Jump to content

Tread Lightly


Recommended Posts

I have noticed a real problem here in the desert SW. Many caches are placed in areas that are surrounded by sensitive biotic soils. As soon as 10-15 (or less, in some cases) cachers have visited the area, there is a beaten path to the cache that will not repair itself. There are many caches that you don't even need a GPS for--just follow the footprints/footpaths. It seems that no matter how hard you try to place a cache in a place that will not lend itself to footpaths, they magically appear. I have suggested moving caches often to make the caching experience better, but does anyone have any suggestions as to a solution? I'm afraid that we may be banned from placing caches in many areas of the SW because of foot traffic. Let's hear from some wise folks out there. :tongue::blink::lol:

Link to comment

I really want to see the report that explains how 20 people (10 back and fourth) walking along a trail over a period of a week can destroy the soil, plants, animals, or anything else in the area to the point where it can no longer be recovered.

 

How the heck does the land survive it's own animal population?

Link to comment
Many caches are placed in areas that are surrounded by sensitive biotic soils.

Great, now we have to watch out for endangered dirt :tongue:

Took the thought right out of my head. What the hell is next? Think about the big picture would you please? We are but tiny insignificant beings in this vast world. Mother Nature can survive a freaking geocache for crying out loud!!!! No solution necessary. You'll give yourself an ulcer worrying about stuff like that. If it bothers you that much geocaching may not be the sport for you. I hear staying in your home with all the lights out causes very little damage to the land.

 

Sorry, but this is my favorite "dead horse".

Link to comment
Heres a link if you arer interested.

Good link, thanks! :tongue:

 

I hate to laugh after actually reading an informative article, but I'm having a hard time making the adjustment between tanks going over the ground and geocachers. Do I really need to lost that much weight?

Link to comment
First time I heard about this was in Moab Utah...

 

Heres a link if you arer interested.

What was missing from that site was the natural progression of an ecosystem.

 

Grasses and weeds grow,shading the ground and allowing bushes and shrubs to sprout. Once these take hold, trees can grow. As trees age, the canopy prevents others from maturing. The a fire comes and burns many of the older trees. Grasses and weeds grow...

Link to comment

It's one of those catch 22 situations... IMHO.

 

You don't want to trash the places we find so beautiful, but if our mere presense is causing damage then we are stuck only being able to see pics or movies... Kinda lik the moon or something.

 

I like to go out and experience these places, but I also understand that if they didn't try to make it next to impossible to get there, then there would be nothing to see.

 

I have no answers... and a varying opinion on these topics, best I can do is look at these things on a case by case arguement and go from there.

 

I do believe however in treading as lightly as "possible".

Link to comment

Normally I'm not all that worried about the ecosystem recovering from people walking around. We do a lot worse, trust me. But I did want to share a story.

 

Some where around 1967 we drove up to Grand Junction CO from Las Vegas. Grandma was coming down for a visit and we went to fetch her.

 

Back when my Dad was born, 1922, the family was literly dirt poor. They earned a living by following the harvest around the SW. They would go south to St George UT for the fruit harvest every year.

 

What stands out from our ride to Las Vegas was Grandma talking about going from oil lamps (no kerosene in those days) to electricty, from covered wagons to a man on the moon, and her pointing out the wagon ruts from the old trail they took across the desert. Still plainly visable 45 years later.

 

The area I'm talking about is right around where the OP lives.

 

Just something to consider.

Link to comment
Dunno know about up there, but we don't have that problem here in AZ, the ground is simply not soft enough to leave any kind of impression....

No need to worry about that in the desert suburbs of Los Angeles. Give your footprints six months and they'll be buried beneath a new subdivision. :tongue:

Link to comment

In my area there is the issue of cachers trampling all sorts of flora in their search for the treasures. That's why I despise "clever hides" in areas that are rarely visited by non-cachers. Why smugly stash a fake rock under some rocks deep in the middle of the woods far away from any trails?

Link to comment
First time I heard about this was in Moab Utah...

 

Heres a link if you arer interested.

What was missing from that site was the natural progression of an ecosystem.

 

Grasses and weeds grow,shading the ground and allowing bushes and shrubs to sprout. Once these take hold, trees can grow. As trees age, the canopy prevents others from maturing. The a fire comes and burns many of the older trees. Grasses and weeds grow...

yep..and the natural progression of that is...when Mother Nature is tired of us messing around with her, she will replace us with something else.. :tongue:

This was in reference to the fires...and seeding earth with non native stuff...

Edited by woof n lulu
Link to comment

We have lived and hiked in this area (northern Az. & southern Ut.) for 25 yrs. One thing we have noticed since the greenies have started in on the "brown dirt" is that it is not as fragile as they would like us to believe.

 

We have been to old ruins that have the 'brown dirt' everywhere. There are pot shards and flakes scattered all over the area showing habitation occurred there, yet the 'brown dirt' survives. The number of deer wandering through these sites is quite high. We've seen herds of 20 or more walking right through the ruins! Yet the 'brown dirt' survives.

 

Some roads we used to use are no longer there! The only way to tell that the road had ever been there is to look at the height of the brush. Some of it is about 10" - 12" shorter.

 

Nature is remarkable in it's ability to adapt and recover. Within weeks of the Mount St Helens eruption they found new growth on the side of the mountain!

 

We believe in using the lands for our enjoyment.

It IS possible to use the land and NOT abuse it, if you use some common sense.

 

Just the ramblings of an oldfart.

 

John

Link to comment

As a 4x4 owner I get the "tread lightly" thing twice over.

I finally started carrying a set of photos in my Jeep showing a swamp being filled to build a shopping center, a potential Heron nesting area being destroyed to build condos, a clear cut logged area, and a 40 foot wide logging road that was built to replace a two-track we used to drive on. Every truck in the region will never create the same damage those 4 projects did.

Weird thing is that you have to point out the amount of damage that the logging road did to the environment, but people get their panties in a twist when they see 4x4s on a rutted old two-track road.

Link to comment
In my area there is the issue of cachers trampling all sorts of flora in their search for the treasures. That's why I despise "clever hides" in areas that are rarely visited by non-cachers. Why smugly stash a fake rock under some rocks deep in the middle of the woods far away from any trails?

This is the winning solution. You have to factor in who's going to hunt it, and what they are going to do in looking for your cache.

 

Edit: Deserts are some of the most fragile terrain on earth.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment
What stands out from our ride to Las Vegas was Grandma talking about going from oil lamps (no kerosene in those days) to electricty, from covered wagons to a man on the moon, and her pointing out the wagon ruts from the old trail they took across the desert. Still plainly visable 45 years later.

I like this bit because it illustrates something important.

 

The wagon ruts are still visible. We know it took a lot of wagons constantly following the same trail years make ruts like that. There were a lot of wagons involved in those cuts in the earth. I can't even imagine my cache getting that many visitors in it's lifetime.

 

Those wagons were drawn by horses. Horses that weigh a lot more than you and I. Horses with a smaller, sharper, footprint. Putting more pounds/sq. inch on the earth than we ever do. Horses that leave footprints in places you or I simply don't.

 

And yet only the ruts remain.

 

The horses alone couldn't do the damage. Years of wild animals couldn't do the damage. It took heavy vehicles with thin tires that cut the earth to do anything like that.

 

The OP is talking about 20 people walking back and forth to a cache as if that did the same damage as wagon trains and tanks.

 

I'm sorry, but there's a matter of scale here. When I start doing more damage in my sneakers than a bison or a horse or a deer, please, let me know.

 

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

 

http://www.qsl.net/n7jy/trinity.html has a lovely little quote about an atomic bomb testing site.

 

The desert plants have grown back in
.

 

This is not an uncommon discovery for those who have visited the sites of atomic bomb tests. And yet somehow the footprints of 10-15 geocachers leave a trail that will not repair itself.

 

Does that make sense to anyone else here?

Link to comment

Wow! Such vituperative replies! I think I was misunderstood. I realize that biotic soils will recover and that nature will heal and that geocachers don't cause as much damage as others and . . . .ad nauseum. My real point is that the footpath to caches makes the find so easy that you don't need a GPS to find them. I always thought the the object was to find things using a GPS, not tracks to a cache.

Maybe you bashers out there don't care if there is a beaten path to a cache--I do.

By the way, I own 2 ATV's and ride them often. I just don't use them off established trails. I own a 4 X4 truck, but I don't drive off across the desert. I believe in using the land, but not in destroying it. There is a big difference. After reading some of the replies, I now understand why some refuse to take a stand and write posts here. See ya cachin'

Link to comment
After reading some of the replies, I now understand why some refuse to take a stand and write posts here.  See ya cachin'

Aaah, lighten up coach. If you believe strongly that treading lightly could help preserve nature then you should hold your ground (no pun intended). Obviously, this subject is somewhat contraversial. Who cares if someone thinks you are wrong, there are others that think you are right. And you just may be successful in causing others to BE MORE CAREFUL. ;)

Link to comment

Yep - like clearpath indicated, you need to lighten up a bit... maybe even develop a thick skin. Not everything in real life is peaches and cream, so it is the same here. In keeping a proper perspective to how people will reply, you should remember what constitutes an issue to you doesn't necessarily convey itself to be an issue to others.

 

Out of the 105 you found so far, how many is many in your definition? I'm at the same level of finds and have noted at this level, I still have to trust others with larger numbers to provide me with anectodal perspectives that takes a larger average into consideration.

 

It also seems most caches are hidden within a few feet of the trail and you will find a social path developing no matter where you place it and for how long.

 

You can't possibly expect virgin territory everytime you go out and seek a cache hidden off a trail. That's simply unrealistic. So coming back to realistic expectations, the question boils down to what is acceptable and what isn't?

 

That really boils down to the individual perception of the level of damage inflicted as so keenly observed in the replies thus far. And you really need to look at it from a larger scope than from a macro point of perception. Yes - there is a social path, but how much of that is really affecting the area in total?

 

In either case, like a doctor once suggested to me, if it pains you that much, then don't do it.

Link to comment

I had an awesome teacher in high school who taught us the concept of the "Tragedy of the Commons." Basically, a few people doing something doesn't become a problem until everybody starts doing it and ruins the whole dadgum thing. This is just as applicable to biotic soil as it is to the sport of geocaching.

 

Personally, I will keep geocaching until I can't cache no 'mo -- I do believe the "Tragedy of the Commons" will occur at some point and pretty soon there will be all kinds of laws prohibiting the sport.

 

Here's how things start to snowball into eventual tragedy:

 

*Vandalism -- my personal hatred: multi-caches in which the owner has written the waypoint clues/numbers on private property or marks the area with their geologo.

 

*Placing caches in KNOWN sensitive areas.

 

*Not asking permission to place a cache, because you know it will not be granted.

 

Sure, the official rules of the game prohibit this -- but that's just the offical line... right?

 

People hate more rules, but rules happen when people fail to do what they say they will do: govern their own behavior.

Link to comment

Something folks seem to be missing or ignoring is that not all terrain is created equal. What would be fine in Eastern hardwood forests or the Pacific Northwest rainforest can potentially leave irrepairable scars in an alpine or desert area.

 

Consider this single 'visit' to a geyser basin.

 

Bons might argue that a truck is many times heavier than a person, but even footprints on such fragile terrain are going to outlast you or I. One would hope that geocachers would be sensitive to such areas, but I personally have my doubts. We see confusion and lack of understanding from some over caches along railroad right-of-ways, dams, and similar locations sensitive for other reasons, so I expect an equal lack of understanding here.

 

So far some of the responses in this thread have not disappointed my expectations.

Link to comment

Good point. It's important to folllow the local regulations as far as sensitive areas. There are a number of areas deemed sensitive around here due to nesting birds, sensitive ground cover, etc. I would never dream of going in there with my Jeep, and I would be very careful about placing a cache there. Unfortunately there are a few fools like the guy in the newspaper article who ruin things.

 

As far as tracks leading to the cache (original question) if you can't locate it in a spot that this won't happen then I would make the container hard to find when you get there. Probably better to contain any possible damage to one spot than hop it all over the place and have lots of lessor damage.

Link to comment
...Consider this single 'visit' to a geyser basin...

Those dorks are why sooner or late we won't even able to hike outside city limits.

 

The punishment though was stiffer than for stealing a vehicle for your first time. As for dams they are sensative to being blown up. Not foot traffic. Which is a different issue. Geocaching isn't a problem so much as the reaction to an unknown and just found geocache is.

Link to comment

"The pair, unable to dislodge the truck, camped overnight, built a fire, shot a gun in the middle of the night to scare off any nearby bears, then in the morning asked tourists to help tow them out."

 

Well, there ya have it...Dumb and Dumber...

 

1. Don't do donuts in environmentally sensitive areas.

2. Get a Chevy 4x4 and don't get stuck.

3. If you DO get stuck with another brand of truck, leave it there, hike home, and report the thing stolen ASAP.

 

I think they got off pretty easy, IMO.

Link to comment

Yah - there's a reason those barricades are up; and Yumitori, the comparison is apples to oranges. Those were idiots that should have never gotten behind the wheel in the first place (suspended license), and as sensitive as the grounds are, there was a trail for hikers and bikers that they drove on. That's the clue to read from, you can have a minimal impact with a social trail and still be ok.

 

You can't stop jerks from being jerks, but you can still go into sensitive areas if your impact is minimal. Tread lightly does not indicate walk on air. No matter how you wish to discuss it, it means to minimize your impact.

Link to comment
I have noticed a real problem here in the desert SW.  Many caches are placed in areas that are surrounded by sensitive biotic soils.  As soon as 10-15 (or less, in some cases) cachers have visited the area, there is a beaten path to the cache that will not repair itself.  There are many caches that you don't even need a GPS for--just follow the footprints/footpaths.  It seems that no matter how hard you try to place a cache in a place that will not lend itself to footpaths, they magically appear.  I have suggested moving caches often to make the caching experience better, but does anyone have any suggestions as to a solution?  I'm afraid that we may be banned from placing caches in many areas of the SW because of foot traffic.  Let's hear from some wise folks out there. ;)  ;)  ;)

 

Coachsteve, I believe you are blending 2 separate situations into a single problem. One is the type of soil in the area and the other is the development of a trail to the cache.

 

The first one I've voiced my thoughts on already.

 

The second can be solved in several different ways. First, choose an area where there is firmer soil. If that option will not work, then pick an area where access can be had from several different directions.

 

I know the next statement will ruffle some feathers, but do NOT post any parking coordinates on the cache page or in a log for the cache. This way people will have to find their own way to the cache and not follow the previous finders footsteps.

 

We have a couple of caches that others worried about leaving footprints in the soil. One of the caches is placed in what is known as "the Chinle Layer", which is a fancy name for one of the clay layers here abouts. With all the finders to this cache you cannot tell where the cache is located. Everytime it rains (sprinkles is more like it.) the ground swells and erases the footprints. So not all areas need to be avoided.

 

There are probably other solutions, but I didn't feel up to writing a book about them. :lol:

 

Does this help?

 

John

Link to comment
I know the next statement will ruffle some feathers, but do NOT post any parking coordinates on the cache page or in a log for the cache. This way people will have to find their own way to the cache and not follow the previous finders footsteps.

 

I agree ... parking coordinates are for wimps, anyways. ;)

Link to comment
Yah - there's a reason those barricades are up; and Yumitori, the comparison is apples to oranges. Those were idiots that should have never gotten behind the wheel in the first place (suspended license), and as sensitive as the grounds are, there was a trail for hikers and bikers that they drove on. That's the clue to read from, you can have a minimal impact with a social trail and still be ok.

 

If you've never been there, the trail is a wide paved path. In the geyser basin itself the trail changes to a boardwalk. I presume the trail they drove on was the paved one, but I haven't been to the area since the incident to see the damage for myself.

 

I used this example to show that it doesn't take numerous visits to cause irreparable damage. A single vehicle in the wrong place can scar the land for generations.

 

Sadly, Vancouver, Washington is not the only place idiots are found. Were it legal to hide physical caches in national parks I have no doubt someone would eventually hide a container in a stand of trees in the middle of a geyser basin, requiring searchers to cross the easily damaged soil. Even if a 'safer' route existed, there would be someone who would ignorantly follow their arrow through the sensitive area. It may still happen someday, though geocaching.com wouldn't list the submission. Not everyone is aware of the damage their passage causes, and not everyone cares.

 

Discussing it here in an open forum is one way to increase that awareness.

Link to comment

I'm by no means a tree hugger, but having grown up in the Moab area of S.E. Utah, I'm very familiar with the damage that can be done to cryptobiotic soils.

 

If you walk across a cryptobiotic crust your footprints will literally remain for years. If your're hiking in areas where these crusts grow, you should make every effort to avoid walking on them. It's actually pretty interesting stuff to look at.

 

Here's a link with pictures. Cryptobiotic crust

Link to comment
I'm by no means a tree hugger, but having grown up in the Moab area of S.E. Utah, I'm very familiar with the damage that can be done to cryptobiotic soils.

 

If you walk across a cryptobiotic crust your footprints will literally remain for years. If your're hiking in areas where these crusts grow, you should make every effort to avoid walking on them. It's actually pretty interesting stuff to look at.

 

Here's a link with pictures. Cryptobiotic crust

 

I can't pass up such a straight line!! ;)

 

If the footprint fits.... ;):lol:

 

John

Link to comment

Sadly, most of you are missing the important point that bons and one or two others have touched on. Nothing we do will save this planet. We are but a speck of dust on a timeline that is unfathomable. Someone once compared human existence to being the period at the end of the last sentence on the last page of a 5,000 page novel. We will have been and gone, and no matter what we do, how long we avoid nature, we will not save this planet. Plain and simple, nature runs it's course, and like it or not, the human race is part of nature. Our marks we leave on this rock in space are marks of natural evolution of an ecosystem. The planet is doomed, no matter what we do, and would be doomed even if there had never been a human race. No amount of time, preservation, or paranoia is ever going to change that. This rock will be here for quite possibly billions and billions of years after we're gone, so get over it. Throw a party in that rain forest! Drive your 4x4 to the top of the nearest mountain straight through the breeding grounds of a million endangered species! Print out your cache pages and throw them in the landfill when you're done! It doesn't matter in the big picture!!! We're less than a pixel in a panorama of a billion trillion years!!!!!

Link to comment
The planet is doomed, no matter what we do, and would be doomed even if there had never been a human race. 

Aah, Sparky cut it out. You are gonna scare some of the noobs. ;)

Noobs??? Heck, I scared myself with that one!! ;);) Sad, but true.....the post, not the scared part....well, that part too, I guess.... :lol:

Link to comment
Bons might argue that a truck is many times heavier than a person, but even footprints on such fragile terrain are going to outlast you or I.

Bons would wonder why you're comparing someone doing donuts with their truck to a person walking.

 

How many orders of magnitude are between the two?

 

It's not apples and oranges. It's a pallet of watermelons vs. a grape.

Edited by bons
Link to comment
Sadly, most of you are missing the important point that bons and one or two others have touched on.  Nothing we do will save this planet.  We are but a speck of dust on a timeline that is unfathomable.  Someone once compared human existence to being the period at the end of the last sentence on the last page of a 5,000 page novel.  We will have been and gone, and no matter what we do, how long we avoid nature, we will not save this planet.  Plain and simple, nature runs it's course, and like it or not, the human race is part of nature.  Our marks we leave on this rock in space are marks of natural evolution of an ecosystem.  The planet is doomed, no matter what we do, and would be doomed even if there had never been a human race.  No amount of time, preservation, or paranoia is ever going to change that.  This rock will be here for quite possibly billions and billions of years after we're gone, so get over it.  Throw a party in that rain forest!  Drive your 4x4 to the top of the nearest mountain straight through the breeding grounds of a million endangered species!  Print out your cache pages and throw them in the landfill when you're done!  It doesn't matter in the big picture!!!  We're less than a pixel in a panorama of a billion trillion years!!!!!

And long after we are gone, when mountains have been sandblasted into round anthills and the sun barely glows a dull red-orange in the sky, when nothing moves on this earth and the silence of the world is deafening, there will still be footprints on the moon and a couple of radio-controlled cars sitting abandoned on Mars....

 

MY GOD, MAN...DOESN'T ANYONE CARE ABOUT THE LUNAR AND MARTIAN ENVIRONMENTS? THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

Link to comment
Someone once compared human existence to being the period at the end of the last sentence on the last page of a 5,000 page novel.

 

I like that. Actually the whole post was pretty good except for the "Drive... straight through the breeding grounds of a million endangered species!" part. If you can avoid excess wear and tear then you probably should. As long as it doesn't take away from reasonable enjoyment of the land. I say reasonable because some people enjoy starting fires in the woods. That's not reasonable. Neither is Driving your 4 x 4 straight through the breeding grounds of a million endangered species. <_< All I'm saying is I don't go out of my way to f things up, but if I have to walk on some biotic soil to get to a cache, I don't think I'll have any trouble sleeping.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...