Jump to content

Another Anti-geocaching Article


jeff35080

Recommended Posts

"PRIOR GOVERNMENTAL EXPERIENCE: None"

 

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM now. No PAC money. No contributions over $500." He'd be quite a hypocrite if he went against his own agenda. Perhaps he's just upset becuase he knows he's never going anywhere in politics. :(

 

"This shortsightedness must end." thats the smartest thing you've said all day, Donnelly!

 

"Without progress on these goals, what kind of

future are we leaving our children?" Geocaching kills babies! i knew it!! :lol:

 

all quotes from his website.

Link to comment
I was thinking "sacred", as in a "Druid-ish" sort of fashion. You know, tree worship. Wouldn't his potential constituency be interested in knowing this?

I was also wondering whom this land was "sacred" to? I could see if it was a Native American ceremonial site or the equivalent. I'm open to all forms of spirituality, but I don't think that you can designate a place as "sacred" because you think it is a cool place to be.

Link to comment
The guy from the original "article", I do find offensive though. He seems to believe that a sacred space in the wilderness (and on public land) is owned by him and his friends and that no one else should have access to it. He even seems to think that hikers walking through a forest are destroying it.

 

I've been reading his other articles on the website and its obvious that Donnelly is an ultra leftist nutcase. The arguments in this particular article are so absurd and ill informed that they are self nullifying.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

I'd like to thank Mr. Donnelly for this comment:

 

"Each month Backpacker Magazine highlights an unknown, unexplored, "secret" place on public lands."

 

I wasn't aware of such an article but I will check out BP Mag now. This sounds interesting.

 

I'm thinking maybe he's responsible for alot of people finding this "sacred" ground?

He obviously can't keep a secret.

Link to comment

To put it mildly it seems geocaching has left a bad taste in Mr. Donnelly's mouth. Sounds to me that this guy is a bit elitist by only wanting a select few into this special place. He is crying over group efforts to explore a certain plot of land. This is no different than the issues that geocachers and splunkers in caves.

 

As other groups discover geocaching, it is normal for these group to feel threatened by us on what they perceive as "their territory".

 

In todays day and age, it is totally unreasonable to believe anyone's piece of paradise will remain undiscovered. When people explore these places, the impact is noticable if significant number of people visit the area. That is a fact. We on the other hand need to be mindful of this and take care on hiding and how we search for caches.

 

I say tough toe nails to Donnelly and live with it.

 

He's gonna have to learn to share the land as he and his friends practice their ooga-booga rituals. :lol:

Link to comment
I'd be hard pressed to call this journalism.

I'm a journalist and I sure wouldn't call this journalism, either.

Nor I. (Also a journalist.) Even on an opinion column, one should at least have verifiable facts and research to support your argument. Especially given AuntieWeasel's comment of no such users. Sounds like this guy is a walking contradiction.

Link to comment

Hello,

 

I am in the cultural resources business, and what Mr. Donnelly seems to be describing is a Traditional Cultural Place or TCP. These spaces are indeed sacred, and protected under federal law, insomuch as the government has to take them into account if there are buildings or other projects that would somehow mar them. There is a lot of play in the law here, however, as these spaces might include a river, a mountain, a hill, or a rock. There would be no way for geocache approvers (or hiders for that matter) to know if a property where a cache was located was included in a TCP.

 

These places are often secret for this type of reason, so they don't get written into guide books. If this was written up in the guide book as a sacred space, the Native Americans in question should take it up with the guidebook writers.

 

As an archaeologist, I do have some concerns about cachers and archaeological sites, but I have found most of the caches near sites, have already been looted.

Link to comment

These places are often secret for this type of reason, so they don't get written into guide books. If this was written up in the guide book as a sacred space, the Native Americans in question should take it up with the guidebook writers.

 

As an archaeologist, I do have some concerns about cachers and archaeological sites, but I have found most of the caches near sites, have already been looted.

I'm a bit curious to know whether or not caches are allowed in areas like this (TCP). To me if hikers are allowed to explorer an area, caches should be allowed for placement unless specifically prohibited (like archaeological sites).

Link to comment
I think it was probable some Druidic site or a wica site or some weird fringe group site, sorry if I offend anyone I dont mean to.

If you're going to put down various religious groups that you know very little about, at least take the time to properly spell their names.

 

Wicca. With a capital W and two Cs together in the middle of the word.

 

And you probably shouldn't compare 25,000 year old religions to "weird fringe group"s.

 

:laughing:

 

Whoever said ignorance was bliss was the dumbest of them all. :laughing:

Link to comment
I'd like to thank Mr. Donnelly for this comment:

 

"Each month Backpacker Magazine highlights an unknown, unexplored, "secret" place on public lands."

 

I wasn't aware of such an article but I will check out BP Mag now. This sounds interesting.

 

I'm thinking maybe he's responsible for alot of people finding this "sacred" ground?

He obviously can't keep a secret.

I have to agree on this one. A coworker is selling magazines for her children's school, and after reading this information about Backpacker magazine I think I will get a subscription and see what it's like. I'll even get a "get out more" booklet for free when I subscribe.

 

Thanks Mr. Donnelly

Link to comment
Hello,

 

I am in the cultural resources business, and what Mr. Donnelly seems to be describing is a Traditional Cultural Place or TCP. These spaces are indeed sacred, and protected under federal law, insomuch as the government has to take them into account if there are buildings or other projects that would somehow mar them. There is a lot of play in the law here, however, as these spaces might include a river, a mountain, a hill, or a rock. There would be no way for geocache approvers (or hiders for that matter) to know if a property where a cache was located was included in a TCP....

Exactly. I'll expand. People of every walk, race, creed etc. like pretty much the same kinds of areas. Wherever we would like to place a cache because it's pretty, it's got great fishing, the forest is sublime etc. odds are Indians were there enjoying and living in the same areas we live in and recreate in now.

 

Living next to a couple of Tribes it's interesting that sometimes you have to hunt down the site then take the tribe out to see it so they can assert their interests in something they forgot about. On the federal side it's the law, on the tribal side it's politics and power trying to do the best for themselves as they can given the cards they hold.

 

From my standpoint it's just scenery the only significance comes from within the person holding the site in regard, and nobody has any better claim than anyone else unless they hold the deed. But I'm biased, my views are based on what it's going to take for the human race to be here in a million years. Certain things in that light are nothing more than temporary luxuries that we can enjoy while we still have elbow room on this planet. There is no rush to destroy things but anything you save, means something else had to give way. If you like wetlands and mitigate for them on a project you are converting desert, prairie, forest, or something else to a wetland. Either way something is gone.

Link to comment

Does anyone fail to see the hidden agenda of this so-called 'journalist' - another one who wants everyone to play their lives by rules he imagines are appropriate that stifle progress and the rights of others to enjoy what HE has.

 

Having a genuinely valid premise for an intellectual argument that sounds well-meaning, he covers it with presumptions, fabricated facts and outright lies. In this light, one can only cast him, and unfortunately his potentially valid ideas, aside.

 

Did Republicans really want to rob children of their school lunches, is everything on the floor of Congress about 'the children' (who can say no to children and be a good person) - the argument was a good one until he framed it in outright and flagrant untruths. Too bad, too bad - he loses audience, respect and opportunity to make changes in which he may well believe.

Link to comment
Hundreds of miles of sloppy, illegal trails have been carved to geocaching sites.

 

Interesting. Has he done a study and actually found hundreds of miles of sloppy, illegal trails caused by geocachers, or is he just pulling numbers out of the air?

Hmmm.... it wasn't air I was thinking he was pulling his "facts" out of.......

Now I feel badly about dragging that lawnmower all the way behind me while searching for Snat's caches.... :laughing:

Link to comment

This is the kind of guy who is only talking to those who already agree with him, and I'm sure none of them can be swayed,

 

While it's not likely that the offending website would post a response, maybe if those of you who are the best at making a positive case for our activity could craft good rebuttal articles and submit them, if they receive 20 of 30 well written responses it may cause them to look again at their opinions

Edited by WRITE SHOP ROBERT
Link to comment
While it's not likely that the offending website would post a response, maybe if those of you who are the best at making a positive case for our activity could craft good rebuttal articles and submit them, if they receive 20 of 30 well written responses it may cause them to look again at their opinions

I'll look into my crystal ball and forecast that if there is a response, it will contain juicy remarks from emails cut and pasted to support whatever case he has against the activity. It'll be something like "the responses I received such as x supports that these people have no right being in the outdoors" and other such tripe.

 

So no, I doubt I'll see any mind changing in this lifetime.

Link to comment

Everyone should send him an email...

 

Here is mine:

 

Michael,

 

I read your article with the above title. I too grew up in the Salem area. I'm an avid outdoorsman and a geocacher. You wrote your article either from ignorance or bad-will. You see, geocaches are not at all allowed in Wilderness areas, but that is not the picture you paint. Geocaching.com does not approve any such caches.

 

The article has a particular slant and portrays a certain attitude. You enjoy the outdoors, but you have a real problem with Backpacker, geocaching.com, or a GPSr company telling people where the good spots are. You want these spots all to yourself obviously. Now really, that's just not fair. You should appreciate the fact that more people are enjoying the outdoors and an active lifestyle. Work with us to minimize the impact.

Link to comment

I would say the best thing to do is ignore him. Writing a response only gives him more of a chance to get into the news again when he rebuts it... and he won't use any kind of logic or check any facts any more than he did in his original article, so why fan the flames....let it die a natural death.

Link to comment

He's a politician . They like to bend the truth to fit their needs and goals . They will lie for the most part (though not all fit in to this but most) . I'll bet if he gets into local office he'll try for a higher and higher one till he gets to a position where he can make laws and those laws will impact us because he lost his little sacred place that he and his little buddies went to go hide . It's people like him that make life more difficult and more stressful that we need places to get away to . :laughing:

Link to comment

Much could be said about his post but it reminds me of a local fight against widening a highway. You see, years ago a few people moved out of the city to live in the country. Then some more people thought it was a good idea. Now it is no longer out in the country and the old country road can't handle all the suburbanites going to and coming from work and the malls.

 

Like it or not, he and we share some common ground. Personally, my ax to grind is again unchecked home building. It becomes harder and harder to climb a hill here in SE Wisconsin and not see land being surveyed out for subdivision roads. My point is to recognize what we do have in common and work together to that end.

Link to comment

welllll lets see...i am an evil, mean, socially unacceptable, reclusive individual.

the reason i am such as this is becuase i geocache. i can think of a myriad of things more sinister than being a geocacher. take for example an ill informed, self righteous, pompous, shortsighted, multiple big mac eatting reporter such as mr donnely. in other words all i have to say is

 

CACHE ON!!!!!!!

regatds

archie

Link to comment

So GC'rs were trespassing on his sacred site? Well, as a Geocacher, I consider all of the National Parks as sacred to my religion of Geocaching. Therefore, muggles are trespassing on my sacred space and I want them banned from the National Parks. And I want the freedom, as guaranteed by the 1st Amendment, to freely practice my religion and place caches anywhere within the forest. :laughing:

Edited by txaggie90
Link to comment
....Personally, my ax to grind is again unchecked home building. It becomes harder and harder to climb a hill here in SE Wisconsin and not see land being surveyed out for subdivision roads. My point is to recognize what we do have in common and work together to that end.

I used to work in that industry and I agree with your sentament though perhaps not the specifics.

 

Boise ID is big enough, Boise OK could use a shot in the arm. You wouldn't need to build new roads in OK but you might save one in ID.

 

Land Deveopment such as it is today is not viable in the long run. Developer vision is not community vision. Communtiy vision doesn't pay for development, developers do. Planners plan, Developers ask for exceptions not based on what's best for the community (though that's what they will argue) but what's best for their bottom line based on the sweet deal they got on a peice of land that may or may not be the best spot for what they have in mind.

 

My leaving the indistry (Now I widen roads) didn't change it but I did learn from it and support intelligent planning. Alas I live in a town that would sell it's soul for an Olive Garden or a Lowes.

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...