Does This Violate The "no Pointy Objects" Rule?

October 12, 2004

I found a very interesting container to use for a cache hide but it may need to have a small stake driven into the ground to stabilize it. Does this violate the "No pointy objects may be used to hide a cache" rule? Once in place, cachers will not have any need to come in contact with the stake to retreive the cache.

38.2k · October 12, 2004

I can't speak for the approvers, but to me driving a stake into the ground is not tantamount to digging a hole. The reason for the no digging rule was the fact that many land managers would have a canary if they found that we were digging holes on their land.

Driving a stake in the gound is quite different. There are many LNT advocates and environmentalists who would never dream of digging a hole in the forest, but who don't think twice about driving a few stakes in the ground to pitch a tent or tarp while camping.

A stake really doesn't disturb the soil any more than a worm would. Once its pulled, one would be hard pressed to figure out where the stake even was.

Edited October 12, 2004 by briansnat

24.7k · October 12, 2004

Parks hold events all the time. Every building that doesn't get hauled in on wheels is held in place by a stake. When the event is over the landscaping crew comes in and fixes all the spriklers that got broken and any lines that got split by a stake.

It's not digging a hole, It is a common occurence in a park. I can't tell you how your approver will split on the issue, but if the stake isn't an axle shaft then it's not a big deal.

1.7k · October 12, 2004

The only “pointy object” rule I remember seeing was in the context of digging with it.

But your inquiry raises an interesting question. I’ve wondered how much modification to the existing area/objects/environment is allowed. I’ve seen attaching surfaces/plates glued and screwed to the underside of gazebo seats and picnic tables to facilitate Velcro and magnetic placement. I’ve seen nails/screws in trees. And, I’ve read about other attachment devices methods that make permanent alteration. What about using pruning shears to carve out a niche in a bush in the woods to cradle the cache? If you can use a machete to get to it, so why not to place it?

You want to plant a stake to keep the cache in place. Seems similar to things I’ve seen, but wondered if they were kosher.

I've just seen the other replies written while I was writing this. One thing I'd say about tent stakes, they're removed when the tents removed as in "Pulling up stakes and moving on" :unsure:

Edited October 12, 2004 by Thot

2.7k · October 12, 2004

There are many LNT advocates and environmentalists who would never dream of digging a hole in the forest,

But they want you to dig a cat hole for your deposits. :unsure:

And don't forget to pack out the paper when you are done.

38.2k · October 12, 2004

There are many LNT advocates and environmentalists who would never dream of digging a hole in the forest,

But they want you to dig a cat hole for your deposits.

And don't forget to pack out the paper when you are done.

Actually they want you to pack it all out thse days. Yep THAT too .

Edited October 12, 2004 by briansnat

October 13, 2004

There are many LNT advocates and environmentalists who would never dream of digging a hole in the forest,

But they want you to dig a cat hole for your deposits.

And don't forget to pack out the paper when you are done.

Actually they want you to pack it all out thse days. Yep THAT too .

If they had their way -- no one would be allowed in there anymore in the first place needing to pack anything out. :lol:

Oops sorry that was off topic....umm, yeah, pointy objects. I have nothing against a spike retaining a cache, however don't sharpen that log pencil, it could be used as a weapon

Edited October 13, 2004 by Prairie Jeepin

3k · October 13, 2004

Thot said:

But your inquiry raises an interesting question. I’ve wondered how much modification to the existing area/objects/environment is allowed. I’ve seen attaching surfaces/plates glued and screwed to the underside of gazebo seats and picnic tables to facilitate Velcro and magnetic placement. I’ve seen nails/screws in trees. And, I’ve read about other attachment devices methods that make permanent alteration. What about using pruning shears to carve out a niche in a bush in the woods to cradle the cache? If you can use a machete to get to it, so why not to place it?

If you are seeing nails and screws in trees, that should be reported. Parks with campgrounds have strict rules about no nails in trees. I saw one cacher's profile page where they had carved their names into a tree. Unless that tree is on their property, it's vandalism, and should not be happening! How would they like it if I took a pocket knife out of a cache and carved my name in their leg? Any cutting through the bark of a tree is causing a wound to the tree into which disease can enter. Trees do bleed. Even maple syrup tappers know they have to give the tree a break and can't tap it every year.

And no, no machetes!!!!!! No pruning shears!!!!! Not unless you own it. Geez! What are people thinking?

Call me tree hugger, I don't care, trees provide me with the oxygen I need to breath, so I'm all for them, and proud of it.

Regarding the stake, I hope the little groundhog or mole or chipmunk in the ground beneath can get out of the way in time.

Edited October 13, 2004 by Planet

1.7k · October 13, 2004

And no, no machetes!!!!!!

I've definitely read in logs of people using machetes to get through undergrowth. And I assume some people who refer to bushwhacking are using machetes.

24.7k · October 13, 2004

How would they like it if I took a pocket knife out of a cache and carved my name in their leg?

Make it a heart and initials with a + sign between then and I suspect the plant that did it would find it romantic.

2.1k · October 14, 2004

very interesting question -

I'd have to agree you are not digging a hole - and no holes will be dug looking for it.

It does give one pause at first.

AND! It gives me an idea for completing a cache I have thought of but had no way of anchoring. THANKS!

October 14, 2004

I've definitely read in logs of people using machetes to get through undergrowth. And I assume some people who refer to bushwhacking are using machetes.

The tearm bushwhacking has nothing to do with cutting, or machetes. This term means that when a trail ends, or a cache is off the beaten path, often a cacher must decide to make a bee-line through the "bush" often "whacking" their shins, head, face and other body areas off of limbs, stumps, rocks and so on. The practice of "bush-whacking" should only be used when all other avenues to reach a cache has been exhausted. After all most caches are placed just a few meters (yards) of the beaten path.

October 14, 2004

Just email your local approver and see what he thinks

October 15, 2004

I've definitely read in logs of people using machetes to get through undergrowth. And I assume some people who refer to bushwhacking are using machetes.

The tearm bushwhacking has nothing to do with cutting, or machetes. This term means that when a trail ends, or a cache is off the beaten path, often a cacher must decide to make a bee-line through the "bush" often "whacking" their shins, head, face and other body areas off of limbs, stumps, rocks and so on. The practice of "bush-whacking" should only be used when all other avenues to reach a cache has been exhausted. After all most caches are placed just a few meters (yards) of the beaten path.

Not to be a smart a** or anything, but according to the Holy Oxford Dictionary, you are mistaken in your idea of what Bushwhacking is.

On a whim I decided to check it out. It actually is "clearing a way" through brush &c.

Edited October 15, 2004 by Prairie Jeepin

October 15, 2004

Well, as the term becomes (became) more colloquial it probably started to refer only to the act of travelling through a forest where there is no trail.

What are people's thoughts about breaking dead branches off the trees (whether accidentally, as you "bushwhack" through a dense area, or intentionally as you get tired of being scratched and poked? Is that considered a bad thing?

October 16, 2004

Point taken NJJ :mad:

Personally if I have to bushwhack I do it as unobtrusively as possible. Just pushing or moving things out of the way if need be. If something breaks, too bad so sad! It happens naturally anyway.

1.7k · October 16, 2004

Well, as the term becomes (became) more colloquial it probably started to refer only to the act of travelling through a forest where there is no trail.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'becoming colloquial' but Webster's Collegiate (which is supposed to reflect current usage) defines bushwhacking as 'clearing a path through thick woods especially by chopping down bushes and low branches.'

1k · October 16, 2004

There are many words in common usage (i.e. colloquial - why didn't you look that up while you had the dictionary out?) that do not mean what is found in the dictionary (or aren't in the dictionary at all). Usage often precedes inclusion in the dictionary, and may not lead to inclusion if it's used in a specialized way by a small group (like geocachers).

In geoaching, "bushwhacking" is slang, i.e. informal jargon. It does not literally mean cutting a path through the bush (I've never met a geocacher carrying a machete!).

There are those of us who are working with land managers to develop reasonable geocaching policies, but the "I can do whatever I can rationalize" attitude evident in this thread will be the death of geocaching, as land managers have bad experiences and deal with it the easiest way they can: ban geocaching from the land they manage. Before you start rationalizing your latest "creative" idea, why not try convincing a few land managers to allow geocaching? It might give you a different perspective.

Is putting in a stake to "stabilize" a cache worth the risk of having geocaching banned from the area where you place the cache? Or using pruning shears to "carve out" a hide? Or "bushwhacking" in the literal sense, cutting a wide swath with your machete? Or maybe bending or ignoring the no burying rule - what can it hurt?

If you want the sport to survive, you should be interpreting the guidelines conservatively, not figuring out how far you can stretch them. Follow the "leave no trace" philosophy. If it involves damaging the land, trees, etc, you shouldn't have to ask about it in the forums - don't do it.

24.7k · October 16, 2004

Well, as the term becomes (became) more colloquial it probably started to refer only to the act of travelling through a forest where there is no trail.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'becoming colloquial' but Webster's Collegiate (which is supposed to reflect current usage) defines bushwhacking as 'clearing a path through thick woods especially by chopping down bushes and low branches.'

Websters is out of date. How it's being used by cachers is to go where there is no path.

For example the ever popular "I bushwacked in, and took the trail out" which is normal.

Heck the dictionaries can't even get muggle right. Geocachers own that term now. We have a real meaning for it instead of an imaginary one.

Edited October 16, 2004 by Renegade Knight

October 17, 2004

Offtopic but worth the read We're new to caching and I stumbled across Todayscacher online magazine the other day. I send a link to an article that mentioned muggles in it to my girlfriend and her replay to me was, "Honey, I hope we don't run into any muggles when we're caching." From the article she assumed a muggle was something that posed great physical danger to a cacher, suck as a wild animal or the like. After I was done laughing so hard I almost peed, I explained it to her...

2.6k · October 17, 2004

There are those of us who are working with land managers to develop reasonable geocaching policies, but the "I can do whatever I can rationalize" attitude evident in this thread will be the death of geocaching, as land managers have bad experiences and deal with it the easiest way they can: ban geocaching from the land they manage.

Either that, or the land managers' "I own nature and you can't have any" policies will be the death of their stewardship.

I just worked with a private land management trust on my first hide. It was evident to me that the trust understood it had an obligation to allow reasonable uses of the land entrusted to it. The park manager I negotiated with made a good faith effort to analyze the impact of the hide, and then allowed it. Even the Audubon Society in my area has been aware and tolerant of caching; and you know how fussy they are about those bloody birds.

We aren't naughty children to be asking permission. In the case of government held lands, we are the owners, working with the caretaker to ensure our enjoyment of our property doesn't impinge on the enjoyment of the other 300 million owners.

Honestly, we're talking about a stake in the ground here.

1k · October 17, 2004

I just worked with a private land management trust on my first hide. It was evident to me that the trust understood it had an obligation to allow reasonable uses of the land entrusted to it.

Honestly, we're talking about a stake in the ground here.

Weasel - The key word in your quote is reasonable. Some might consider driving a stake in the ground reasonable, some might not. Is a tent stake reasonable? How about a horseshoe stake? Then there are the stakes used to stabilize utility poles - "I could conceal it with barkoflage so no one will notice. Honestly, we're talking about a stake in the ground here!!"

And what if even a small stake pulls out, and takes a hunk of earth with it, and that hole erodes into a ravine (I'm assuming we're talking a steep area here or there would be no need for a stabilizing stake). And the ravine widens during the next downpour and washes enough soil into the nearby stream to smother the fish in the nearby pond? Honestly, we're talking about a stake in the ground here.

When we tell people geocaching is a "non-destructive" sport, then go around driving stakes in the ground, a fair number of people will raise an eyebrow and wonder what we mean by "destructive". :anitongue:

We're talking about perceptions as much as reality, and as much as you may wish to assert that you "own" all public lands, you must know that you don't in any meaningful sense (if not, I recommend climbing the fence at your nearest active military base and planting a big fat ammo can cache there). The cliché "I'm the public and I own the land" is but one more rationalization. :laughing:

2.6k · October 17, 2004

And what if even a small stake pulls out, and takes a hunk of earth with it, and that hole erodes into a ravine (I'm assuming we're talking a steep area here or there would be no need for a stabilizing stake). And the ravine widens during the next downpour and washes enough soil into the nearby stream to smother the fish in the nearby pond? Honestly, we're talking about a stake in the ground here.

And what if it gets hit by lightening, and a bunnyrabbit is hopping past, and the bunny catches fire, and it panics and flings itself into a thicket, and the underbrush flares up, and the forest touches off like a roman candle, and the next thing you know, the East Coast is just one giant smoking rubble field! Ohmygosh, geocaching causes flaming apocalypse bunnies!!

We're talking about perceptions as much as reality, and as much as you may wish to assert that you "own" all public lands, you must know that you don't in any meaningful sense (if not, I recommend climbing the fence at your nearest active military base and planting a big fat ammo can cache there). The cliché "I'm the public and I own the land" is but one more rationalization.

Perceptions are just feelings wearing horn-rimmed glasses. A private owner is allowed to make land use decisions on feelings; a civil servant isn't. I am a citizen and a grownup and I own public lands in every meaningful sense. If my enjoyment of public land doesn't compromise that of my fellow citizens, it should be accomodated. Assessing the actual impact of various activities in specific locations is one of the things we hire land managers to do. However, we expect them to arrive at their decision using something other than their feelings.

My own personal experience of land managers has been very positive. They know their stuff and balance their stewardship and their public responsibilities well. Seems like it's people who presume to speak for them that cop an attitude about land use.

1k · October 18, 2004

My only point was to show that a stake could have a damaging effect and was not necessarily benign, as you seem to think it is. Your resort to the logical extreme is a weak form of argument.

I am a citizen and a grownup and I own public lands in every meaningful sense.

Really? A grownup? Wow!

Let us know when you've placed that cache on your nearest active military base - I want to watch it. Your enjoyment of the military land won't compromise the enjoyment of your fellow citizens, and we know that your enjoyment (and that of your fellow citizens) is the only thing that matters. So go for it!

While you're at it, place a few caches in YOUR national parks - use your machete to hack your way in, and be sure to use your pruning shears to clear out a spot and stake them down to stabilize them. Tell the park personnel that you're a grownup, you own the land, they are your servants and they are not to disturb your caches! That should take care of the ban on physical caches in national parks!

My own personal experience of land managers has been very positive. They know their stuff and balance their stewardship and their public responsibilities well. Seems like it's people who presume to speak for them that cop an attitude about land use.

Just for the record, I haven't criticized land managers - I agree that they are knowledgeable people trying to balance conflicting responsibilities. It was you who criticized "...the land managers' "I own nature and you can't have any" policies". We now can add projection to rationalization on the list of feeble defenses.

The only people I've criticized are geocachers who blithely rationalize bending, stretching or breaking the geocaching rules for the sole purpose of furthering their own "enjoyment". I didn't expect the narcissistic geocachers to get the point, but I couldn't let that attitude go unchallenged in the "getting started" forum.

Not everyone agrees that anything goes, and many of us feel that attitude will eventually get geocaching banned by even the most reasonable of land managers.

But hey - we don't have to argue about it - why doesn't Kingsting just ask the relevant land manager about using a stake on his cache? If we all agree they are reasonable people, then we should be willing to accep their answer.

2.6k · October 18, 2004

My only point was to show that a stake could have a damaging effect and was not necessarily benign, as you seem to think it is. Your resort to the logical extreme is a weak form of argument.

And a stake in the ground leading to a fishkill is a reasonable scenario. Um hm.

Let us know when you've placed that cache on your nearest active military base - I want to watch it. Your enjoyment of the military land won't compromise the enjoyment of your fellow citizens, and we know that your enjoyment (and that of your fellow citizens) is the only thing that matters. So go for it!

Oh, man, I can't believe you're pursuing this analogy. I ignored it out of embarrassment for you. My ownership of the military doesn't mean I misunderstand what I bought them for. To everything its proper purpose. The purpose of military bases is to train and house members of the military, therefore trespassing is a bad idea. I mean, I own the White House, too, but that doesn't mean I think I should be able to poop in the lobby.

The purpose of the national park system is public enjoyment. Like, you know, mine. And to preserve the land for the enjoyment of future generations. It's that last bit that requires us to negotiate. Happily, even the most mind-benumbed government bureaucrat is above thinking a stick in the ground will lead to a fish kill.

But hey - we don't have to argue about it - why doesn't Kingsting just ask the relevant land manager about using a stake on his cache? If we all agree they are reasonable people, then we should be willing to accep their answer.

Always the best plan.

5.9k · October 18, 2004

I can't speak for the approvers, but to me driving a stake into the ground is not tantamount to digging a hole. The reason for the no digging rule was the fact that many land managers would have a canary ...snip...

October 18, 2004

Oh my... what have I started here?

FYI - I was originally thinking of placing this container in an area where other "containers" of the same type are already staked in place. One more would never be noticed unless you look very close. Mine is just different enough that an observant cacher could figure it out but a muggle wouldn't notice it. I was just fishing for opinions in case I were to hide this "container" someplace else. It appears that some cachers view a poke hole in the ground as land destruction while others feel it doesn't hurt anything.

I'm not giving out any hints as to what the container is but I will say it would be much more at home in an urban/suburban environment than in the middle of a state forest.

Edited October 18, 2004 by kingsting

5.9k · October 18, 2004

What you want to do is quite common. Don't sweat it.

1k · October 18, 2004

Oh my... what have I started here?

FYI - I was originally thinking of placing this container in an area where other "containers" of the same type are already staked in place. One more would never be noticed unless you look very close.

I'm not giving out any hints as to what the container is but I will say it would be much more at home in an urban/suburban environment than in the middle of a state forest.

Kingsting,

I wasn't reacting to your question, or even the idea of using a stake, as much as to people who will rationalize almost anything. It was the argument in favor of a literal interpretation of bushwhacking (with a machete) that pushed me over the edge.

I have been working with my state geocaching organization to prepare presentations to "sell" geocaching to land managers, and I find myself wondering about promoting our sport as environmentally friendly when I know that a subset of geocachers do not "walk the talk". As I said earlier, I felt compelled to challenge that cavalier attitude, for whatever good it might do.

I also made some incorrect assumptions about your intentions given the limited information in your original post. I don't have the same concerns about putting the staked cache in an urban environment with other similarly staked items.

However, if you don't personally own the land, you should ask the land owner or manager for permission (a basic rule of geocaching unrelated to pointy objects).

October 19, 2004

Well, as the term becomes (became) more colloquial it probably started to refer only to the act of travelling through a forest where there is no trail.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'becoming colloquial' but Webster's Collegiate (which is supposed to reflect current usage) defines bushwhacking as 'clearing a path through thick woods especially by chopping down bushes and low branches.'

I myself have used "bushwacking" to mean struggling off path to get to a destination. I've done it all my life. But come to find out (in these forums) that's just the wrong word! Go figure. What word would describe that activity? Lost?

Anyway, it is important to use words correctly. Otherwise, we give the wrong impression.

Bluespreacher

October 19, 2004

Just email your local approver and see what he thinks

If I would have done that, this fun thread would have never come to be...

1.7k · October 19, 2004

I wasn't reacting to your question . . .as much as to people who will rationalize almost anything. It was the argument in favor of a literal interpretation of bushwhacking (with a machete) that pushed me over the edge.

I've tried real hard to leave this alone, because you’re obviously emotionally involved, but you won't let it rest.

I submit the one who is rationalizing is the one who scorns a definition given in the two most respected dictionaries of the English language in favor of a definition I haven’t been able to find in writing on this website or any other geocaching site.

In reading his reply I immediately thought of Humpty Dumpty’s remark to Alice in “Through the Looking Glass:”

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

After it was pointed out to him the definition he prefers is not the definition most of the rest of the world understands, he scoffed; sarcastically suggesting the messenger should look up the term colloquial in the very dictionary he repudiates as a source of meanings.

Yes, I’ve seen where geocachers say they use machetes. The fact that he’s never met one, particularly given his feelings about them, isn’t surprising.

I suggest if all this ‘pushes him over the edge,’ he my want to consider whether he’s standing too close.

I realize that many geocachers may intend his meaning when they use the term bushwhacking. I’ve been reading these forums for about four months and suspect I understand geocacher’s use of terms as well as 90% of those who play the game. In all this reading I hadn’t realized, and I’m not sure how one is expected to know everyone in geocaching intends the term to mean walking off the trail in a brushy or wooded area. I recognized many meant this, which accounts for the way I phrased the statement in my tripwire message -- “I assume some people who refer to bushwhacking are using machetes.”

Perhaps it’s time to add the geocaching definition of bushwhacking to the geocaching lexicons.

NOTE: I hope it’s clear from my initial post I was trying to learn, not dictate, how much alteration to the environment is considered acceptable.

Edited October 19, 2004 by Thot

1.7k · October 19, 2004

Anyway, it is important to use words correctly. Otherwise, we give the wrong impression.

Thank you, and I agree. Obviously, the function of words is to communicate. If we don't use the meanings understood by others, their purpose is lost, and can be misleading, as in this case. I think it's unfortunate bushwhacking has come to mean something in geocaching (and perhaps orienteering, and other similar activities) that is so close to its original meaning, yet so different. If you read the threads and logs where it is used, the context commonly allows for ether interpretation. The other definition for bushwhacked, ambushed, is not likely to be confused with clearing a path. I suspect this colloquial meaning actually grew out of the original meaning. If it had been possible to use another unambiguous term it would have been better, but it’s too late for that now so the best that can be done is to add it to the geocaching lexicons.

Edited October 19, 2004 by Thot

October 19, 2004

I Grok That.

1k · October 20, 2004

Yes, I’ve seen where geocachers say they use machetes.

Thot - would you please provide links to logs or forum threads where geocachers say they use machetes? No offense, but I find it hard to believe.

NOTE: I hope it’s clear from my initial post I was trying to learn, not dictate, how much alteration to the environment is considered acceptable.

You said:

If you can use a machete to get to it, so why not to place it?

I read this statement to mean that you feel it's OK to use a machete to place a cache, since you believe that others are using them to find caches.

This is the statement I reacted to - I do not want neocachers getting the idea that it's OK to use a machete to hide or find a cache.

I'm sorry, but if you've read the geocaching guidelines and have taken the spirit as well as the letter of the guidelines to heart, you shouldn't have to ask about machetes, screws, nails, etc.

It that regard, I will quote what Planet said earlier in this thread:

If you are seeing nails and screws in trees, that should be reported...And no, no machetes!!!!!! No pruning shears!!!!! Not unless you own it. Geez! What are people thinking?

Mock me all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the geocaching guidelines are in spirit of "leave no trace" (except for the geocache itself). If you don't believe me, ask your local approver, Jeremy or one of the moderators. If I'm wrong, I'll eat my words.

But if I'm right, then you (and others who say "so why not") just aren't getting it, and are doing a disservice to other geocachers.

Does This Violate The "no Pointy Objects" Rule?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation