Tread Lightly

[+TotemLake]

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.

I just got back to read this thread and I agree. I have a lot to say about this and my perceptions of biotic soil but I'll keep my piece brief. (quiet in the back!)

 

Yumitori, thanks for clarifying the paved path as I didn't know this. But it was barricaded for a reason and illegally bypassed. I understand why you used that example, but the level of perpetrated damage is still a far cry from a small social path to a cache off of an established trail where it hasn't been indicated there are "keep on the trail" signs. If you have a better example to use germane to the level this topic started with, I'd be willing to consider it.

[4Mergansers]

See .... that's what I don't understand. People decry having more rules placed upon them and then turn around and insist if there isn't a sign saying "stay on the path" it's okay to go bushwacking around. Does anyone else see the irony of that?

 

[+TotemLake]

You have never seen me decry about more rules. There is no hypocracy in any of my statements regarding this.

 

In point of fact, if there is a land management policy about keeping on the trails. I do this. If there isn't, that means I have the freedom of choice, and I exercise this freedom as deemed when and where appropriate - by me. My actions are based on my decisions, not yours.

 

==edited to add===

 

Sorry I just can't let this go...

if there isn't a sign saying "stay on the path" it's okay to go bushwacking around. Does anyone else see the irony of that?

 

You took an awful big license to come up with that out of any of my remarks.

Edited May 27, 2004 by TotemLake

[+yumitori]

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

 

Because you say several times that people don't cause the amount of damage vehicles do -

 

 

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.

 

 

Yet 20 people walking across the delicate soil of a geyser basin will cause equally irreparable damage. This wasn't a wagon train, this wasn't a bunch of tanks, it was just two idiots in a 4 X 4. And your 20 'grapes' will still leave an equally permanent path through the soil crust around the thermal features if there's a cache hidden in the middle of a basin.

 

This may not be the case in a lot of environments, but in Yellowstone, in places like those brought up by coachsteve, 20 people will do as much damage as idiots in a truck or a bunch of wagons. In terms of geological time neither's damage may amount to much, but I'm concerned about the next few generations, not the next few epoches.

 

Some environments just don't handle any passage well.

[+Sparky-Watts]

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

 

Because you say several times that people don't cause the amount of damage vehicles do -

 

 

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.

 

 

Yet 20 people walking across the delicate soil of a geyser basin will cause equally irreparable damage. This wasn't a wagon train, this wasn't a bunch of tanks, it was just two idiots in a 4 X 4. And your 20 'grapes' will still leave an equally permanent path through the soil crust around the thermal features if there's a cache hidden in the middle of a basin.

 

This may not be the case in a lot of environments, but in Yellowstone, in places like those brought up by coachsteve, 20 people will do as much damage as idiots in a truck or a bunch of wagons. In terms of geological time neither's damage may amount to much, but I'm concerned about the next few generations, not the next few epoches.

 

Some environments just don't handle any passage well.

What about 20 antelope, or say, 20 buffalo? Refer to my earlier post about nature and the futility of it all......

[+JMBella]

Help me understand. I'm from the East coast and as far as I know I've never seen biotic soil. As I understand it, it's a top layer of crusty earth. Specifically, communities of fungus, algae and mosses. When we walk or drive wagons on it we essentially crush/crack/crumble it.

 

So far so good? OK.

 

Then what? Grass grows? I'm not trying to be a wise a** here, I just don't know what the specific problem is. What is the long and short term negative result of us walking on biotic soil? Will it cause us to run out of oxygen? Or is it that we are killing micro organisms that live there? How will it effect future generations 20, 50, 100 years from now? Someone break it down for me, please.

[+TotemLake]

Some environments just don't handle any passage well.

I think we see a kind of violent agreement here. IF there is an area that is sensitive, would it not be reasonable to expect a posted land management policy? Simply put, there would be signage asking the hikers keep to the trails with a brief explanation. I've seen them at the trailhead as well as in certain areas of a trail and those were in State managed forests as well as in National Parks.

[+Planet]

Nothing we do will save this planet. we will not save this planet. The planet is doomed!!!!

Oh noooooo!

 

[+clearpath]

Nothing we do will save this planet.  we will not save this planet.  The planet is doomed!!!!

Oh noooooo!

 

Yeah, I think the process has already started, have you been to Houston lately?

[4Mergansers]

Team Totem, my post was not a direct reponse to your post, but a response to the cummulative posts here.

 

You are absolutely right -- nowhere did you say that you, specifically, don't like rules/more rules. So I do very sincerely apologize that my post occurring directly after yours inferred that I thought you or you alone were hypocritical.

 

I DO hate more rules, and I know a lot of other people on these board feel the same way -- many much more passionately than I.

 

Like you, I would like to be the one who dictates my own actions. Like you, I believe in "treading lightly" whenever possible (I do it with or without a sign telling me to do so -- maybe you do too). I, for one, do not want to see more signs . . . I want rather see more concerned people who don't need them.

 

If everyone acted responsibily and in the best interest of the environment, there would be no problems. But unless all these posts have been written in a completely satirical vein, then apparently that's not the case.

 

Maybe the world really is going to hell in a handbasket, but I'll be damned if I am going to help it get there any faster. I hope you feel the same way.

 

To JMBella: From what I learned (and can remember) in college, microbiotic crusts take 100's of years to form, and will take 100's of years to repair itself. Yes, you kill them when you crush them. No, grass will not take over -- erosion will. Think of microbiotic crusts as tiny little old growth forests -- they are the top of the "natural progression" not the beginning of it. I can't answer how the loss of it will effect future generations. No one can. And they would be fools to answer either resoundingly yes or no, IMHO. Who knows what the grand scheme of things really is?

[+rusty_tlc]

Wheew! Stopped myself just in time.

Edited May 27, 2004 by rusty_tlc

[+TotemLake]

Team Totem, my post was not a direct reponse to your post, but a response to the cummulative posts here.

 

You are absolutely right -- nowhere did you say that you, specifically, don't like rules/more rules. So I do very sincerely apologize that my post occurring directly after yours inferred that I thought you or you alone were hypocritical.

4Mergansers, Cool and thank you for your clarification. It's sincerely appreciated.

 

Yumitori, thanks for your clarification ableit your example is still one of extremism, your point is well taken.

[+Sparky-Watts]

Nothing we do will save this planet.  we will not save this planet.  The planet is doomed!!!!

Oh noooooo!

 

[+Sparky-Watts]

To JMBella: From what I learned (and can remember) in college, microbiotic crusts take 100's of years to form, and will take 100's of years to repair itself. Yes, you kill them when you crush them. No, grass will not take over -- erosion will. Think of microbiotic crusts as tiny little old growth forests -- they are the top of the "natural progression" not the beginning of it.

But does it taste good with jelly on it?

[+PandyBat]

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!!!!!

We're not talking about saving the whole planet here. We're talking about preserving parts of it for future generations. Yeah, someday the planet is not going to be here but until that time comes, we should do all we can to preserve what's left of it. I can't believe you are advocating trashing your way around the earth. No one wants to see the Grand Canyon ruined by 4x4's or the Statue of Liberty with grafitti all over it. They want to see that it is still there for their kids after they die.

[+JMBella]

To JMBella: From what I learned (and can remember) in college, microbiotic crusts take 100's of years to form, and will take 100's of years to repair itself. Yes, you kill them when you crush them. No, grass will not take over -- erosion will. Think of microbiotic crusts as tiny little old growth forests -- they are the top of the "natural progression" not the beginning of it. I can't answer how the loss of it will effect future generations. No one can. And they would be fools to answer either resoundingly yes or no, IMHO. Who knows what the grand scheme of things really is?

Thanks for the input. I also received a very enlightening email from someone else. From what I understand, if the area is damaged by a tank or a sneaker, it inhibits the grounds ability to hold the soil and it causes erosion. Also with the drought situation it is extremely difficult or impossible for anything to grow. I was further informed that "half of the desert plants in SW Utah have died due to lack of rainfall." Maybe it's me but that sounds like a big deal. HALF OF THE PLANTS HAVE DIED IN THE PAST FEW YEARS.

 

That said, I still maintain my opinion that geocaching in these areas has an infinitesimal effect in the grand scheme of thing, but at least now I understand where people are coming from. It is a real problem. I just don't think there is anything anybody can do about it short of doing a rain dance. Just don't do it on any Biotic Soil!

[+norbu]

if there is a land management policy about keeping on the trails. I do this. If there isn't, that means I have the freedom of choice, and I exercise this freedom as deemed when and where appropriate - by me. My actions are based on my decisions, not yours.

 

I would just like to say that the above made me wonder how easy it is to know the rules of every area you are in. For example, the open space preserve my husband is a ranger at, they have exactly such a "no off-trail" policy. However, I know that there are access routes that people can get to, that enter areas of the preserve that may not have a developed trail system, or that may not be signed as well as more used areas. The same rules apply, but someone may not know that. It really is better to use a rule of thumb that looks more at the situation and what you would be stepping on rather than if there is a rule that is known to you. For example, trample all the mustard you like! but, in our area, please stay out of the native chapparal areas and rehabitation projects.

 

anyhow, not a criticism on my part, just a thought. Please don't take it any other way.

[+Sparky-Watts]

This is the type of broad generalization I was poking fun at:

No one wants to see the Grand Canyon ruined by 4x4's or the Statue of Liberty with grafitti all over it.

And, to be honest, I bet I could find a lot of people that would like to see that. Some of them are right here in America, too. So, stop with the rabid generalizations before you ruin the credibility of all of us for our generations to come.

[+TotemLake]

if there is a land management policy about keeping on the trails. I do this. If there isn't, that means I have the freedom of choice, and I exercise this freedom as deemed when and where appropriate - by me. My actions are based on my decisions, not yours.

 

I would just like to say that the above made me wonder how easy it is to know the rules of every area you are in. For example, the open space preserve my husband is a ranger at, they have exactly such a "no off-trail" policy. However, I know that there are access routes that people can get to, that enter areas of the preserve that may not have a developed trail system, or that may not be signed as well as more used areas. The same rules apply, but someone may not know that. It really is better to use a rule of thumb that looks more at the situation and what you would be stepping on rather than if there is a rule that is known to you. For example, trample all the mustard you like! but, in our area, please stay out of the native chapparal areas and rehabitation projects.

 

anyhow, not a criticism on my part, just a thought. Please don't take it any other way.

No criticism taken. But somewhere down the line I still have to take upon myself to decide for myself and not worry about the what-if's.

 

I pretty much stay on trails and off-roads but on occasion the curiosity drives me off-trail to see sights I otherwise would have never seen. Like for instance, stepping into an acre of rattlers sunning on the rocks... climbing up a ravine and noticing the different colored layers of sediment. Discovering abandoned damns for which no trail offered to go in the direction of... watching beavers working on their home... all this in the San Diego area when I was much younger many moons ago.

 

If I were to worry about damage I might do by leaving the trail system, I would have never had the bejeebers scared out of me, or the pure wonderment of why that object is where it is, or watching nature at work because they learned a long time ago to avoid those same trail systems. You can't gain that kind of adventure on the trail.

 

Today, in the absence of knowledge of any policy, I take it upon myself to decide instead of living in fear of making the wrong decision. I'm also more concious of the impact of that decision, but I refuse to live in fear of it.

[+The Jester]

Just a note to say there are some enviroments that are permanently damaged by a single passage of a man. 30 years ago I went to the Craters of the Moon in Idaho. Just off the marked trails there was a line of footprint in green. For over 2000 years nothing had grown in the loose volcanic soil, until it was compressed by that foot. Then plants took root. Just a few years ago I was back, and the whole area was now covered in plants. Now I'm not saying that one person was responsible, but it will never "recover" to it original condition (unless another eruption cycle happens).

 

The compacting of a social trail does take a very long time to revert, so we just have to be careful in our placements.

[+Sparky-Watts]

Just a note to say there are some enviroments that are permanently damaged by a single passage of a man. 30 years ago I went to the Craters of the Moon in Idaho. Just off the marked trails there was a line of footprint in green. For over 2000 years nothing had grown in the loose volcanic soil, until it was compressed by that foot. Then plants took root. Just a few years ago I was back, and the whole area was now covered in plants. Now I'm not saying that one person was responsible, but it will never "recover" to it original condition (unless another eruption cycle happens).

 

The compacting of a social trail does take a very long time to revert, so we just have to be careful in our placements.

Revert back to lava? What do you think the Earth started as? This is the thinking I don't understand. A natural evolution takes place....an area is covered with lava. Eventually, that lava will be broken down in to very rich soil, either by weathering, or by animals walking on it (heaven forbid a human should walk on it, though), and then there will be vegetation. Then the vegetation will die out, and possibly the animals that depend on it, only to be replaced by yet another organism, and the whole process will start over. So what?!?!?!?!? I'm not advocating destroying the planet, but my god, there is a natural order to things, and humans are part of that natural order!!!!!

[+Team Flying Dachshund]

The landscape looks just like here in cent Texas. It regrows after a while. I am sure that mother nature can heal herself. How would the grasses spread othrewise if they dont have seeds?

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

This is the type of broad generalization I was poking fun at:

No one wants to see the Grand Canyon ruined by 4x4's or the Statue of Liberty with grafitti all over it.

And, to be honest, I bet I could find a lot of people that would like to see that. Some of them are right here in America, too. So, stop with the rabid generalizations before you ruin the credibility of all of us for our generations to come.

 

This is actually funny! Because, just the other day, I was saying to John how I thought it would be really neat to have a road winding though the bottom of the Grand Canyon so 'the many' could enjoy what just 'the few' are able to do today. You have to apply years in advance to be able to either hike or ride a mule down into the canyon & then back out again.

 

You also have to consider where we live, right next to Lake Powell, where there are the extreme greenies out there who ruin their cause with the normal people by saying that Lake Powell should be drained! They do not see it as the double purpose that it is (the perfect water holder to help the dry west get though a drought & the best, cheap, clean, natural electricity producer ((the glen canyon dam)). Plus letting millions of people enjoy the lake & therefore the canyons & therefore the flora & fauna that would not happen otherwise. You are talking to people who live here & love the desert.

 

We enjoy the area & no, we feel we do not harm the beauty we see. But, we also see more & more land going off-limits to anyone *ever* being able to enjoy this land, because of someone doing 'studies' & saying we need to save the land/animals/plants/DIRT for our children!

I do not know about you...but this seems rather strange..my children, right now cannot enjoy the same areas that we did just a few years ago because EVERYTHING is off limits...NO rock hounding, NO driving on the existing back roads, NO free access, NO camping, NO loud noises, NO NO NO NO NO NO.

 

Sorry for the rant....but get real...we do live here, & until they made a HUGE area (thousands of acres) a national monument....there was hardly anyone out in the area...now....hundreds of people go there & the 'Greenies' are starting to worry about the 'dirt'.

 

So, I guess I am saying....go tell it to someone who might believe that statement...*save it for our children* POLITICAL BULL.

 

Shirley

 

Edit for mespilleng correction.

Edited May 28, 2004 by 2oldfarts (the rockhounders)

[+timberlane74 & pumpkin]

Just a note to say there are some enviroments that are permanently damaged by a single passage of a man. 30 years ago I went to the Craters of the Moon in Idaho. Just off the marked trails there was a line of footprint in green. For over 2000 years nothing had grown in the loose volcanic soil, until it was compressed by that foot. Then plants took root. Just a few years ago I was back, and the whole area was now covered in plants. Now I'm not saying that one person was responsible, but it will never "recover" to it original condition (unless another eruption cycle happens).

 

The compacting of a social trail does take a very long time to revert, so we just have to be careful in our placements.

Not taking any sides here, because I really haven't formed a well-thought out thought...some would say do I ever...but isn't "damage"...part of the "evolution" of nature?

[+Sparky-Watts]

Just a note to say there are some enviroments that are permanently damaged by a single passage of a man.  30 years ago I went to the Craters of the Moon in Idaho.  Just off the marked trails there was a line of footprint in green.  For over 2000 years nothing had grown in the loose volcanic soil, until it was compressed by that foot.  Then plants took root.  Just a few years ago I was back, and the whole area was now covered in plants.  Now I'm not saying that one person was responsible, but it will never "recover" to it original condition (unless another eruption cycle happens).

 

The compacting of a social trail does take a very long time to revert, so we just have to be careful in our placements.

Not taking any sides here, because I really haven't formed a well-thought out thought...some would say do I ever...but isn't "damage"...part of the "evolution" of nature?

Finally, someone else that gets the big picture....and thanks, Shirley, for you post above the one I quoted here......

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Oh NO, Thank You Sparky!

 

Shirley

[+Coach Steve]

Been doing a lot of thinking in the past few days about this thread. After reading Shirley's post, I realize what a two-edged sword this issue is. I grew up finding those places that were basicallly unmapped and spending time in them. Two of my sometime traveling companions were named Terry and Renny Russell. They later wrote a book called On the Loose It's an interesting read.

 

I wanted my children and grandchildren to have the same experience, but realize it's just not possible to the extent that I would like. After spending months at a time in the area now known as the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument, there are places that are not available for even hiking! That just means you can never go back to the past. I still find those places, but I sometimes also find someone telling me that I can't go there.

 

The balance seems to be stop worrying about it and just enjoy what we have left. By the way Shirley, one of my early claims to fame was to float the Colorado from Bullfrog to the Escalante River as the dam was being built and the lake filled. As spectacular as Glen Canyon was, it is just as spectacular today with the lake there. It boils down to trade-offs. We trade solitude for access, but get to see spectacular scenery and great places because of the access. By the time we "old farts" get finished, there will still be a lot left.

 

By the way, The Grand Staircase NM gets some great letters. "Is there an escalator if you can't hike?" "Is there and elevator for handicap access?" "How many steps are there?"

 

Coach Steve

[4Mergansers]

I think it just boils down to whether one thinks that man has dominion over nature or vice versa. A cool topic, if well debated.

 

I'm appreciating all the different points-of-view. (But I haven't changed my opinion.)

 

------------> Heading out to re-read my worn copies of Edward Abbey's "Desert Solitaire."

[+Renegade Knight]

See .... that's what I don't understand. People decry having more rules placed upon them and then turn around and insist if there isn't a sign saying "stay on the path" it's okay to go bushwacking around. Does anyone else see the irony of that?

 

I don't see the irony. All rights not specificaly given to the government are reserved for the people. If the government doesn't prohibit something then it's mostly likely viable. If it's not there will be a new law soon enough. This is true right down to hiking in the woods without a guide, on a game trail or off it.

 

The need for stay on the trail signs comes from throngs of people visiting a concentrated area such as a park. Not the vast open areas that are owned by the forest service or BLM. Every so often an area will attract a lot of people and these land angencies will intervene and do something. Last weekend I was cave caching and one cave was gated. The BLM chose to protect that resource by asking people to take time to get a permit. We could of gotten a permit but had fun at the other caves we visited that day. No harm done.

[+edscott]

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.

Looked over the entire thread to see if anyone really got the point ...at least from from my point of view ...and am simply showcasing it to be read again..

[+Renegade Knight]

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.

Looked over the entire thread to see if anyone really got the point ...at least from from my point of view ...and am simply showcasing it to be read again..

In the end terrain is like everything else. We as a society give different terrain types value. That value determines whether they are worth preserving or not. Desert is very fragile, yet we will excavate them to make a wetland without a second thought or even require a permit. I can tromp all over wetlands and they recover faster than a desert ever will.

 

Sensitivity isn't the factor that makes wetlands have a priority over a desert. Somewhere it was decided that wetlands have a value in that they are productive lands. Yellowstone has excellent scenery and that scenery is what's being protected. Should that same terrain have been located along a river bank near a high way in need of some land for wetlands mitigation odds are it would not be favored any more than the surrounding desert, woods, or whatever else is out there.

 

So what's my point? Same as a lot of posts in here. The real answer is "It depends" you have to look at the specific cache. I have one that gets comments all the time about the trails formed. It doesn't worry me. The trails are through cheat grass and if Idaho could ban cheat grass and have it just go away they would. The stuff needs eradicated. Concern over those social trails is misplaced.

 

Caves are sensative. That doesn't mean you can't place a cache in them, it does mean that some may not be appropriate for a cache. It depends.

[+norbu]

first, let's just convince people not to litter or other destructive things.

I too used to roam all over poway, before it was very developed, and it was no big deal. But, there were less buildings, and more animal wayfares, and etc etc. I would probably still enter areas, and have, but I am extremely sensitive about when where and how.

 

anyhow, if so many people weren't so destructive in their everyday lives, it might not be such a big deal to allow more open access.

[+GunniGirl]

"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.

And bears hibernate in the winter. They were lucky their shooting didn't wake any up!