Environmental issues

[cyclingbuddy]

I am intrigued by this game. It gets people out into nature, doing some exercise, and learning about whats around them. I noticed the forum where geocachers are taking out litter and talking about invasive plant species. This seems to be a good game with some great advantages. But to talk my wife into it (and into the purchase of a GPS),I have a couple questions about the legality of playing the game using park lands.

 

1. Isn't leaving a cache itself considered littering?

2. Some caches are listed as "off the path". Are there some guidelines about where a suitable and non-disruptive hiding place should be? I would feel guilty participating in a game where you have to walk over fragile ecosystems to get to a cache.

[+Criminal]

quote:

---

1. Isn't leaving a cache itself considered littering?

---

No, it is not.

 

quote:

---

2. Some caches are listed as "off the path". Are there some guidelines about where a suitable and non-disruptive hiding place should be?

---

Yes, it’s called common sense. Everyone has it to some degree.

 

quote:

---

I would feel guilty participating in a game where you have to walk over fragile ecosystems to get to a cache.

---

The “ecosystem” is not that fragile. Man and animal have been trotting over it for thousands of years and it’s still getting along OK. There are any number of threads that cover this non-issue to death.

 

Welcome to geocaching. Don’t stress so much, everything is fine.

 

http://fp1.centurytel.net/Criminal_Page/

[+TotemLake]

The reason the cache is not considered litter is it is visited and maintained. Litter, by definition, is not.

 

The rest of it is more common sense than anything else. Your general forest area (trail system, wildlife area, etc.) is very flexible and durable to man's intrusion. but To say there is no such thing as a "fragile ecosystem" is not entirely correct. I can point at least to one location here in Washington that a single species of frog is entirely dependent upon the ecosystem and was almost completely wiped out by the freeway building frenzy of the late 60's early 70's. Salmon nests are fragile and easily damaged by simple pedestrian traffic on the fringes of a stream or river. Wilderness areas were singled out as such because of the easy damage some plant or animal species specific to that area can take to the point of extinction. These areas are normally well noted by sign or other means.

 

However, generally speaking, if it looks and feels like it is wrong, then don't do it. If you choose to leave a note stating why, that's up to you too. It's up to the cache owner to ensure it isn't infringing on fragile ecosystems but it is also our responsibility to recognize if it is or is not in a fragile area and make the right decision.

 

Cheers!

TL

[cyclingbuddy]

Thanks for the info guys. TL, thanks for the quote "but it is also our responsibility to recognize if it is or is not in a fragile area". This would be a good thing to have on the home page FAQ concerning hiding and finding caches.

 

I guess as long responsible and well-informed geocachers are out there, it will be a positive impact.

 

BTW, I searched for NPS/Geocaching and found some topic discussions. Last year, NPS was against Geocaching using the reasons I cited above, has there been any update on their stand?

[+nincehelser]

Adding to TL's post, you might try to get the park manager's permission. If there are sensitive areas they'll know about them and will steer you clear.

 

George

[+Renegade Knight]

There are areas where it's hard to place a cache such as the cut bank of a river. The steep bank makes it hard to place a cache and not have automatic impact.

 

As nincehelser has said, the park manager will know of areas with sensitive vegitation. You will need to propose a location though they won't just come out and tell you.

 

All in all this is a fairly environmental friendly hobby. Going off trail is only an issue where the trail is in a park with loads of visitors. They log off trail in the forest for example. Geocaching has nowhere near the impact. When I say off trail I'm also talking about hiking not ATV's and so forth.

[+ZingerHead]

As far as NPS lands go, placing a traditional cache on them is still verboten, but virtuals are OK. I recall a post regarding virtuals though that stressed that they need to keep the cacher on the trail. I can easily see how a heavily used area would quickly get damaged if there was a substantial amount of off-trail hiking going on.

On the litter question: hardly anybody actually HIDES litter, eh? A well hidden cache is very much NOT in evidence to passerby, as opposed to that empty Red Bull can (BTW, why would someone who just chugged an energy drink lack the energy to trash the can out??). IMHO, to be litter it has to be visibly polluting the immediate area - caches definitely don't fit this description.

Where delicate ecosystems are concerned, this is something that you should take on a cache by cache basis. If somebody's planted one in the middle of an alpine cinqfoil bed and there is a herd path trampling through all the surrounding plants, raise a red flag and let the GC admins know about it right away. This would be legitimate grounds for archiving a cache. If, at a less sensitive site, you see that a well-worn off-trail path is developing, drop the cache owner a note explaining the problem, and ask that it be relocated.

Legally speaking, unless you are the hider of the cache, I would say that wandering around in the woods has been an acceptable use of park lands since there WERE park lands. HIDING a cache is an entirely different matter. If your local jurisdiction expects you to obtain permission before placing a cache, then by all means do so.

If you find that one area (like NPS land) is off limits, consider placing an offset cache. The first part of the cache is a virtual, located in the restricted area. The cacher visits that area and finds some key piece of information, like the date on a marker, or the number of mountain peaks visible to the west, whatever, to resolve the coordinates to the actual cache container, which is hidden outside the restricted area. That way you can bring people to the spot you really wanted to show them, and still provide a traditional cache, rather than a virtual.

[+briansnat]

quote:

---

1. Isn't leaving a cache itself considered littering?

---

No, littering is defined as a disorderly and unsightly accumulation of debris according to my dictionary. A geocache on the other hand is a neatly packaged container, hidden carefully from public view.

 

quote:

---

2. Some caches are listed as "off the path". Are there some guidelines about where a suitable and non-disruptive hiding place should be? I would feel guilty participating in a game where you have to walk over fragile ecosystems to get to a cache.

---

 

Just because a cache is placed off trail doesn't mean that you're destroying the ecosystem. Not all ecosystems are fragile. In fact, in most cases, the further off the trail the cache is, the better it is for the environment. This may sound counter-intuitive, but when a cache is placed far from a trail, the built inaccuracy of a GPS unit and the vagaries of geocacher's searching patterns distribute the impact, giving the area time to recover.

 

On the other hand, caches near a trail tend to create social (or herd) paths, as each geocacher turns off in the same spot. This being said, even these paths are similar to game trails forged by deer and other animals and have about the same environmental effect.

 

One other issue. Often, when non-geocachers go out to check on the effect of the cache on the area, they see a path leading toward the cache and assume the cache is the cause of the path. In many cases, it's because the path was used by the geocacher to place the cache. Cache hiders will often take the route of least resistance to place their cache and an existing social trail is often used.

 

I'm not saying that there was never a cache placed in a irresponsible manner. They are out there. If you do encounter one, be sure to contact the owner and this website.

 

"Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll sit in a boat and drink beer all day" - Dave Barry

 

[This message was edited by BrianSnat on July 15, 2003 at 07:33 AM.]

[+Perrin]

The litter topic has been covered pretty well. I think we can all agree that a cache is not litter.

 

As for the off trail bit, I would say if you are uncomfortable with that idea then don't create any off trail caches.

 

Usually you can find many great hiding places that are right on the trail. I've been stumped by one that specifically tells you in the description that "your feet should never leave the trail to find this one." I have yet to find it.

 

Also, I see you haven't found any caches yet. The questions you've asked are great and worth asking, but I think if you go out and find a couple a lot of your questions will be answered that way.

 

If you want to get your wife interested start by checking out the caches close to home. There will probably be a couple that you can find without a GPS. See if there are any hidden in nearby parks or other areas that you are familiar with.

 

I found my first 2 or 3 by just reading the clues and descritions of the area.

 

Signature? I don't need no stinkin signature!!!!

[+Searching_ut]

I think that for the most part, the people that head into the outdoors searching caches are already the outdoors type, and thus familiar with proper behavior to minimize enviromental damage. The rules on seting up caches also include monitoring for damage to the area around the cache. Not to say some don't follow rules, but most of the cachers I've met seem pretty decent.

 

As for off the beaten path, I'm not sure that's so much a problem. I hit a couple caches that you might consider off the beaten path last weekend. One had been there for a year, and I was the 4th person in search of it, at least that logged. The other cache had been there almost two years, and I was only the third to log that. Seems somewhat typical in my area of caches that are off the beaten path by any significant amount.

 

Like anything else, when you're dealing with people, it's hard to say what might happen. How about joining in on the madness, and helping keep sanity and common sense in the game. The more good people involved, the better for all.

[+junglehair]

I am glad that you've asked these questions. To keep this sport alive, we need to be aware of the impacts that we are having on the environment, and do what we can to minimize this.

 

Hopefully the person who places the cache will keep that in mind. Especially if they are placing a really difficult cache that will take a long time for the person to find.

 

Now, as for the NPS, I would have to say that I agree with their position of not allowing geocaching in their parks. A national park is established to preserve a unique feature, therefore, visitor impacts should be kept to a minimum. This is different from state and local parks which are established for recreation or historical preservation.

 

I have a theory that the deer are secretly geocaching when we are not in the woods. Have you ever noticed how many deer paths you can follow that will take you practically to the cache? Maybe that's why they are so jumpy when we get close - they think we are mugglers!

 

-Junglehair

 

I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.

[+Bloencustoms]

Of course nobody should go thrash about in a field of endangered plants. But as far as offtrail hiking goes, just go check your lawn after a couple of weeks of neglect. The grass springs back every time you cut it over and over, year after year. You need look no farther than your own lawn to see proof of nature's resilience. Now I know, every plant is different, and species x takes 500 years to mature, but I'm talking about a walk through a stable system with no endangered species.

 

"Chock full of essential vitamins and waypoints"

[+briansnat]

quote:

---

Now, as for the NPS, I would have to say that I agree with their position of not allowing geocaching in their parks. A national park is established to preserve a unique feature, therefore, visitor impacts should be kept to a minimum.

---

 

Then why do they allow camping, horse packing, grazing livestock, snowmobiling and similar high impact activities? Why do they build roads, parking lots and concession stands if the goal is to limit visitor impact?

 

Compared to a lot of this, geocaching is quite benign.

 

quote:

---

Have you ever noticed how many deer paths you can follow that will take you practically to the cache?

---

 

That's because the cache hiders usually take the path of least resistance when looking for a place to stash their cache. Game trails are natural avenues to out of the way areas. A lot of people assume the trails were cut by geocachers, when that isn't the case.

 

"Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll sit in a boat and drink beer all day" - Dave Barry

 

[This message was edited by BrianSnat on July 16, 2003 at 04:53 AM.]

[dsandbro]

The National Park Service has a dual mandate:

Protect the natural features of the Park AND provide for public recreation. If it seems those two mandates can sometimes be in conflict, well, yes they are.

 

===========================================================

"The time has come" the Walrus said "to speak of many things; of shoes and ships and sealing wax, of cabbages and Kings".

[+Bilder]

NPS needs to remember that the land they are watching over belongs to the public.

 

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

I have never been lost. Been awful confused for a few days, but never lost!

[+Stunod]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bilder:

NPS needs to remember that the land they are watching over belongs to the public.

 

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

I have never been lost. Been awful confused for a few days, but never lost!

---

 

I think the snowmobiling issue that BrianSnat mentioned shows that the NPS is listening to the loudest voice on certain issues. Snowmobile manufacturers and owners spent megabucks to make sure they could ride them in Yellowstone. We need to find an effective way to be heard...

 

"Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand."

[+junglehair]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrianSnat:

Then why do they allow camping, horse packing, grazing livestock, snowmobiling and similar high impact activities? Why do they build roads, parking lots and concession stands if the goal is to limit visitor impact?

---

 

If you think about it, the examples you have listed are all limited to specific areas. The park can be designed to allow these activities in the areas where the impact can be kept to a minimum. This would not be the case for geocaching.

 

-Junglehair

 

I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.

[+sbell111]

quote:

---

Originally posted by cyclingbuddy:...

I would feel guilty participating in a game where you have to walk over fragile ecosystems to get to a cache.

---

Two things should be remembered. 1) Every inch of forest land does not qualify as 'fragile ecosystems'. 2) The amount of visits most caches receive is miniscule. This morning, I looked at the cache page of a really great cache that I found a couple of years ago. Two things surprised me. It was still active and it had only received 54 visits since it was placed over two years ago. In most cases, nature can handle it if we walk on her once a month.

[+sbell111]

It always amazes me that we reply to this thread every time it appears, rather than just markwelling it.

[+Criminal]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sbell111:

It always amazes me that we reply to this thread every time it appears, rather than just markwelling it.

---

 

Me too.

 

http://fp1.centurytel.net/Criminal_Page/

[+TotemLake]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Criminal:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sbell111:

It always amazes me that we reply to this thread every time it appears, rather than just markwelling it.

---

 

Me too.

 

http://fp1.centurytel.net/Criminal_Page/

 

Probably because this particular subject has a ton of emotional baggage on both sides of the fence.

 

Cheers!

TL

[+BrownMule & Jackrabbit]

quote:

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

Originally posted by BrianSnat:

Then why do they allow camping, horse packing, grazing livestock, snowmobiling and similar high impact activities? Why do they build roads, parking lots and concession stands if the goal is to limit visitor impact?

______________________________________________

 

The problem here is that you are lumping all public lands together. Public lands are managed by numerous agencies including Federal, State, Local and Non Profit agencies. Each agency has a land management philosophy that is usually set by their governing board. For the state agencies that would be their state legislature for Local parks the County or City Commissions and the Feds would be governed by federal law and policy. Now that being said, some lands are grazed because they were purchased for that purpose. Some BLM properties allow grazing; these lands usually possess little or no environmental concerns or have no species of special concern on them. Roads and facilities are built in parks to allow for public access only after proper environmental impact studies and where biologist and planners work together to rout roads and build facilities in areas of least impact on water resources and native species either flora or fauna. Parks have a hard mission to accomplish because they have a responsibility to protect the environment and to also provide public recreation. They call this balancing protection of the resource with the demand for use. One way this is done is to regulate resource based recreational uses in the parks (such as Geocaching). Requiring permission to hide a cache is their way of making sure we don't create foot traffic in known environmentally sensitive areas. Areas the layperson can not recognize. Placement of facilities is designed for minimal impact on natural and cultural resources by intentionally routing traffic around these areas. We need to place our caches in the same manner for the same reason and the only way we can do that is to find out from the parks were these areas are and to get permission to hide in the proper spot. Most parks have at least a “level one” archaeological survey done to identify the cultural resources on site and all public lands are required to have approved management plans that include a complete plant, animal and natural communities index. Most are also required to have regular resource management audits to make sure things like off trail traffic and visitor use patterns are not negatively affecting the parks resources. So believe me there is much more to managing natural areas than most people realize. Land management agencies try hard to balance the demand for use of our parks with the protection of our resources and I for one don’t think that I have a right to do anything on any public land that is not specifically allowed and in the manner that it is allowed because I want to be able to enjoy them for the rest of my life and I want my kids and their kids to enjoy them in the same pristine condition that I experienced them. If I knew that I wasn’t going to trample over an Indian Midden or trample over a sensitive plant or invade the territory of an endangered animal, I might not worry so much about walking off the trail. How do I know if I don’t ask?

 

My 2 Cents.

 

_________________________________________________________

On the other hand, you have different fingers.

[+Criminal]

I, for one, believe in protecting the environment. I try hard to trample as few endangered animals as I possibly can.

 

http://fp1.centurytel.net/Criminal_Page/

[+briansnat]

quote:

---

The problem here is that you are lumping all public lands together. Public lands are managed by numerous agencies including Federal, State, Local and Non Profit agencies. Each agency has a land management philosophy that is usually set by their governing board.

---

 

No, I was referring specifically to national parks. If I included all public lands, I could easily have added 20, or 30 more high impact activities to the list.

 

"Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll sit in a boat and drink beer all day" - Dave Barry

[+BrownMule & Jackrabbit]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrianSnat:

No, I was referring specifically to national parks. If I included all public lands, I could easily have added 20, or 30 more high impact activities to the list.

---

 

You are absolutely right. If you are just referring to the NPS, I agree with you that they are being way too one sided on this. There are areas suitable on NPS property to Geocache and their total ban of the sport is ridiculous in my book. Even though I am a pretty hard core Tree Hugger, I realize that the NPS ban is taking the easy way out to not be bothered with us Geocachers. I would prefer that they consider Geocaches on a park by park and location by location basis rather than just totally ban the sport for their convenience. I do still stick by my statement that these "High impact activities" are done in approved and well thought out areas of the individual parks though as should geocahing be. I am definitely for allowing geocaching in the parks I just think that we should understand that the cache placement should be as controlled as the placement of hiking trails, campgrounds, tennis courts, biking trails, grazing pastures, and the 20 or 30 other activities you mention. When you come to a park to hike, you hike on the hiking trails that were placed where and how they are for a reason, camping the same way. If this is the analogy we are taking, then if you can't camp anywhere you want to in the park, why should we think we can Geocache anywhere we want to? Same thing with fishing and swimming, some areas it’s allowed some areas it’s not. All these restrictions are for a reason, not to arbitrarily prohibit an activity. My theory is that we (Geocachers) will further our sport faster once we accept and work within these guidelines just as others such as fisherman and hikers and hunters perform their activities in approved locations. Now what would be nice is that one day as Geocaching grows, we would see approved geocahing sites posted in parks with specific guidelines. Then geocaching would have equal respect and consideration as other resource based activities.

_________________________________________________________

On the other hand, you have different fingers.

 

[This message was edited by BrownMule on July 16, 2003 at 04:22 PM.]

[+ZingerHead]

Well, if they have to run an environmental impact study, traffic analysis, low level archaeological survey and hold a seance at midnight while baying at the moon to decide whether we can hide tupperware under a rock, I'd rather they didn't waste my tax dollars that way, thank you very much.

[+BrownMule & Jackrabbit]

With the exception of the seance, that's pretty much what takes place prior to any facility or activity being permitted in all State and National Parks. These things are required by congress and most of the states. These studies and surveys are usually done shortly after the property comes under public management so every area is pre-evaluated and signatured for types of activities and development that is allowed. That's why I say that the NPS is taking the easy way out. They should already know what parks and the areas in the parks where Geocaching could be allowed on their parks. They just choose to not be bothered with it.

 

_________________________________________________________

On the other hand, you have different fingers.

[+briansnat]

quote:

---

These studies and surveys are usually done shortly after the property comes under public management so every area is pre-evaluated and signatured for types of activities and development that is allowed. That's why I say that the NPS is taking the easy way out. They should already know what parks and the areas in the parks where Geocaching could be allowed on their parks. They just choose to not be bothered with it.

---

 

That's exactly the problem with many agencies. In my state I know for a fact that the state parks dept knows about our sport. I deal with them frequently. They realize that the sport has relatively little impact and choose to look the other way. They'll address problem caches on a case-by-case basis. They have bigger clams to fry (dumpers, illegal ATV'ers, poachers, etc...) and also because they also know that if it goes to a state level, there will be environmental impact studies, meetings, lawyers, etc...

 

I'm just dreading the day that some well meaning new geocacher comes along and demands their official sanction for the placement of a cache.

 

"Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll sit in a boat and drink beer all day" - Dave Barry

[+Bloencustoms]

quote:

---

 

I think the snowmobiling issue that BrianSnat mentioned shows that the NPS is listening to the loudest voice on certain issues. Snowmobile manufacturers and owners spent megabucks to make sure they could ride them in Yellowstone. We need to find an effective way to be heard...

 

__"Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand."__

---

 

I would be willing to pay an additional $10 per year for my premium membership if it went to a geocaching lobby.

Whatever, the idea that an area where snowmobiling is allowed might somehow be damaged by caching is repugnant. I think the NPS needs to address geocaching, because it's only going to grow. Eventually they will spend more time and money removing caches than they ever would designating cache use areas.

 

"Chock full of essential vitamins and waypoints"

[+BrownMule & Jackrabbit]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrianSnat:

That's exactly the problem with many agencies. In my state I know for a fact that the state parks dept knows about our sport. I deal with them frequently. They realize that the sport has relatively little impact and choose to look the other way. They'll address problem caches on a case-by-case basis. They have bigger clams to fry (dumpers, illegal ATV'ers, poachers, etc...) and also because they also know that if it goes to a state level, there will be environmental impact studies, meetings, lawyers, etc...

 

I'm just dreading the day that some well meaning new geocacher comes along and demands their official sanction for the placement of a cache.

---

 

I hate to hear that about your state. In my state it took very little time for the state Park agency to come up with a very geocache friendly policy that covers all stae parks. This was possible because the impact studies were already done when the property was purchased so park managers already know the sections of the park that can handle activities like geocaching.

_________________________________________________________

On the other hand, you have different fingers.

[+Alan2]

Back in the woods with Ranger Jim and Ranger Rick ....shhh let’s listen in…

 

“Jim, congress wants us to do a poll.”

 

“No kiddin’ Rick. Let me guess – about geocaching?”

 

“Nope. Minnow buckets.”

 

“Minnow buckets? What the heck for? What’s controversial about minnow buckets? Nearly all the fisherman use ‘em around here”

 

“Yeah I know. Well it seems some geocacher was caching around the lake and stumbled across this bucket. He lifted the rock off the lid, opened it and found 15 dead minnows plus three gasping for air. He was so upset he complained to his congressman and now we got to do this dumb poll. They want us to poll each visitor to the park what they think – should minnow buckets be allowed or should they be considered abandoned property and banned?”

 

“That’s going to be a pretty skewed poll what with the ATVers, mountain bikers, cross-country skiers and the like we get in our park. Heck, what do they know about minnow buckets? They could care less.”

 

“In the meanwhile, I heard some fisherman got wind of this and to get even they’ve written to their congressman to complain about these ammo cans they keep finding in the park. They say these should be restricted to military reservations not public parks.”

 

“Hey I got an idea. Why don’t we do a poll to find out if the fisherman want to use ammo cans as minnow buckets and the geocachers want to use minnow buckets as caches.”

 

“Enough with polls already. Let’s get back to real work. Some geocacher’s been complaining that some bear’s been chewing on his Rubbermaid container.”

 

“He ought to use a metal minnow bucket next time.”

[Dorkus&Co.]

JUst a point on the NPS issue. I live in St. Louis. The NPS governs the grounds around the Gateway Arch. They allow 100,000-500,000 people stampeding around the grounds each July 4th weekend. To me this would be a perfect example why they shouldn't have a blanket policy on geocaching. The Arch grounds are nothing more than trees and grass. No echosystems, etc. to worry about. I'm sure there are plenty of other places in the NPS inventory that we would have little, if no impact on.

[+sbell111]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BloenCustoms:...

Whatever, the idea that an area where snowmobiling is allowed might somehow be damaged by caching is repugnant. I think the NPS needs to address geocaching, because it's only going to grow. Eventually they will spend more time and money removing caches than they ever would designating cache use areas.

---

I completely agree that NPS should allow geocaching within areas that these 'impact' activities such as snowmobiling and atv riding (atving?) are allowed. To me this makes good sense and would be relatively simple to implement. However, it would increase their burden by making them police the caches to ensure that none are within more 'sensitive' areas.

 

I believe that there is a logical error in your belief that NPS should take action and formulate a policy to reduce there future workload. If they do nothing but retain the stance that no geocaches will be allowed on NPS land, they will not have increases of workload in the future. TPTB already police this issue during the approval process to attempt to ensure that none are placed on NPS land.

[+Bloencustoms]

I think if they submitted maps of areas where these other "high impact" activities are allowed, (which they must already have) to TPTB, the approvers could continue as before, preventing placement in areas of the parks where caching is not allowed. The NPS would only have to make those area maps available, after that, no increase in workload. They can rely on cachers, and the admins to police the caches in the areas allowed.

 

"Chock full of essential vitamins and waypoints"

[dsandbro]

I once heard it described like this:

 

The 1964 Wilderness Act decrees mechanized devices are not allowed. A ghetto blaster capable of hurling rap music to the next mountaintop is personal electronic device and is legal in a wilderness. Carrying your gear on a cart is not allowed. But not all wheeled vehicles are prohibited! A horse drawn wooden wagon used in reenactment events is allowed, but a human powered bicycle dating to the same era as the wagon is not allowed. Trail maintenance crews can use chainsaws and rock drills in the Wilderness, but cannot carry those tools to the job site in a wheeled vehicle, they must be carried on horseback. By definition, Wilderness is pristine and man is a visitor that does not remain, but Wilderness areas have buildings, dams, airstrips, bridges, and blockaded paved roads. Landowners with property inside a Wilderness are allowed to access their property using ATV's or 4WD, but non-landowners must use only their feet to travel the same trail. Airplanes can deliver visitors to Wilderness airstrips, but once on the ground, the visitors cannot use a cart to carry their luggage to the tent.

 

GPS, cellphones, titanium camping gear, propane stoves, and synthetic fabrics in bright day-glo colors are all allowed. A wheelbarrow is not.

 

Is it any wonder a Federal judge once mused "The Wilderness Act is the most poorly conceived, illogical, and inconsistently applied law ever passed by Congress."

 

===========================================================

"The time has come" the Walrus said "to speak of many things; of shoes and ships and sealing wax, of cabbages and Kings".