Jump to content

Geo-conscious


someguy2

Recommended Posts

B) I am extremely new to this sport; yet, in early experience I am drawn to a question: what safeguards are advised for eco-damage?

 

Searching for a cache yesterday I came upon the evidence of other cache-seekers: manifest as large areas of trampled (intentionally) grasslands in a wetlands preserve. It seems there should be some consideration of such issues.

 

Any commentary?

Link to comment

You know, the more I think about this topic, the crabbier I get -- the idea that bent grass is an ecological catastrophe along the lines of the Exxon Valdez or something. I don't like seeing human being spoor on the trail, either, but let's face it -- with the exception of things like nylon line, it's an aesthetic judgement, not an indication that actual damage has been done.

Link to comment

An interesting set of responses. I said I was extremely new to this sport. I didn't say I was a child, nor naive. This wasn't deer. The area looked somewhat like something from the movie "Signs", with circular areas of flattened vegetation (20-30 feet in diameter) separated by paths. It appears that variations in GPS reading (as is common while the unit recalculates) led the seeker to differing conclusions of "this is the spot". Indeed, we're only talking about grass here, and there was no intent to make this into a conflagration. The statement by AuntieWeasel is simply hyperbole and warrants no further response.

 

As for the proscription against sockpuppets, let us examine the issue a bit. May we assume that "El Diablo" is the real name of the participant? If it is not, then why are you not using your real name? "El Diablo" is 8 characters and a space which serves as a moniker. "Someguy2" is 8 characters, without a space, which serves the same purpose. The concern about sockpuppets came about in the context of flaming: wherein the intent of a "sockpuppeted" author was to speak with vitriol and without the restraint derived from identity. You may note that I simply asked a question about eco-etiquette in the geocaching arena. This hardly constitues flaming. Actually, I chose this name simply as the first thing which came to mind while I took my first look at the nature of people who participate in this arena. I suppose I could have concocked something truly creative (like "El Diablo"); but, I chose something simple while I discovered a bit about the participants.

 

However, there is a "nerve" here which has been touched. This is educational, and perhaps the most useful lesson to be learned.

Link to comment

The fact that you joined yesterday and have no record of any finds makes it look suspicious. I'm sure you can understand.

 

Please check back and let us know if you still have the same concerns about caching after you find a few caches. I'm sure most people will be more accepting of your opinions then.

Link to comment
The area looked somewhat like something from the movie "Signs", with circular areas of flattened vegetation (20-30 feet in diameter) separated by paths.

Did you view these crop circles from the air? Frankly, if geocachers were going to create "signs", I would imagine that they could be much more creative, considering their skills with a GPSR. :ph34r:

Link to comment

First and foremost, let me tell you something... Cachers are one of the best groups of people out there - but you have to show by doing that you know what you're talking about or they're more likely to counter whatever you say in the forums. Case in point, today a cacher who fights with me almost every time we're in the same forum post promised not to throw food at me if I joined him (and other cachers) at dinner.

 

The area looked somewhat like something from the movie "Signs", with circular areas of flattened vegetation (20-30 feet in diameter) separated by paths.

 

Did you check for any left cordinants? Perhaps this was step 1 of an intergalactic multi cache? Step 2 - the moon, Step 3, mars, Step 4 R*(FFJAA&D*@#($_ outside of the Milky Way.

 

Seriously, did it ever occur to you that it WAS a crop circle? I mean, occationally there's a dumb cacher around, but chances are that he's not out there making crop circles, and there's this pair of guys from England who have actually demonstrated for television how to make crop circles of your own.

 

Or, aliens really did the circle, and you should just run the hell away all peaceful like.

Link to comment
This wasn't deer.  The area looked somewhat like something from the movie "Signs", with circular areas of flattened vegetation (20-30 feet in diameter) separated by paths.

That sounds exactly like a place where deer have been bedding down.

That's what I was thinking too. We better exterminate all the animals, they are trampling the grass!

Edited by Mopar
Link to comment

Antie Weasel, shame! For some time you have been the cacher I would most like to meet, but now I fear for my life. Just pretend he's a baby squirrel.

 

Often, in tall grassy areas near wetlands, you will find areas of purposefully trampeled grass. Deer will purposefully trample on tall grass in order to make safe and comfy bedding sites. This might be what you found

:ph34r: I go with the deer theory, have seen many bedding places. Thing is, unless this "trampled" spot was near "ground zero," then it wasn't cachers even potentially.

Link to comment
Antie Weasel, shame!

Well, I did have a point.

 

The sort of damage that hikers do in wilderness, e.g. social trails, is entirely aesthetic. And who cares about aesthetics? People. And only people.

 

So the way you keep people from making aesthetic changes to the landscape is to keep them away. Then it will be prettier. But why make something prettier if nobody can go there? See my dilemma? It's one of those "if a tree falls in the forest..." questions.

 

Short of anything hazardous or toxic, nature surely doesn't care. Leave her your old hubcaps, she'll grow mice in them. When people give lipservice to the "awesome power of nature" they seldom recognize the awesome power to reclaim your house, your yard, your abandoned car if you turn your back for a moment.

 

I've forgotten who first observed that living in the country is like floating on an ocean of green; you're forever baling it out the windows and doors, trying to keep from going under.

Link to comment

Oh, but this is all very amusing, and revealing. Another perspicuous contribution by AuntieWeasel. El Diablo must be out there somewhere (presumably between himself and the deep blue sea). (Indeed, "himself" is an assumption, but likely accurate).

 

Thanks to Stunod for a reasonable response. I had no intent to upset the order of things, nor to be disrespectful. Rather, I was inquiring into behavioral expectations. While I am retired (and thus open to new adventures) some of my business partners are not. As we look at this arena I wanted to know more about who participates and how they participate. This has been, in part, accomplished.

 

So, much has been learned. Time to move on.

Link to comment
The sort of damage that hikers do in wilderness, e.g. social trails, is entirely aesthetic. And who cares about aesthetics? People. And only people.

 

So the way you keep people from making aesthetic changes to the landscape is to keep them away. Then it will be prettier. But why make something prettier if nobody can go there? See my dilemma? It's one of those "if a tree falls in the forest..." questions.

This seems to be the way our local (county) park naturalists work. In their office one time I was inquiring about certain wildflowers I had seen. They gave me a publication of theirs with descriptions and photos of some of the plants in the park, but said that they left some out so people wouldn't look for them. Seems a little crazy to me. Then who are we saving them for? The deer? :ph34r:

Link to comment
Short of anything hazardous or toxic, nature surely doesn't care. Leave her your old hubcaps, she'll grow mice in them. When people give lipservice to the "awesome power of nature" they seldom recognize the awesome power to reclaim your house, your yard, your abandoned car if you turn your back for a moment.

 

I've forgotten who first observed that living in the country is like floating on an ocean of green; you're forever baling it out the windows and doors, trying to keep from going under

well said, often experienced. (deleted comment about the OP).

Link to comment
The sort of damage that hikers do in wilderness, e.g. social trails, is entirely aesthetic. And who cares about aesthetics? People. And only people.

 

Not entirely true. Once the treadway is compacted it can lead to certain invasive, non-native plants taking hold and these plants can eventually wreak havoc with native plants and dependent native animals. Taken to extremes, it can also lead to erosion and silt filled streams, which can warm them and kill trout.

 

BUT, some bent grass is not environmental damage and the few social trails I've encountered around geocaches were similar to game trails. There was no compacted treadway and the area could easily recover quickly after the cache is moved. Social trails can usually be avoided entirely by placing a cache far from the trail, where the impact is spread out and the area around the cache can recover. They usually develop where caches are just a few feet off trail, as geocachers tend to turn off in the same spot. Most of the "damage" is indeed aesthetic and of no real consenquence.

 

Heck, in my neck of the woods one of the biggest threats to the environment come from deer, who act as "agent orange on hooves" and have destroyed the entire understory of some forests. They have no real predators anymore (other than Ford, Chevy, Toyota and Honda) and their population has exploded over the past 20-30 years.

 

As we look at this arena I wanted to know more about who participates and how they participate. This has been, in part, accomplished.

 

 

I'm not sure how you were able to determine that through one thread and posts from maybe 15 out of the many thousands of geocachers out there. The geocaching ranks consist of people from all walks of life. Some are former couch potatos, who found through geocaching a reason to get outdoors. Many are geeks, who use geocaching to get out from behind the computer screen. A lot of us are families who are looking for a fun way to spend time together. The geocaching ranks also include many long time outdoors enthusiats including, hikers, hunters, forest rangers, naturalists, trail workers, geologists, biologists, environmental scientists, foresters, backcountry guides and even some LNT instructors.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

Wow,

New cacher AVID hiker and backpacker and several 30foot circles of trampled wetland grass IS A PROBLEM! There is a reason Michigan and several states have inacted wetland acts to protect what is left. Most if not all wetland (designated) have simple rules STAY ON THE TRAILS AND DO NOT TRAMPLE the wetland grasses which are needed to keep the wetland area stable. Pretty surprised at some of the responses on this because I would have assumed the majority of cachers out there were more envirmentaly friendly. Although I think the original poster should have given a bit more info... I would suggest contacting the DNR and letting them look into it no way to tell if it was geocachers or kids or animals but the DNR could look into and watch the area to make sure whoever did it does not do it again it can be devistating to a wetland!! The grasses and the roots are what hold the small amount of soil together and help stop the wind from destroying the remaing earth in a wetland. There my first official VENT in the forum :unsure:

 

Again HAVE FUN AND KEEP IT CLEAN

Team Terrere :ph34r:

Link to comment
Pretty surprised at some of the responses on this because I would have assumed the majority of cachers out there were more envirmentaly friendly.

Wetlands. Yes. I remember when they invented those. We used to call them "swamps." And drain them.

 

While it is right and proper that we should use our skills to protect rarities and preserve a variety of landscapes and beasties, including the interesting things that live in swamps, the idea that natural areas were stable and unchanging before humans came along is absurd. Nature's been moving coastlines and killing off species since she invented them, not to mention suffering the occasional game trail to the pond. I refuse to buy the idea that we should (or possibly could) turn the environment into a giant museum, where only the curators may touch the exhibits and the rest of us stick to the aisles and keep our hands in our pockets.

 

If human beings are an unusual stress on our surroundings, it's less because of the weird things our species does and more because there are so many of us. It's always a problem when you get too many of one animal in a localized area. I'm all for making fewer human beings. I don't intend to make any at all, myself.

 

But I'm not about to consider me and my bipedal activities somehow alien or dangerous to "the environment" (I remember when they invented that, too).

Link to comment
Wow,

New cacher AVID hiker and backpacker and several 30foot circles of trampled wetland grass IS A PROBLEM! There is a reason Michigan and several states have inacted wetland acts to protect what is left. Most if not all wetland (designated) have simple rules STAY ON THE TRAILS AND DO NOT TRAMPLE the wetland grasses which are needed to keep the wetland area stable. Pretty surprised at some of the responses on this because I would have assumed the majority of cachers out there were more envirmentaly friendly. Although I think the original poster should have given a bit more info... I would suggest contacting the DNR and letting them look into it no way to tell if it was geocachers or kids or animals but the DNR could look into and watch the area to make sure whoever did it does not do it again it can be devistating to a wetland!! The grasses and the roots are what hold the small amount of soil together and help stop the wind from destroying the remaing earth in a wetland. There my first official VENT in the forum :unsure:

 

Again HAVE FUN AND KEEP IT CLEAN

Team Terrere :ph34r:

Bent grass is not the same as dead grass.

 

Geocaches are rarely (I want to say never, but there is ALWAYS an exception to the rule) just sitting on the ground in the middle of grassy wetlands. If the OP had actually ever FOUND some caches he would know that.

 

Multiple 20-30ft circles of trampled grass connected by paths are most certainly deer bedding areas, not geocachers.

Link to comment
The sort of damage that hikers do in wilderness, e.g. social trails, is entirely aesthetic. And who cares about aesthetics? People. And only people.

 

Not entirely true. Once the treadway is compacted it can lead to certain invasive, non-native plants taking hold and these plants can eventually wreak havoc with native plants and dependent native animals. Taken to extremes, it can also lead to erosion and silt filled streams, which can warm them and kill trout.

 

BUT, some bent grass is not environmental damage and the few social trails I've encountered around geocaches were similar to game trails. There was no compacted treadway and the area could easily recover quickly after the cache is moved. Social trails can usually be avoided entirely by placing a cache far from the trail, where the impact is spread out and the area around the cache can recover. They usually develop where caches are just a few feet off trail, as geocachers tend to turn off in the same spot. Most of the "damage" is indeed aesthetic and of no real consenquence.

 

Heck, in my neck of the woods one of the biggest threats to the environment come from deer, who act as "agent orange on hooves" and have destroyed the entire understory of some forests. They have no real predators anymore (other than Ford, Chevy, Toyota and Honda) and their population has exploded over the past 20-30 years.

 

As we look at this arena I wanted to know more about who participates and how they participate. This has been, in part, accomplished.

 

 

I'm not sure how you were able to determine that through one thread and posts from maybe 15 out of the many thousands of geocachers out there. The geocaching ranks consist of people from all walks of life. Some are former couch potatos, who found through geocaching a reason to get outdoors. Many are geeks, who use geocaching to get out from behind the computer screen. A lot of us are families who are looking for a fun way to spend time together. The geocaching ranks also include many long time outdoors enthusiats including, hikers, hunters, forest rangers, naturalists, trail workers, geologists, biologists, environmental scientists, foresters, backcountry guides and even some LNT instructors.

I thought it was worth reading again for some of you.

 

In the meantime, I'll add that if given someguy2's words as truth about his intent, I would recommend to him that he can geocache without ever coming to the forums ever again.

 

The majority of all cachers do so and to suggest that the 1-2 dozen opinions/comments you received here is representative of "geocachers" and the way that geocachers treat a random new guy just isn't true. In the forums, it is a different story.

Link to comment

A good way to find caches in highly weeded areas is to bring along a bottle of turpentine. Sprinkle that all over the offending area and it does wonders on eliminating the weeds, grasses and anything else living. But, as I suspect this may not be geo-conscious.

Link to comment

I find that wearing snowshoes minimizes the environmental impact in these sensitive area. Yes, your footprint is considerably larger, but your weight is spread out over that area, generating a lighter impression overall. Therefore your mass has less impact on the flora and fauna. :ph34r:

Of course you do have to deal with the odd looks when you encounter someone else on the trail. :unsure::blink::blink:

Link to comment
As we look at this arena I wanted to know more about who participates and how they participate.  This has been, in part, accomplished.

 

So, much has been learned.  Time to move on.

I know ju66l3r already went over this - but I thought it was worth reinforcing.

 

You've only learned something about forum posters. The majority (and I'd guess the VAST majority) of geocachers do not read the forums, much less post to it.

 

The responses from posters aren't atypical of regular forum posters - and that's not necessarily a bad thing. We commonly have people who know nothing about geocaching make assumptions and come in here trying to start crap. We've also had people hide their identity to start crap as well.

 

sd

Edited by southdeltan
Link to comment
I thought it was worth reading again for some of you.

Errr...why?

Why? Because some people talk on here as if a few hundred people (some with much less environmental conciousness than others) walking 2000 feet from an established and managed trail is the same as a guy laying in his front yard grass once a month.

 

While the untamed wilderness of a Nebraska grass field could overtake a farm house in a year, the same is not true of the last few hundred treevil weevils that depend on the reeds in a New Jersey park for shelter from the predatory birds...the same reeds that a geocacher tromped through to place a cache on the nearby river bank...and every geocacher after that is going to tromp through for a year or two or more to come.

 

Some places are more robust than others and I don't trust every single geocacher out there to know the difference between the two, do you?

 

Environmental impact is a factor of our sport. To ignore that or suggest that our activity doesn't have a potential for negative impact in potentially sensitive areas is the kind of sentiment that leads land managers to shutting down the whole park to geocaching (a tit for tat - "if you're not going to pay more heed to your actions, you can't do *any* actions like that here").

 

As Brian said, in many places deer, industry, and whatever have you play a much larger role in negative environmental impact than a few social trails to a geocache. But these are *not* the only places that geocaches are placed and our impact needs to be weighed against the situations at each place.

Link to comment
While the untamed wilderness of a Nebraska grass field could overtake a farm house in a year, the same is not true of the last few hundred treevil weevils that depend on the reeds in a New Jersey park for shelter from the predatory birds...the same reeds that a geocacher tromped through to place a cache on the nearby river bank...and every geocacher after that is going to tromp through for a year or two or more to come.

I know this is not really germane to the discussion, but maybe you should pick a better example then phragmites(reeds). They are generally considered BAD for the environment in general, and wetlands in particular. In NJ, they use herbicides and controlled burns to attempt to eradicate them. God forbid some geocachers trample a few before the environmentalists get a chance to spray them with poison or set fire to them.

Link to comment
While the untamed wilderness of a Nebraska grass field could overtake a farm house in a year, the same is not true of the last few hundred treevil weevils that depend on the reeds in a New Jersey park for shelter from the predatory birds...the same reeds that a geocacher tromped through to place a cache on the nearby river bank...and every geocacher after that is going to tromp through for a year or two or more to come.

I know this is not really germane to the discussion, but maybe you should pick a better example then phragmites(reeds). They are generally considered BAD for the environment in general, and wetlands in particular. In NJ, they use herbicides and controlled burns to attempt to eradicate them. God forbid some geocachers trample a few before the environmentalists get a chance to spray them with poison or set fire to them.

I had a cache where some people complained about trails in the waist high swamp grass leading to it. I moved it only because the trails were making the cache way too easy to find. 3 months after I moved it, the park authorities burned the entire meadow, as they do every other year, to make sure it remains a meadow.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

I know this is not really germane to the discussion, but maybe you should pick a better example then phragmites(reeds).

True but then, I'd also have to figure out what a treevil weevil was... :unsure::ph34r:

 

As you correctly noted, the example (albeit poor and imaginative) was still valid for the point of discussion I was trying to convey.

 

In fact, it need not be plant or even animal life at all that be affected by repetitive visits by geocachers. I remember a discussion in the Canadian forum not too long ago in which a ranger/land manager was discussing why they needed a specific cache moved because of the sensitive geology that existed in that area (both to preserve the geology for future study and safety issues due to cave-like collapses).

Link to comment
I know this is not really germane to the discussion, but maybe you should pick a better example then phragmites(reeds). They are generally considered BAD for the environment in general, and wetlands in particular.

You know, when you get to the point of clearing out some species and encouraging others, is conservation really what you're doing any more? Isn't this just landscaping?

Link to comment
I know this is not really germane to the discussion, but maybe you should pick a better example then phragmites(reeds). They are generally considered BAD for the environment in general, and wetlands in particular.

You know, when you get to the point of clearing out some species and encouraging others, is conservation really what you're doing any more? Isn't this just landscaping?

Way too long to post here, but here is a pretty good description of the phragmite problem. Google can turn up 1000s more.

Link to comment
I know this is not really germane to the discussion, but maybe you should pick a better example then phragmites(reeds). They are generally considered BAD for the environment in general, and wetlands in particular.

You know, when you get to the point of clearing out some species and encouraging others, is conservation really what you're doing any more? Isn't this just landscaping?

In some ways yes, but there are invasive, non-native species that crowd out native species, alter the environment and endanger animals that are dependent on them. Some are actually quite pretty, like Purple Loostrife and Kudzu. Some, like Garlic Mustard are unsightly, but most of them have a significant, deleterious effect on the environment.

Link to comment

Yes, but those, as you say, are not native species. Like zebra mussels or gray squirrels in England, they're hitch-hikers. Per the article, the reeds are natives which are thriving because of changing conditions.

 

I grew up in an area swathed in kudzu. I'm not objecting to the measures we take to alter conditions in the wild and keep the invaders at bay. Just pointing out that it is an unnatural thing to do.

 

There's a town in SE England that the sea came in and ate one day. There's a town that was a coastal town a few centuries ago, and now it's miles from the shore. Today, there are ships that go up the coast a ways and suck up gravel, then down the coast and to spit it out, trying to keep the coastline stable. More power to them, I say, but it's against the grain of nature.

 

Which will, I'm quite sure, get the last laugh on that one.

Link to comment
Wetlands. Yes. I remember when they invented those. We used to call them "swamps." And drain them.

 

Here in the Chesapeake Bay watershed (read NY, PA, MD, DE, VA, WVA, DC), wetlands are about the most important environment we can aim to preserve. Without their ability to filter runoff from both farms, residential development and cities, the Bay is doomed as a viable resource for humans to manage and harvest. When the fisheries (crabs, oysters, clams, finfish) go, so do the jobs of the people who work the water. When they go, so do the jobs of the people who supply and buy from them. That affects entire communities. Because so much of the Chesapeake Bay area is under intense development, wetlands are disappearing at a rapid pace, and the Bay is severely stressed.

 

Going slogging into a wetland is not going to destroy it. Flattening a bit of grass will not end its viability. Calling it a swamp and draining it, not fighting invasive introduced species such as phragmites which quickly overwhelms natural diversity within the wetland, or nutria, a large non-indigenous rodent (similar to a muskrat) that chews and kills the root systems of marsh grasses, or dollar-minded developers who don't care about the impact of their developments on the sustainablity of the land do.

 

The initial poster may have been a bit overzealous in his query, but as for me, the livelihoods of a good number of the people who live around me and the beauty one of the largest estuaries in the world are being destroyed by people who don't want to understand the importance of swamps, marshes and wetlands to the Bay.

Link to comment
Here in the Chesapeake Bay watershed (read NY, PA, MD, DE, VA, WVA, DC), wetlands are about the most important environment we can aim to preserve. Without their ability to filter runoff from both farms, residential development and cities, the Bay is doomed as a viable resource for humans to manage and harvest. When the fisheries (crabs, oysters, clams, finfish)....

 

No more clams!!! Now you've got my attention!

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...