Is Geocaching Habitat Friendly?

January 25, 2005

I've just started geocaching in the San Antonio area and I've found 5 so far. But there's a couple I've looked for that have bothered me a bit. I'm a backpacker and hiker from waaaaay back, 30+ years. One rule I've lived by is that if it's a managed area with trails, such in state and city parks, then you stay on the trails. If it's a wilderness area, such as national forests, then you break brush all you want.

The caches that bother me are one's that are off the trail 40-100 feet. The trails, if there are any, are nothing more than game trails if that. If you don't find the right (sort of) trail, then you might be breaking through the brush. To me, this is damaging the habitat.

I know in San Antonio that one park has removed (or asked to have removed) a couple of caches because the were off the trails. They evidently keep an eye on the geocaching sites.

So, am I over-reacting, being an old geezer, or what?

22k · January 25, 2005

I blame the game trails for ruining it for the rest of us.

2.6k · January 25, 2005

Let the flaming begin! TROLLLLLLLLL.........

OK sorry. This has come up before. Over and over, and over.........

22k · January 25, 2005

If it's a wilderness area, such as national forests, then you break brush all you want.

Actually I'm surprised at that. Geocaching isn't allowed in these parks for that reason.

I can understand your concern but I really haven't seen destruction of an area because of geocaching.

24.7k · January 25, 2005

It depends. If the park is for preservation, then the trails are there to keep us humans from going 'out there'.

If it's not for preservation then the entire park is fair game. Generally if there are signs that say "Stay on the trail" it's a good clue.

38.2k · January 25, 2005

I know in San Antonio that one park has removed (or asked to have removed) a couple of caches because the were off the trails. They evidently keep an eye on the geocaching sites.

So, am I over-reacting, being an old geezer, or what?

I think you're over reacting. I've seen "herd paths" *(a.k.a. social trails) develop at a very small percentage of cache sites and in every case they were similar to game trails, which means they were little more than some bent blades of grass and broken twigs. This kind of "damage" will disappear a season after the cache has been removed. I've seen no evidence of compacted treadways or other significant, or permanent damage leading to caches.

Generally, I find that a cache should either be directly on a trail, or very far from it. Caches that are placed far from the trail will bring searchers over a variety of routes, spreading out any impact and giving the area time to recover. Its the caches that are a short distance from a trail where the problems develop because everyone tends to turn off in the same place.

Are there caches that are place in inappropriate areas, where they can cause damage? Probably. Some desert and alpine areas are particularly fragile and special care should be taken when placing caches there. If problem caches are identified, they should be addressed on an individual basis.

As an aside, the New York state DEC just lifted a long standing ban on geocaches on DEC administered lands because they did a study that showed that the impact of geocaching was insignificant. Not only did they lift the ban in state forests, but they also lifted the ban in their "forever wild" forest preserves, which says a lot.

Edited January 25, 2005 by briansnat

January 25, 2005

If it's a wilderness area, such as national forests, then you break brush all you want.

Actually I'm surprised at that. Geocaching isn't allowed in these parks for that reason.

I can understand your concern but I really haven't seen destruction of an area because of geocaching.

One of the National Forests I'm thinking of is Big Thicket near Houston. Some trails but you don't have to stick to them. Actually, in Big Bend NP there's areas where you're just allowed to wander.

Oh, and I really didn't mean to troll. I'd looked through some of the forum and didn't notice this subject. Just wondered what the general feeling was.

22k · January 25, 2005

I didn't think you were trolling.

2.6k · January 25, 2005

Oh, and I really didn't mean to troll. I'd looked through some of the forum and didn't notice this subject. Just wondered what the general feeling was.

Don't let my hyper-ventilation scare you. :sad:

2.7k · January 25, 2005

If it's a wilderness area, such as national forests, then you break brush all you want.

Must be a TROLL, they do not know the difference between a National Forest, and a Wilderness area which is just a part of the National Forest System. And in these parts Caches are not allowed in Wilderness Areas, while the National Forest area is ok.

January 25, 2005

You are probably referring to Eisenhower Park. Although the name does not indicate a wilderness area, a reading of the trail guide spells it out.

"To help preserve the health and beauty of this sensitive natural area, we ask that you observe the following rules while visiting the park: 1. STAY ON THE TRAILS!!!!....7. DO NOT DISTURB THE PLANTS, ROCKS, OR ANIMALS."

That was taken verbatim (exclamation points and all-caps included) from the trail guide I kept when I did some of the "real" geocaches there. And yes, all of them were off trail. Thankfully, Cybercat was able to place a virtual there, Don't Bother The Birdies. On a clear day, you can see for miles and miles and miles.

Or you could be referring to Friedrich Wilderness Park which is on the other side of I-10 from Eisenhower Park and a couple miles up the road. Taking a look at the information guide, it has the exact same wording as I quoted above for Eisenhower Park. Thanks again to Cybercat who placed a multi-cache that takes you through the park. The end cache is just outside of the park, Heywood Jabuzzoff #2

Actually, the "real" geocaches in Friedrich Park were archived before Eisenhower. I suspect that the banning there lead to the banning in Eisenhower. So, what did we learn? The cache-PLACER needs to be aware of all rules and regulations of the area they want to place a cache.

January 25, 2005

The caches that bother me are one's that are off the trail 40-100 feet. The trails, if there are any, are nothing more than game trails if that. If you don't find the right (sort of) trail, then you might be breaking through the brush. To me, this is damaging the habitat.

It really depends on traffic volume.

For a single person to break through the brush is no big deal. Any damage done is temporary and the plant life is more than capable of repairing itself in short order. Further many plants depend upon being disturbed in order to reproduce, think of burrs as an example. On the other hand if 100 people per day follow the same path, the vegetation in the area will die off as long as the traffic pattern persists. The instant the traffic tapers off the vegetation will make a comeback. There is no such thing as bare, but fertile ground.

Geocaching isn't popular enough that any cache gets scads of people visiting it daily.

In summary I can appreciate your concern being a tread lightly type myself, but I don't think that caches bring in enough people to have any lasting detrimental impact on the environment. Additionally many cachers practice CITO (cache in trash out) so the net effect is probably favorable rather than unfavorable. Caching also likely introduces many to the majesty of the natural world that they otherwise wouldn't experience and I think this encourages people to become more conservation oriented.

I don't see caching as a threat to the natural environment. At worst I think it is neutral and at best I think it is a positive thing.

38.2k · January 25, 2005

Another issue is that these so-called game trails leading to caches often were pre-existing conditions. The cache placer will usually take the route of least resistance to place his cache and these game trails are perfect for getting deeper into the woods.

Because the cache is near the trail it appears that the cache caused the trail when in reality the trail is the reason the cache is there.

2.6k · January 25, 2005

Most of the parks I've cached in, here in the overpopulated Northeast, also allow some degree of hunting. I can't imagine hunters are expected to stay on the trails. Quarry would have to be awfully sporting, if so...

2k · January 25, 2005

When I place a cache part of the maintenance is checking to see if there is a path getting warn. If so the cache is relocated so that there is not damage.

January 25, 2005

If it's a wilderness area, such as national forests, then you break brush all you want.

Must be a TROLL, they do not know the difference between a National Forest, and a Wilderness area which is just a part of the National Forest System. And in these parts Caches are not allowed in Wilderness Areas, while the National Forest area is ok.

Well, if you want to get really picky, the National Wilderness Preservation System is not just the NFS. Wilderness areas are also managed by the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service. And they do not occur only in National Forests. Sam Houston NF has the Little Lake Creek Wilderness Area (avoid after long periods of rain), but the Indian Mound Wilderness Area stands on it's own, although it borders on the Indian Mound National Recreation Area (both under NPS by the way). Big Thicket National Preserve (which I, and others, erroneously refer to as a National Forest) which is as large as Sam Houston, has no designated wilderness area.

Perhaps where I, getting along to being an old geezer, failed in my vocabulary is in the use of the term wilderness. Way back in my dinosaur scouting days we referred to camping in the outback, away from established camping areas, as wilderness camping and it's pretty well stuck in my head. I know that on the park sites it's referred to as backcountry camping. I just have not been able to make the replacement. Usually when I'm writing about a designated wilderness area I tend to capitalize it but when I talk about being in an area of wilderness I don't.

As far as your statement about what's allowed goes, it may be a bit of an over-simplification. The only reference I could find on the NFS site (that actually had content) was for Allegheny National Forest. And, while permitted, they listed several areas in addition to the NWPS area where geocaching was forbidden. They also asked that the cache be moved or removed after a year. I could find no overall policy on geocaching. So perhaps it's just in your "parts" that it's known.

Same for the NWPS and NFS sites. No overall policy prohibiting geocaching stated, but a lot of discussions in the forums. Mostly of the "throw the bums out" and "What is acceptable use" type. Perhaps it’s up to the local management to decide?

January 25, 2005

I learned early on that if my "chasing the arrow" would have me bushwack I stop. Consider if the trail I am on may wind around to where the arrow is pointing. Up here in the Pacific Northwest bushwacking thru briars and fallen limbs and trees can lead to injuries.

Some cache placements have created trails and widely trampled undergrowth. I have seen or heard no caches that were relocated to lessen the habitat damage. Shouldnt that be part of 'cache maintenance"?

January 25, 2005

And in fact we just had a fatality in San Antonio. He evidently slipped and fell into a small ravine.

Death ends high-tech scavenger hunt

38.2k · January 25, 2005

And in fact we just had a fatality in San Antonio. He evidently slipped and fell into a small ravine.

Death ends high-tech scavenger hunt

I believe it was found he had a heart attack.

January 25, 2005

May have been. There was a follow up article on geocaching about a month later that still mentioned it as an accidental death. Nothing else in the newspaper. I can't find anything that references it other than accidental.

2k · January 25, 2005

I think it is good practice to send the cache owner a note if I notice a "social trail" developing.

Brian makes a good point, most cachers will probably take advantage of existing trails when hiding a cache.

January 26, 2005

I have noticed in many parks the prevalence of mountain bike trails. I realize these probably aren't in sensitive areas, but they sure do tear up the trails. They primarily follow existing trails, but sometimes break out and create new trails. How often do you hear criticism of that popular sport? What about 4-wheeling? Those big vehicles can do a lot of damage. It is hard to see how the occasional person walking through the forest can do enough damage to ban geocaches from parks. I realize there are very sensitive areas, and those do need to be protected, but in the average park, people really do very little damage that nature can't repair quickly.

4.5k · January 26, 2005

Where are all those social trails destroying the habitat that lead to the cache? I must be missing them 'cause I have too many DNF's and I don't recall any much on the ones I do find. Maybe I have to start thinking like a deer!

Edited January 26, 2005 by Alan2

2k · January 26, 2005

....What about 4-wheeling? Those big vehicles can do a lot of damage. ....

Don't get me started. :rolleyes:

Responsible four wheelers "Tread Lightly" this mind set is encouraged by local and national clubs.

Consider this also, my "big vehicle" with the tires aired down to 17 PSI actually puts less pounds per square inch on the trail than a hiker, never mind a mountain bike. If I drive responsibly, use the proper gears etc., I will do less damage to a designated OHV trail than a walker in deep lug hiking boots.

Thirty some years ago I spent summers repairing damage done to hiking trails by backpackers "cutting" the switch backs. The erosion which results from this practice is far worse than you will see from any responsible off roader.

24.7k · January 26, 2005

...They primarily follow existing trails, but sometimes break out and create new trails. How often do you hear criticism of that popular sport? What about 4-wheeling? Those big vehicles can do a lot of damage. It is hard to see how the occasional person walking through the forest can do enough damage to ban geocaches from parks. I realize there are very sensitive areas, and those do need to be protected, but in the average park, people really do very little damage that nature can't repair quickly.

Every group has it's idiots who will ruin it for everyone. Mountain bikes, hikers, ATV users, Horseback riders, and 4x4 rigs.

Having said that every groups has a responsible way to play.

You are right, I don't hear the mountainbikers slammed nearly as hard as ATV and 4x4 riders. Casual use of an area doesn't really result in problems. The catch 22 of a park is that it concentrates people and then you get rules to keep the invited throngs from having more impact...

38.2k · January 26, 2005

Responsible four wheelers "Tread Lightly" this mind set is encouraged by local and national clubs.

Consider this also, my "big vehicle" with the tires aired down to 17 PSI actually puts less pounds per square inch on the trail than a hiker, never mind a mountain bike. If I drive responsibly, use the proper gears etc., I will do less damage to a designated OHV trail than a walker in deep lug hiking boots.

You're referring to responsible four wheelers on designated ORV trails. I'm constantly witnessing incredible damage caused by irresponsible four wheelers taking to hiking trails and woods roads. I've seen trails eroded to 5 feet below the original treadway and sections the size of half a football field nearly devoid of vegetation, not to mention torn down fences and defaced or stolen "no motorized vehicle" signs.

Yet we complain to the authorities and they say "sorry, we don't have the manpower to address it", then turn around and send a ranger out to remove a cache. The problem is that it takes work to catch these moterized marauders. You have to be ther at the right time. Geocaches are an easy target, sitting there waiting for parks personnel to come by at their leisure and take it.

Edited January 26, 2005 by briansnat

2k · January 26, 2005

Responsible four wheelers "Tread Lightly" this mind set is encouraged by local and national clubs.

Consider this also, my "big vehicle" with the tires aired down to 17 PSI actually puts less pounds per square inch on the trail than a hiker, never mind a mountain bike. If I drive responsibly, use the proper gears etc., I will do less damage to a designated OHV trail than a walker in deep lug hiking boots.

Your referring to responsible four wheelers on designated ORV trails. I'm constantly witnessing incredible damage caused by irresponsible four wheelers taking to hiking trails and woods roads. I've seen trails eroded to 5 feet below the original treadway and sections the size of half a football field nearly devoid of vegetation, not to mention torn down fences and defaced or stolen "no motorized vehicle" signs.

Yet we complain to the authorities and they say "sorry, we don't have the manpower to address it", then turn around and send a ranger out to remove a cache. The problem is that it takes work to catch these moterized marauders. You have to be ther at the right time. Geocaches are an easy target, sitting there waiting for parks personnel to come by at their leisure and take it.

...

Thirty some years ago I spent summers repairing damage done to hiking trails by backpackers "cutting" the switch backs. The erosion which results from this practice is far worse than you will see from any responsible off roader.

I also point out that irresponsible hikers can do significant damage. I guess my point is, as RK also pointed out, any activity in the outdoors can damage the very place we want to enjoy when practiced irresponsibly.

By becoming a member of an organization that promotes habitat friendly practices you can minimize that impact.

And yes geocaches are "easy targets" for local authorities. But catching a poacher or goon who tromps through an alpine meadow is just as hard as catching a dumb a** who takes his ATV or Truck onto a hiking trail.

<aside> Wild horses are destroying natural habitat in the west at an alarming rate, yet they are a protected species. But they look pretty.</aside>

38.2k · January 26, 2005

I also point out that irresponsible hikers can do significant damage

True, but it could take a few years of irresponsible hiking to do the damage one ATV can accomplish in an afternoon.

7.3k · January 26, 2005

Have you seen the kind of damage that deer and elk can do to the environment? I did a cache last fall, and was following a deer trail on the way back, and they managed to wipe out a good portion of the hillside on the way down at one point! :lol: (And no, it wasn't from geocachers. The cache has only had a few visitors, and all pretty much from last spring, and I was not even in direct line to the cache.)

I say we ban deer.

2k · January 26, 2005

I also point out that irresponsible hikers can do significant damage

True, but it could take a few years of irresponsible hiking to do the damage one ATV can accomplish in an afternoon.

Actually all it takes is two or three people cutting the switchbacks to start a social trail. By this logic the damage is done in less than an afternoon.

Staying on topic, is geocaching habitat friendly? IMHO No more or less than any other activity that takes people into the outdoors. Stereotyping geocachers is akin to stereotyping any group.

January 26, 2005

I have noticed in many parks the prevalence of mountain bike trails. I realize these probably aren't in sensitive areas, but they sure do tear up the trails. They primarily follow existing trails, but sometimes break out and create new trails. How often do you hear criticism of that popular sport? What about 4-wheeling? Those big vehicles can do a lot of damage. It is hard to see how the occasional person walking through the forest can do enough damage to ban geocaches from parks. I realize there are very sensitive areas, and those do need to be protected, but in the average park, people really do very little damage that nature can't repair quickly.

In the parks I've frequented in Texas, the mountain bikers have been restricted to specified trails. Being off those trails gets you thrown out. I seemed to remember a park in Austin that banned all mountain biking for a couple of years because of abuse.

I haven't yet been in a Texas park that allows off-roading. Texas was introducing a state-wide ban on running riverbeds. Not crossing, but driving down them. I think it passed but not sure.

So not everyone is enamored of either mountain biking or off-roading.

And I was specifically speaking of parks. Private land, it's up to the owner.

And over the years I have seen habitat damaged by overuse by hikers.

1.8k · January 26, 2005

Does "habitat friendly" include all the fuel I burn (at 12 mpg) and all the greenhouse gases I pump into the atmosphere getting my truck from one cache to the next? :grin:

20.7k · January 26, 2005

It should be noted that, in my experience, most off-trail caches do not get a ton of visitors. Usually they will get several right after they were put out or if there is an event in the area, but after the initial bunch of cachers, they are only visited every week or so (often less frequently).

Surely any damage caused by the initial rush to a cache will quickly be erased by nature.

5.3k · January 27, 2005

I have noticed in many parks the prevalence of mountain bike trails. I realize these probably aren't in sensitive areas, but they sure do tear up the trails. They primarily follow existing trails, but sometimes break out and create new trails. How often do you hear criticism of that popular sport? What about 4-wheeling? Those big vehicles can do a lot of damage. It is hard to see how the occasional person walking through the forest can do enough damage to ban geocaches from parks. I realize there are very sensitive areas, and those do need to be protected, but in the average park, people really do very little damage that nature can't repair quickly.

As far as Mountain Bikes damage along trails, Here in Marin County the birthplace of Mountain biking most of the trails have been closed to Mt. Bikes. Not because of claims of damage, but because of claims Mt Bikers acting like idiots on the trails.

Were I have seen some real trail damage is from horses, I have been on some trails in sensitive areas in which horses are allowed that are so damaged that hiking on the trails is not worth attempting. But it not Politely Correct around here to complain about horses on trails, though one trail has been closed to horses until next summer.

Were I see a real problem with damage to plant life is from cachers who decided they are going to hide a cache. Then they are TO CHEAP to hide a real cache, so they hide a 35MM film can in a bunch of bushes 60 feet off a trail because they can hide a micro for about ten cents.

Edited January 27, 2005 by JohnnyVegas

20.7k · January 27, 2005

Well said, JV.

February 14, 2005

I think that it is quite reasonable that you should consider in advance what will happen when your cache is searched-for by a few hundred people. We have all seen "geo-trails" leading to favorite spots, although I don't know if this qualifies as permanent environmental damage. We humans, all things considered, are not too good at "walking softly" anywhere. :lostsignal: So, if you're thinking of putting a cache in a fragile or sensitive spot, maybe another location nearby would be just as suitable?

38.2k · February 14, 2005

I think that it is quite reasonable that you should consider in advance what will happen when your cache is searched-for by a few hundred people.

And how many caches have been searched for by a few hundred people? The popular caches that get many finds are largely urban and suburban caches. Hardly what you will call sensitive areas.

Truly sensitive areas tend to be more remote and caches in those areas get very few finds.

The supposed hordes of geocachers descending on cache sites is one of the chief misconceptions that many land managers have about our sport. Lets not propagate this myth.

3.9k · February 14, 2005

I think that it is quite reasonable that you should consider in advance what will happen when your cache is searched-for by a few hundred people.

And how many caches have been searched for by a few hundred people? The popular caches that get many finds are largely urban and suburban caches. Hardly what you will call sensitive areas.

Truly sensitive areas tend to be more remote and caches in those areas get very few finds.

The supposed hordes of geocachers descending on cache sites is one of the chief misconceptions that many land managers have about our sport. Lets not propagate this myth.

Perfectly stated. A typical cache will get visited 10 - 20 times in the first 30 - 40 days. After that it drops off considerably. In a year you might have 30 - 40 finds on one cache. In two years that number won't go much higher. A cache that has hundreds of finds usually has concrete around it. When you consider deer take the same trail several times a day for years, it's ridiculous to think geocaching needs any regulation whatsoever. Anyone who think geocaching causes sever and permanent damage is simply uneducated about the activity.

February 14, 2005

Greatness :lostsignal:

3.9k · February 14, 2005

Greatness

HUH?

38.2k · February 14, 2005

Perfectly stated. A typical cache will get visited 10 - 20 times in the first 30 - 40 days. After that it drops off considerably

I'd say that's a high number for many of the more remote caches. And by remote I mean more than a mile hike. Most of my caches will get maybe 5-6 visits in the first month, then the visits wind down to perhaps 1-2 a month. Many go several months between finds.

2k · February 14, 2005

The logs for one of my remote caches support what Brian is saying. No hiking involved but still not easy to get to. So perhaps a rule of thumb would be the amount of determination required to log the cache is inversely proportional to the frequency of visitation.

Desert Station (GCFCFC) 4/19/2003

April 20, 2003 by Cajun Team (166 found)

April 26, 2003 by Dust Devils (73 found)

April 27, 2003 by rock&crystal (1325 found)

May 3, 2003 by Range Rebel & Desert Duty (19 found)

May 4, 2003 by Howling Coyote Team (141 found)

May 4, 2003 by gfhanger (32 found)

May 21, 2003 by drofrockology (373 found)

May 21, 2003 by devilinmyear (316 found)

June 2, 2003 by SDYDAN & MLV (94 found)

July 6, 2003 by Two Left Knees (104 found)

July 12, 2003 by Shamberger (88 found)

August 3, 2003 by THE OUT BACK (21 found)

September 1, 2003 by TopazGeogoats (257 found)

October 25, 2003 by bdnwsblaze (102 found)

December 6, 2003 by happysam&nellie (30 found)

January 3, 2004 by NevadaWolf (461 found)

February 15, 2004 by NC Junkie and Son (49 found)

February 21, 2004 by Just_CAEWWS (86 found)

February 29, 2004 by Frogger13 (434 found)

February 29, 2004 by travelers58 (318 found)

March 14, 2004 by Boogsar (184 found)

April 15, 2004 by Little Alien (57 found)

May 13, 2004 by Geodicemen (191 found)

May 22, 2004 by Tumbleweed Family (56 found)

October 4, 2004 by RenoHiker (575 found)

November 26, 2004 by willybee (162 found)

December 26, 2004 by DesertRatRace (55 found)

27 finds in almost two years, slightly more than two per month.

3.8k · February 15, 2005

The Geocachers' Creed reminds cachers:

Check if permission is required before placing a cache on private property, and respect the landowner's wishes.

Check if public land has a geocaching policy and respect existing policies.

Promptly remove your cache if the land manager or steward asks.

. . .

Follow Leave No Trace ethics whenever possible.

When seeking a cache, practice "Lift, Look, Replace" - put all stones or logs back where you found them. Leave the area as you found it or better (e.g. pick up litter).

Obtain the best possible coordinates for your cache to reduce unwarranted wear on the area. Recheck and correct your coordinates if finders report significant errors.

Sounds like good advice to me.

9.4k · February 15, 2005

Many caches are hidden off of existing game trails, which makes people think that the social trail was created by geocachers. I've been to several caches in my area where I'm shocked to see a social trail, to discover I'm the first or second person to find the cache. Things aren't always what they seem.

Edited February 15, 2005 by Jeremy

38.2k · February 15, 2005

The logs for one of my remote caches support what Brian is saying. No hiking involved but still not easy to get to. So perhaps a rule of thumb would be the amount of determination required to log the cache is inversely proportional to the frequency of visitation.

Desert Station (GCFCFC) 4/19/2003

To illustrate further, what I think is my best cache, GC3076, is a 2 mile hike over fairly rugged terrain to a pristine lake. Its had 31 finds and one DNF in just over 3 years, or .8 visits a month. Another of my favorites, GC9466, has 29 finds and 2 DNFs in its 30 months of life for a tad over 1 find per month. Its abut a 3 mile RT hike over moderate terrain. GCHRTM is about to celebrate its first birthday. Its had 8 visits in its short life or .6 a month. Its about a 4 mile RT hike over pretty rugged terrain.

Now for the other side of the coin:

My most popular cache in terms of number of finds isGC3501. Its a short walk in in a partially developed suburban park and has 110 attempts in just over 3 years, or 2.9 per month. My second most popular cache is GC27B7. It has 86 attempts in its 38 months of existence or 2.2 visits per month. This one is a very easy 1 mile hike.

You see even with the popular caches, we're still not talking hordes of geocachers. And this is in northern NJ with over 15 million people who live within an hour's drive of these caches. Go to a less populated area and I bet the numbers are even lower.

Many caches are hidden off of existing game trails, which makes people think that the social trail was created by geocachers. I've been to several caches in my area where I'm shocked to see a social trail, to discover I'm the first or second person to find the cache. Things aren't always what they seem

I've been saying this for a long time. When people place caches they often take the route of least resistance, which is frequently an existing game trail.

Edited February 15, 2005 by briansnat

Is Geocaching Habitat Friendly?

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

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