnat

1.3k · February 23, 2004

As for the animal nonsense, I've spent a lot of time in the woods and I've never seen more damaging effects from even bears than from just a few uncaring humans.

The worst damage to a cache area that I've found so far.

The pictures show the tale of an enviroment ripped up. Trees downed and dragged off, litter piled high enough to block the stream bed. Bark ripped away in portions bigger than a man's chest. Even holes dug in the ground.

You can make your own decision.

February 23, 2004

As for the animal nonsense, I've spent a lot of time in the woods and I've never seen more damaging effects from even bears than from just a few uncaring humans.

The worst damage to a cache area that I've found so far.

The pictures show the tale of an enviroment ripped up. Trees downed and dragged off, litter piled high enough to block the stream bed. Bark ripped away in portions bigger than a man's chest. Even holes dug in the ground.

You can make your own decision.

What about insects? You could show whole regions were trees have been laid to waste because of some beetle.

Or locusts, for the matter.....

38.2k · February 23, 2004

What about insects? You could show whole regions were trees have been laid to waste because of some beetle.

Or locusts, for the matter.....

Do you mean devastation like this?

Or this?

By the way, I have a cache hidden within one of these photos. As you can see the damage caused by "natural" sources - in this case caterpillars - is far worse than that caused by my little ammo box hidden there. Fifteen years ago, this was a heavily wooded hillside similar to the ones in the background of the first photo.

Edited February 23, 2004 by briansnat

February 23, 2004

Read this. I was going to write something profound and to the point, but this does a far better job than I could. I encourage everyone reading this post, to read this editorial and consider just what we are destroying, and for who.

February 23, 2004

I'd like two clarifications from the "humans are part of nature, too" camp:

I have cut back on the quote simply because it is available above. Please read it there in context. It is highly structured and well argued. I have no desire to demean or lessen the poster by reducing what he has to say.

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

On the assumption that, within this thread at any rate, I am the leader (first poster) of the ‘humans are part of nature too’ brigade, I will pick up on your points.

At a very fundamental level, how can anyone question the basic premise? We belong to the animal kingdom – we are mammals. Yes, we do influence our environment, so do beavers, bears, locusts, deer and various other life forms mentioned in the thread.

I think that the examples given in various posts prove that we are not alone in the fact that those impacts are not always to the good. (Unless you are a beaver, bear, deer or locust!)

Drug precursors are mentioned: good point but a little naive in the way the idea is expanded. Before the discovery of the penicillin family of drugs it was considered correct to clean up after the discovery of moulds. Had this been the case in that instance where would we be today? This discovery was a classic example of serendipity.

In both of my posts above I have tried to make it clear that I do NOT support the extreme view. As thinking and innovative creatures we should indeed avoid pollution and nurture the environment. BUT, only to the extent that we can enjoy our existence and the time that we spend in that environment! Do I need to say again that this is NOT a supporting document in favor of the strip mining companies?

If it is the desire of an individual to defer to ‘something’ then that, in and of its self, is a good enough purpose. My question in that regard is, what right does one have to impress that deference on another? With a good argument and a reasonable explanation then I may be willing to go along with the other person but to blindly follow anothers lead, against my own desires – that is against all of human nature.

We all know why we keep roses around – they please us with their appearance and some of them small nice. That is a pretty ‘grand purpose’ to my mind, and, obviously to yours.

You, by admission, use exaggeration in your post so I feel justified in doing the same. What if we find, sometime in the future, that poison ivy or bind weed are the plants that contain the universal panacea? Should we stop cutting or trampling those things IN CASE this is so?

As I said previously, if anyone has CAUSE to believe that a particular fragile plant has value then fence it in, move it or, in some suitable way, advise people of that. It is wrong and demeaning to simply say to anyone that they must not go there because it may influence the environment of the ‘stinking bogwart’. I don’t believe that it is difficult to explain this kind of thing in a way that would be acceptable. It is wrong for Ranger Jobsworth to simply say ‘Don’t dare leave the foot path!’ That is how we treat our sheep and cattle.

I completely agree with you that moving a cache 200 ft would be a fine thing to do if the situation warrants it. But not for ‘any’ reason. Tell me the reason that I should do so, I don’t think that is too much to ask. Being inquisitive is part of human nature.

Your mention of ‘natural’ changes which are not so natural is good in so far as it goes. I am thinking right now of the relatively recent appearance of urban foxes and raptors as an example. At the same time, nature is a changing, evolving thing and such examples will always be around. Mans adoption of wolves led to the domestic dog. How would that have seemed to an outside observer at the time of its early inception?

Just a few years ago, prior to the practical application of genetic engineering, we would not have considered the value of some types of miniscule life forms as being in any way significant to us. Who is to say what next week will bring? We can NOT live our lives in the world of ‘just in case’!

As a geocacher, every time you walk to a cache you certainly tread on some kind of insect either under a blade of grass, on the ground or just under the surface. They are pretty fragile too. We can NEVER be certain that the future will not change our perception of the value of a species.

Fragility, of its self, does not bring any right to life. In fact, in nature, the very opposite is true.

Do I have to say again? I do not subscribe to wanton destruction simply because I have the strength and the power to carry it out.

Edited February 23, 2004 by bug&snake

3.1k · February 23, 2004

oh my

February 23, 2004

We are appointed by our Creator to be stewards of the Earth. When it comes to PROTECTION of sensitive environments, with the exception of The Creator Himself, we are the ONLY creatures capable of protecting it.

If true, he/she/it made a very poor choice.

He made a fine choice. It is we who make poor choices. I can't comprehend the logic that says "well if it dies it wasn't meant to live anyway so it's not our fault". A deer or a squirrel damages an area because it doesn't know better. We have the faculties to know better. We as a species haven't even scratched the surface on how complete ecosystems work and the long term ramifications of tampering with them. Lyme disease, which we are all familiar with, is a prime example. It's been around for a long, long time. It only became a problem when us "responsible" humans killed off the predators that kept the mouse population in check. No predators, more mice. More mice, more ticks. More ticks, more Lyme disease.......... but hey, we got rid of those pesky predators. Maybe they didn't deserve to survive. Ecosystem screwed up. Mankind suffers. If the cache can be put somewhere that doesn't cause a problem, then that's where it needs to be. I'm not a tree hugger, but sometimes we need to use some common sense. Permanently damaging a part of our environment for the sake of hiding a box of McToys isn't responsible to me. The arguemnt about whether it's the hiders responsibility or the finders is pretty lame too. If it's in there somebody is going to tramp everything flat till they find it. To then say it's not our fault, it that guy's, is just a lame excuse for not taking responsibility. The butfor principal applies.

2.1k · February 23, 2004

At the fundamental level, we are not simply mammals. We maintain capacities far and above anything recognizably close in most mammals. I think the greatest parts of human nature are our ability to reason and our prediliction for compassion. When there is a species or plant marked by man for its fragility, it is almost never because nature was about to extinguish it. Even very few environmentalists cry when a species dies in the middle of the rainforest (that isn't being clear-cut to raise cattle by man). It is mainly a result of mankind's disregard at an earlier point for marked fragile species until nature has reached such an imbalanced point for this species that it must sink or swim. I liken it to a spinning top. The top spins at such a tremendous rate, that you can flick it and do little to cause it to destabilize...but we have created impacts on many environments far beyond anything nature has seen before (even locust plagues and digging bears) because of our engineering and ingenuity. These forces (strip mining, clear-cutting, etc) do destabilize the top and can cause large scale changes quicker than any previous mass extinctions we have determined. But as to the fragile areas discussed here, these species may not have been spinning as fast as an entire environment and may only have needed a gentle shove to imbalance them, which was provided by man. The choice is then to shield them from us and see if they are able to naturally recover or to continue to shove them until we are certain they will stop spinning. To continue to disregard that species for the love of a GPSr game is disappointing to me at best.

The fragile areas of discussion are not coddled by rangers hand-feeding babies in the woods and implanting watering systems near the last 5 ferns of their kind. Any conservation effort for species such as that is done in a greenhouse or zoological park away from even nature's forces. But the fragile areas of discussion should not necessarily be subjected to any more foot traffic than nature is willing to give it either. By placing a geocache there, you necessitate extra foot traffic. Since the game can be played elsewhere, then play it elsewhere. If the fragile area will succumb to nature's forces, feel free to revisit the area with you ammo cans and tupperware at that time, but there's no need to hasten something's demise simply because you wanted to recreate in the woods *right there*. It is a matter of compassion for something lesser than you. That is the reason why you should be careful of fragile areas and choose to place or move your geocaches in a manner which does not involve invading these sanctuaries. Isn't that a good enough answer to "why should I move my geocache from a fragile area?"

I do not believe the question should ever be "does it deserve to survive?" but instead "doesn't it deserve a chance to survive?".

2k · February 23, 2004

I walked into this one a little late. After reading through the discussion I have a couple of thoughts.

First - Please try to remember that we live all over. What is true in my area may not be true where you live.

Second - If we all put half the effort into educating our fellow cachers that we put into these debates the "problems" would largely vanish. So here's a suggestion, get involved with your local caching group. At the next group event give a presentation on good caching practices, hiding and searching. If there is no group where you live start one.

38.2k · February 23, 2004

Isn't that a good enough answer to "why should I move my geocache from a fragile area?"

I don't think anybody is in favor of placing caches in fragile areas, or areas where there may be endangered plants (with the possible exception of Mr. Lowery). The issue many of us have is with some well meaning, but ignorant people, who see any human impact as detrimental and a few bent blades of grass and broken sticks as "environmental damage".

February 23, 2004

Points on a couple of posts:

It's at the fundamental level that we ARE mammals - we suckle our young who are born as complete and alive beings.

If a plant species is marked as being worthy of protection by man then say so, and say why. Don't simply come down on the cacher (or hiker) who has wandered into it's unmarked habitat in ignorance of this fact. I, for one, am NOT a botanist!

Where does the line get drawn in the 'chance to survive' argument? As higher beings are we expected to KNOW when a particular green thing is in a delicate state? Should we influence the 'chance to survive' thing? Perhaps by fencing off an area where the last few 'whatever plants' live? Is that enough? Should we not build a shelter in place to protect the things? At what stage does protection become interference? To take the whole thing to an extreme, if we allow plant 'A' to die off this may allow plant 'B' to flourish. Plant 'B' might just be the one that is the precursor to the drug that will cure some dread disease! We can't answer those questions. If we try to work out all of the variables we will find that we are more mired than when we started out. These fall into the realm of imponderables and if we give our time to such things it is time wasted.

I believe that the correct approach has to be, for most of us who are of a normal mind set, follow your conscience when in the field. If an area LOOKS fragile to you, move on. Find another place to put your cache. My problem lies firmly with those who tell me, without reason, that an area is fragile.

I feel that I am being educated when I read these threads. Posting to the threads is indeed (to a degree) an effort but, IMHO, time and energy well spent. If you don't agree, don't participate.

I feel that the effort that I put into posting here is generally well rewarded by what I receive in responses. I have been well educated many times by reading the feelings and opinions of others. I don't know for sure but I think that it is probable that one can reach a larger audience through a popular thread on here than one would by making a presentation to a local group.

One more time - I am all in favour of responsibe caching!

February 23, 2004

The issue many of us have is with some well meaning, but ignorant people, who see any human impact as detrimental and a few bent blades of grass and broken sticks as "environmental damage".

Absolutely right! - That's what this is about. Well, at any rate, it's what MY posts have been about. I sure hope that people realize that too!

Very timely post Mr. 'B'.

Edited February 23, 2004 by bug&snake

24.7k · February 23, 2004

...The issue many of us have is with some well meaning, but ignorant people, who see any human impact as detrimental and a few bent blades of grass and broken sticks as "environmental damage".

Over time I'm becoming more activly involved in fighting the damage caused by these types of people. The damage isn't that Yellowstone won't remain. It's that will remain and nobody at all can enjoy it without risk of prosecution because they had to tresspass to see it.

It's not just parks either. The agencies who manage the lands around my city (forest service & BLM) are under attack to remove access and recreational opportinities for everyone.

I even know people who would ban all access at all because they are city people through and through who don't want their view messed up by seeaing anything at all on the hill from a hiker to a trail.

Edited February 23, 2004 by Renegade Knight

38.2k · February 23, 2004

I even know people who would ban all access at all

Google Mike Vandeman for a very good example :smile: of someone who promotes some potentially legit issues, but is so extreme and intransigent that he hurts his own cause.

2.1k · February 23, 2004

Vandeman search for the lazy

1.3k · February 24, 2004

I don't think anybody is in favor of placing caches in fragile areas, or areas where there may be endangered plants (with the possible exception of Mr. Lowery). The issue many of us have is with some well meaning, but ignorant people, who see any human impact as detrimental and a few bent blades of grass and broken sticks as "environmental damage".

It would be difficult to sum it up better than this.

There are so many threads already about the same topic, yet I feel compelled to post yet again.

There are two extreme sides to this debate. And the fact is there really is no middle ground. It is impossible to live at all without having some kind of impact on your surroundings. In order to completely protect nature from the future influence of man (if you believe that man is somehow set apart from the rest of nature), is for mankind to voluntarily remove all traces of itself from this planet with as little impact in the process as possible. Then nature can continue on free of any influence other than that which it brings upon itself.

Nature is a dynamic thing, constantly changing. Since life first appeared on earth, species have come and gone without the influence of man. To say that saving a species might be important because it might be the key to some wonder drug is a strange argument. What use is a drug that will only ensure man's ability to survive on this planet? Why not let the species die and the potential cure with it? This would help keep the human population from growing and expanding it's influence on nature. So, since the only way to completely protect nature from man is to remove man from nature, what are we to do? Certainly I'm not suggesting we all shoot ourselves into space never to return. I think the solution is to change our thinking and realize that man is indeed a part of nature.

Take the beaver for instance. Lets say the beaver becomes endangered. A family of beavers wants to build a dam to ensure it's survival, but the dam would flood one of the lastplaces an endangered plant grows. Do you let the beaver do what it must to survive? Do you risk the beaver's extinction to save the plant? Do you interfere at all? If you found a way to save them both, who's to say that 100 years from now the plant won't mutate into the most terrible weed, overtaking everything in it's path? Or the beaver won't become an incubator for some horrible new virus that could wipe out mankind?

The truth is we can't know what the future holds, but we can avoid areas with sensitive species. The important thing to know is that just because it isn't found in the planter outside your office or the local fast food restaurant, doesn't mean the species is "sensitive". So, place caches wherever you want and don't worry about the impact they will have. The places that are too sensitive are off limits and against the guidelines already. If you think a cache is impacting it's surroundings too much, take some pictures of the species do some research and see if it is indeed sensitive or endangered before you bother the cache owner, the park personnel, or anyone else. People wishing to place caches ought to do the same research themselves.

Finally, If I go into the woods and place a cache and a palmetto plant dies because of it, it's no big deal. There are millions of those plants from Texas to Florida and one less isn't going to hurt anything but someone's feelings.

38.2k · February 24, 2004

After some thought, I came up with a great solution. It's a win for environmentalists and a win for geocachers. Lets make it a rule that we have to plant caches in patches of Garlic Mustard.

Edited February 24, 2004 by briansnat

February 24, 2004

Over time I'm becoming more activly involved in fighting the damage caused by these types of people. The damage isn't that Yellowstone won't remain. It's that will remain and nobody at all can enjoy it without risk of prosecution because they had to tresspass to see it.

It's not just parks either. The agencies who manage the lands around my city (forest service & BLM) are under attack to remove access and recreational opportinities for everyone.

I even know people who would ban all access at all because they are city people through and through who don't want their view messed up by seeaing anything at all on the hill from a hiker to a trail.

Never forget that most of these people, on some level, expect there to be exceptions for themselves. In fact, that is what drives them IMO. They strive to make more things "off limits" which makes their access more special. Take Daschle, for instance.....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/polit...s/cf101097a.htm

Ordinary tourists who dare to climb the Mount Rushmore National Memorial face six months in jail and a $500 fine. Big contributors to Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) are personally escorted to the top of George Washington's head by the park superintendent himself.

The morning climb up the majestic carving known as the "shrine of democracy" was the highlight of a $5,000 per person fund-raiser Daschle held last month. The event included nearly 100 Daschle friends, family members, political supporters and about 20 financial contributors, mostly Washington lobbyists.

Edited February 24, 2004 by SamLowrey

Fragile Sites

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment