Jump to content

Another Anti-geocaching Article


jeff35080

Recommended Posts

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.

I agree. This is a man who comes to a conclusion and makes up "facts" to support it. Its not some misinformed land manager who can be educated, its a person with an agenda that is so far out of the mainstream that its ludicrious. You can't convince or reason with this sort and by trying to do so you're giving him undeserved status and saying that his silly ideas are actually worth debate. They aren't.

 

I'm sure he's getting a kick out of these e-mails and basking in the attention. Ignore the bozo!

 

"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about". -Oscar Wilde

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?

 

The "article" is nothing but a misinformed load of hyperbole.

93.2% of all statistics are made up. :laughing::laughing::laughing:

Link to comment

I read Donnelly's piece, both here and at the CounterPunch site, and I'm amazed that it was even published. It's a bit out of tone for them and it's obvious that he was having a pissy fit. Donnelly does contribute occasionally, so I'm guessing that the editors give him carte blanche on subjects that they know nothing about. In this case, that privilege stepped on our toes. If we take the high road, his article is guaranteed to be relegated to the dustbin of history.

 

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.

 

That's Boise City, bub :laughing: and if you look NW of there about 25 miles on your topo maps you might decide it would be a cool place to go play.

Link to comment

It was interesting to read the article, I must say. Thought I'd give the author a South African perspective ......

 

Here's the email I sent ......

 

 

Good day from South Africa

 

I read your article concerning geocaching and the damage it causes to the environment with considerable interest, but felt I had to offer comment:

 

I can only speak for the South African situation.

 

We have vast areas of wilderness, a lot of them controlled by government departments or private NGO's.

 

All of them welcome geocachers.

 

Why?

 

Because the vast majority of geocachers walk or hike to the cache site (hidden with permission), causing no damage to the environment whatsoever.

 

Off-road vehicles, on the other hand, be they 4X4, quad-bikes, trikes, trail-bikes and even mountain bikes have been banned outright - NO compromise!

 

In addition to welcoming geocachers to these areas, the authorities recognise that geocachers are, in the main, socially responsible (they practise "cache in - trash out") clearing the area of any rubbish found, are ecologically aware of the environment they are visiting, bring much needed exposure to out of the way areas, thereby generating awareness of places that not many people know of, and increasing the wealth of the area through donations, entry fees etc.

 

A simple hand-held GPS receiver, like a cell-phone, cannot in any way be interpreted as a danger to the environment. Your statement to that effect leaves me dumfounded, I'm afraid, and at a total loss as what point you were trying to make.

 

I also tried to look up the user names you called to your readers' attention: they are NOT registered geocacher names. Would you care to share your source of these names and perhaps show us the offending log-book page?

 

I thoroughly enjoy the sport of geocaching. I am a wildlife and nature photographer who has a deep and abiding love for the land that I live in. I speak for most of my fellow geocachers when I say that we all treasure the land we roam over, doing no damage, going to places of spectacular beauty, sharing that pleasure with our fellows and causing no harm to any living thing.

 

Brian Connell

"Azaruk"

Edited by Azaruk
Link to comment

Hmmm . . . I'm new to this and maybe I am suffering from a lack of historical perspective, but I'm surprised to see you (almost) all so completely unsympathetic to this argument. Yes, it's unfair to blame geocachers exclusively for environmental degradation. Yes, people playing the game by the rules are sensitive to the concerns. But don't we have an obligation to discuss and minimize the potential for damage to sensitive areas?

 

I know I am concerned about some of my own activities. Even though I haven't made it out of the city yet for cache hunting, I've been in the city in some fairly sensitive areas, turning over every rock in sight in hopes of finding that one is a fake with a tube inserted. Recently, I discovered several newts in the process. Newts are sensitive and may be injured by willy-nilly rock turning.

 

As someone who has been an advocate for protecting and preserving natural spaces all my life, I can see where this can easily go down a wrong path. Caches hidden near trails may lead to cutting switchbacks and exacerbating erosion. Caches hidden in trees can lead to broken branches that lead to long-term decay and weakness.

 

Cache hunters who mockingly joke about bringing along lawn mowers imply that there is no reason to worry about any of this. Yes, I see the sarcasm, but with it I see an implication that there's no way "we" are doing anything wrong, and "they" should just shut up and get over it.

 

I'm not saying we should ban geocaching, but why not take this opportuninty to discuss the ugly side of the game and work on ways to avoid creating more ill will in future? Oh, and I am a vegetarian--so I guess you can just dismiss me if you don't like what I have to say.

 

treedweller

Link to comment
so I guess you can just dismiss me if you don't like what I have to say.

Your point is what this hobby is about, but take some time reading here in the forums, and go back to read a years worth of them so you can catch up. I'll stop here.

 

Back to topic;

Damm I just bought a new chain saw. It had a compass on it, and a built in GPS.

 

I bet this guy has the same letter he uses for each group that infringes on his special land.

 

Like for hunters, instead of a log book, it's changed to a carcase.

 

I bet his PC is loaded with kiddie porn, and he will get busted in a sting for trying to pick up kids in chat rooms to see his special spot.

Sicko! (had to get that out to slap him somehow)

 

I see letters going to him, but anybody going to try the editor of the company that published this carp?

 

1signature2zl.jpg

Link to comment
...I'm not saying we should ban geocaching, but why not take this opportuninty to discuss the ugly side of the game and work on ways to avoid creating more ill will in future?...

We do dicsuss the "ugly" side in other threads.

 

If you posted a question on when you should move your cache you would get an answer of "when a trail starts to develop"

 

There is a concencus that there are locations where a cache isn't the right thing to do, and so on.

 

This thread is about an article attacking geocaching. The guy whines about trails but the odds are he took one into his spot. He complains about other people visiting his spot, but in my world view its as much their spot as his and since he has been there it's their turn.

Link to comment
I read Donnelly's piece, both here and at the CounterPunch site, and I'm amazed that it was even published.  It's a bit out of tone for them and it's obvious that he was having a pissy fit.

Seems like the same kind of condescending, holier-than-thou trash that I've been reading for ahwile on CP to me.

 

I think Briansnat is right. He's probably reveling in the attention he's getting from annoying us peasants. Just ignore him.

 

Edit: Me know write English good sometimes.

Edited by Bull Moose
Link to comment

Anything to get his name in print. He's run for political office numerous times, under any ticket that would have him. He's run as a Democrat, independant and under the Pacific??? party. He once got almost 2% of the vote in a congressional district race in his best showing.

 

Somehow....losing elections by a landslide qualifies him to bloviate on topics he has little to no understanding of.

Link to comment
So, let's see what other stereotypes we can hypothosize: 

 

He drives a Yugo (or rides a bike to work).

Is a card-carrying member of the Sierra Club.

Doesn't really know what "outdoors" means, except as previously noted: if it's outdoors, it's sacred and all you people should stay in your houses.

He's a vegetarian.

 

Think of any more?

 

Let's see - he's worked in a lumber mill, so raping the forest isn't an issue, he builds houses (seriously doubt he buys an existing home, tears it down and builds a better one to improve the neighborhood - so it's built on forest or farm land), supports publishing on paper via Amazon instead of online...I don't see anything green about this guy but his rhetoric...green as in bile!

 

I would posit he lives in a huge home, consumes all the electricity they can supply, drives multiple 15 mpg cars...and blows a lot of hot air!

 

In no way do we need to defend ourselves from folks like this - they destroy themselves with their very words!

Link to comment

Just venting a little here......

 

Reminds me of two locations in my home state of Wyoming. Both are on public lands run by the US government. Both get closed once a year for the exclusive use of a certain group. State authorities enforce these closures. Justy try and get a corner of your nearby forest lands closed off for the local Christian church to have an exclusive picnic and the story would hit international headlines. Public means we all own and have the right to visit it and the obligation to protect it to the best of our ability. Cutting off ALL access except for some small sect is misuse.

 

(now stepping off of soap box...)

 

This game can be played in a manner consistent with protecting. Don't ban all for the very few who abuse our public lands.

Link to comment
I read Donnelly's piece, both here and at the CounterPunch site, and I'm amazed that it was even published.  It's a bit out of tone for them and it's obvious that he was having a pissy fit.

Seems like the same kind of condescending, holier-than-thou trash that I've been reading for ahwile on CP to me.

CP tends to be more academic than other political op-ed sites, which is why it seems condescending and holier-than-thou. It's intended for people who are able to read without their lips moving, and not for those who get their news from the scrolling sign at the truckstop (or Fox News). ;)

 

OK, OK, I'll stop. Donnelly is a putz. Left or right--I think we can all agree on that.

 

-E

Link to comment
Hmmm . . . I'm new to this and maybe I am suffering from a lack of historical perspective, but I'm surprised to see you (almost) all so completely unsympathetic to this argument.

 

<massive snip>

 

I'm not saying we should ban geocaching, but why not take this opportuninty to discuss the ugly side of the game and work on ways to avoid creating more ill will in future? Oh, and I am a vegetarian--so I guess you can just dismiss me if you don't like what I have to say.

 

treedweller

Okay, you're new and are probably unfamliar with the history in the forums.

 

As for discussing the ugly side of the game, this is done all the time.

 

1) Drilling holes in trees

2) Cache placement

3) Geolitter

4) Hostile muggles

5) Being questioned by police

 

A myrid of issues are brought up here.

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. ;)

I wonder how you file for Federal Tax exempt status to get this going. :) I don’t want to insult anybodies idea of religion or spiritually, but this really puts the question into context. The beauty of this country is that anybody can say what ever they want (just look at the posts in this forum!! :huh: ), but that right does not extend to some guy in Oregon restricting my right to access pubic land. Just because an individual says that public land should not be public land does not make it so.

Link to comment
It's intended for people who are able to read without their lips moving, and not for those who get their news from the scrolling sign at the truckstop (or Fox News). ;)

 

I read a few articles on CP in the last day. It also seems to appeal to those that don't care about things like....facts, truth, and ethics.

 

It's about as far out on the left wingtip as it gets. Dean and Moore look like moderates by comparison.

Link to comment
I read a few articles on CP in the last day.  It also seems to appeal to those that don't care about things like....facts, truth, and ethics.

 

Surely you aren't suggesting that Fox News, Bill "Mr. Phone Sex" O'Reilly or Rush "Pills" Limbaugh bother with any of those things...

 

It's about as far out on the left wingtip as it gets.  Dean and Moore look like moderates by comparison.

 

Trust me, I can show you things that are much farther left. CP is middle-left. Consider it the "U.S. News and World Report" of progressive politics. Howard Dean is a moderate. Michael Moore is, well, see RK's previous link.

 

D@#& it, I said I'd quit. OK, I mean it this time. I'm not coming back to this thread. Cache On!

Link to comment

donnelly is well known in environmental circles. He has written copiously on this and related subjects. donnelly [lower case intentional] represents the misanthropic lunatic fringe of the environmental industry, along with reid noss, michael vandeman, and their ilk. Mainstream environmentalists take great efforts to disassociate themselves from their philosophy.

Link to comment
Hmmm . . . I'm new to this and maybe I am suffering from a lack of historical perspective, but I'm surprised to see you (almost) all so completely unsympathetic to this argument.

 

I don't think we're unsypathetic to the argument, if we can interpret that urban sprawl and human occupation of the forests are in fact the basis for this argument...it's kinda hard to tell.

 

Assuming the base issue, however, is eco-damage, then I will say that in my two years in geocaching I have met a tremendous number of people who do in fact care about this issue and incororate it into their game. In fact, of the hundreds of geocachers I have met in person I can't think of a one that is NOT eco-sensitive.

 

Part of our game is the adoption of a Cache-In Trash-Out ethic and behavior, whereby we, most of us, carry trash bags as standard gear and collect trash going to and from geocaches.

 

I have cached in 9 states and have found 1 unsuitable cache, and it was archived by the owner due to complaints.

 

I have attended geocaching association meetings in four states, and had eco-sensitivity at least mentioned if not the main topic at all of them.

 

Paths do develop to caches. Generally referred to as social trails, they are of some concern to land managers and cachers alike. I believe, as do the park rangers I know, that social trails are a small issue. ATV and Jeep trails may be a larger concern, but I personally have never seen a new vehicle path created to get to a cache - usually the cache is placed beside an existing trail.

 

We members of the (AGA keep a pretty close eye on caches in our area and have had very few, if any - I can't remember any, complaints.

 

We are working with the Cahaba River Preservation Society to map the sensitive Cahaba River Watershed and Wildlife management Area and with the Flint River Society to map that sensitive watershed. We are welcomed by park rangers, where we have good relations, only 1 archived cache due to ranger environmental concerns, and sponsor CITO events where many people turn out for a day or weekend to clean up parks in return for our access.

 

No, we're not out burning down housing developments because they encroach on woodlands, but neither are we damaging the woods we love and use.

 

The reaction you see here is against the speaker's tone and total cluelessness, and in no way hostile to the base message of protecting our environment.

 

Ed

Link to comment
CP is middle-left. Consider it the "U.S. News and World Report" of progressive politics. Howard Dean is a moderate. Michael Moore is, well, see RK's previous link.

 

Middle left? I counted 12 articles on the site defending Ward Churchill. Mr. Churchill is the guy who wrote that the victims of 9/11 in the WTC deserved it and were nothing more than "little Eichmanns". He also called the murderers who flew the planes into the towers "heroes" who showed "patience and restraint". That belief is a "middle-left" one??

 

There was another article on CP excoriating New Republic magazine, which is a middle left publication and another critical of the Lynn Stewart verdict. Stewart is a far left radical who was assisting the terrorist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman to communicate with his minions from prison. Even the similarly far left radical attorney, Ron Kuby (former Bill Kunstler protoge) admitted that Stewart "crossed a line that I would not cross". That's "middle-left?"

 

If someone thinks this bunch is "middle left", they are so far to the left they're falling off the page. This bunch makes moveon.org and democraticunderground.com look like Freerepublic.com and National Review Online.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

Hmm geocaching is a good way to keep your kids out of trouble and is safer then letting them run loose.

 

Let's see quote's from his site.

 

OCCUPATIONAL BACKGROUND:Youth Counselor ??????

OCCUPATIONAL BACKGROUND:Mill Worker, San Poil Lumber Co (not much of a tree hugger looks like)

 

PROTECT OUR REMAINING NATURAL RESOURCES ????? (see above)

 

PROTECT OUR YOUNG AND ELDERLY (Where send them down to the ghetto to play since we cant goto the scared woods anymore, Oh i forgot you allready cut them down.)

Link to comment

Based on his location, I suspect that the cache might be this one. It is in the Mt Jefferson wilderness area. The rangers of this district oversee three very popular wilderness areas and do monitor and remove any physical geocaches that appear in designated wilderness.

 

One of the rangers is a cacher. and they do encourage the use of virtuals in a wilderness as an alternative(no one has done so yet), and the placement of regular caches in any part of the national forest that is not designated wilderness as long as it does not disturb a special area.

 

The cave location is well known these days amongst us Central Oregon hiker types and is mentioned in more than one hiking book.

Link to comment

I did receive quite a reasonably worded reply to my letter, and with his permission, I am going to quote it below:

 

Howdy Dale,

 

Apparently you aren't alone. I've read the links on the geocaching website about my article. (I tried to reply there, but could not.) I'm thinking of a follow up article as I have gotten so many attaboys from folks, as well as many %^$^#&'s from dedicated geocachers - I'll only use the civil ones -- from both sides; it's a hot button issue for a lot of folks. (About ten to one in favor, but that's to be expected given the forum I wrote for.)

 

My main beef is with the use in designated Wilderness. I have no problem with regulated use in Multiple Use areas of our public lands. I'm still not sure how I feel about "Virtual Caches" in Wilderness areas.

 

Surely geocachers, themselves, have to have opinions on where it is inappropriate to place caches. As I mentioned, Synagogues, Cathedrals, Mosques, etc. would seem to be off-limits. Any others?

 

I know it's a rather new sport and has some bugs to be worked out. As there is no denying the impacts, some efforts have to be made re: appropriate siting. (Actually, there is a lot of denial on that website.) No one would allow paint ball enthusiasts to just fire away wherever. Nor should caches be allowed anywhere. I'd be glad to have a dialogue on where and what is appropriate. I know the Forest Service and Park Service are discussing it seriously. It was an article about the sport's impacts in the Oregonian, (I provided the link in my article) that triggered my article.

 

As to the "stereotypes" about me that people were hypothesizing about:

 

I am not a Druid (yes, it is an Indian sacred site and yes, the Nation I referred to is made up of a number of tribes and bands);

I do not drive a Yugo - I drive a 1994 Ford Ranger Pick-up;

I am not a member of the Sierra Club (in fact, I have been a lot harder on them in my writings) or any of the Big Green groups;

I am not a vegetarian;

I am not a candidate for office and won't be again (though I twice ran in the past just to raise environmental issues);

I am a tree farmer and former millworker (as I mentioned) and have no problem with appropriate forestry. I totally oppose old growth logging and support wild Wilderness areas;

And, yes, I was General Partner in a company that restored historic buildings before I retired from it.

 

A canard I must respond to is that my friends and I only want the area to ourselves. Anyone who is respectful is welcome there. Again, nothing should be taken from or left at the site. And, it would be a very good idea to restrain one's dogs while visiting. I was very involved in a successful effort to gain Wilderness designation for Opal Creek, Oregon. For years, my allies and I were accused of "wanting to keep their private playground to themselves" by folks who wanted to cut the Ancient Forests there. In the end, it worked out the opposite of what they alleged: over 25,000 folks visit per year now. Our "private playground" now amounts to a group of us spending three weekends a year repairing trails, hauling out messes, removing excess firepits, etc.

 

I am sure there are plenty of conscientious geocachers out there. I know some. I ask that all of you consider whether having free rein of Wilderness Areas and/or designated Cultural Sites is necessary for you to enjoy your sport? After all most public land is NOT Wilderness. Just as hunters, themselves, ultimately have to deal with the slob hunter who trespasses, has little regard for the rules, shoots from the road, etc, so must geocachers rein in the destructive types of folks and activities that operate under the geocache banner.

 

Michael

 

Here's what the Forest Service has to say about geocaches and Wilderness:

 

http://forestry.about.com/od/mappinggis/p/fed_geocache.htm

 

Can I Geocache in a Wilderness Area?: Traditional geocaching is not appropriate in designated Wilderness Areas. This is probably the big area where "cachers" need to be sensitive. The intent of the Wilderness Act of 1964 is "to set aside wilderness as undeveloped federal lands with the imprint of humans substantially unnoticeable". The Wilderness Act prohibits construction of structures and installations. However, virtual caches are allowed in most wilderness areas, and need not be registered. All other caches must be registered.

 

My reply follow:

 

Hey thanks for taking the time to reply. I appreciate it. As far as replying on the forum, my guess is you’d have to register a geocaching account in order to reply (free). Was wondering if you have any list of “designated wilderness areas” preferably with lat-lons associated with them. As from your comments it seems that geocaching is already prohibited there, reviewers need to be aware of these area, so that they can avoid approving caches in those areas. My understanding (and I am not ‘in the know’) is that basically the review process goes something as follows:

 

 

Check the coordinates in mapquest or similar. Does the area look appropriate to place a cache? i.e. does it look like it is sitting in the middle of someone’s back yard?

Check distance to other caches. How close is it to other caches? There is a minimum distance of 160m between caches.

Check if the cache falls in any known banned area (such as parks that have requested that caches not be placed there etc.)

 

As I said, I am not ‘in the know’ just a plain ol’ regular cacher, so I may be way out on this. As far as limiting caches in Mosques, Cathedrals, Synagogues etc, well to be honest I don’t think there is any such restriction (except of course placing a cache indoors is rather difficult), I’ve never seen any around here, but I have heard of caches requiring visits to various graveyards to collect information needed to find a cache, often placed by people with some relation to the deceased as kind of a memorial. Often where is and is not appropriate to place a cache is very much a matter of opinion, and specific to the situation. I remember reading about a cache called “Pig Farm” or something along those lines. It was placed near the site at which a number of murder victim’s bodies were discovered (It was a Pig Farm). Apparently the former owner of the farm was a serial killer, he liked to kill prostitutes. For years the deaths went unnoticed because of the nature of the victims. The intent of the placer of the cache was to draw attention to the site, and to have people take a kind of ‘never again’ look at it. Basically to cause people to quietly reflect on the tragedy. Well that was the intent anyways, the cache was very poorly received by the local population, and was rather quickly archived. But it shows that the appropriateness of a cache is very difficult to judge. For this and similar reasons, cache reviewers try only to judge if caches are legally placed, they aren’t there to pass any moral judgment on a given cache. They may at times suggest that a cache owner change various things on their cache or suggest that they reconsider, (Although I don’t think foul language is tolerated).

 

My personal feeling at to where a cache is appropriate is as follows:

 

 

A cache must not be placed anywhere that caching is banned. At times this is difficult to judge though. Many areas have non-existent policies on caching.

A cache should not be placed anywhere that will cause significant environmental damage. I say significant not to mean “a lot” but rather as opposed to “insignificant”. I believe zero damage is essentially impossible to achieve unless one learns to fly. My personal rule of thumb is not to cause any more damage than a wild animal might cause while passing through.

A cache should not be placed in an area that is likely to expose a potential cacher to significant risk to life and limb in order to hunt (no one wants someone to die while hunting their cache). If there is significant risk involved (like the cache is on top of a mountain), it should be spelled out in the cache page.

A cache should be placed respectfully. This is a very general statement, and again can be rather difficult to judge. Obviously this is one point where the cache you mentioned falls short in your opinion. I don’t know the cache in question, but I imagine that the cacher who placed it might not have known the significance of the site. I would like to ask you though, assuming that the cache was placed legally (I’m not saying that it was or wasn’t just assume for a moment), what would have been your response to it if the purpose of the cache had been to inform people about the significance of the site, and gave background information on the rituals, and was basically set up to educate people about the area? Adding specifically on the cache page to please be extremely respectful of the area as it is considered sacred. Would this have been appropriate? Personally, assuming that the placement of the cache was legal in the first place (which I know according to you it was not), it seems to me like educating people on the significance of the area would be a good thing.

 

These are just some things that come to my mind at the moment, I’m sure there are other general rules, but mostly common sense is what has to prevail.

 

 

I would also like to ask your permission to repost what you have written to me on the forums.geocaching.com , it seems like your side needs to be told even if you aren’t signed up to post on the site…

 

 

 

Dale Atkin

Link to comment
Just a general comment on this thread in general. Seeing as how personal attacks are a no-no in the forums, why has everyone seemed to ignore that rule of conduct here? I know we're all having 'harmless' fun, and he struck first, but does that really make it right?

Oh probably not, but it is so much fun to blindly pick on people! :);)

 

Actually I find his letter to you much better phrased than the "article." But I suppose that is because there is a difference between an opinion piece and personal correspondence. Mostly I just found annoying some of the factual inaccuracies in the original peice and the general ranting tone of it.

Link to comment

I think he probably wrote it that way intentionally to appeal to his intended audience (he was also probably rather peeved, and feeling rather self-rightious at the time, similar to how some people here felt after reading his article).

One thing I just noticed, I read over the standard "stash note" again (boy its been a while)... Recognize this:

 

The only rules are: if you take something from the stash, you must leave something for the stash (but nothing illegal or harmful), and you must write about your visit in the logbook.

 

I know this is refering to the only rules when you find a cache, and not when placing one, but taken out of context, it seems to imply to the casual observer that those are the only rules to the game period. We all know that they aren't, but some random outsider doesn't...

 

Also, look familiar?

 

What are the rules in Geocaching?

 

Geocaching is a relatively new phenomenon. Therefore, the rules are very simple:

 

1. Take something from the cache

 

2. Leave something in the cache

 

3. Write about it in the logbook

 

Where you place a cache is up to you.

 

I knew I'd seen that somewhere before (other than quoted in his article), see The FAQs . Maybe this needs updating? We all know this isn't true, but again, an average outsider doesn't.

 

Seems like his poorly researched article was maybe not so poorly researched after all, he just looked at the wrong sources (didn't bother to ask an actual geocacher about it)

Link to comment

Wow! I have never written in the forums before, but this article just ignited me. I could not disagree more with all of his points. He implys that geocaching desecrates the wilderness. What a bunch of bull! In my personal experiences with other geocachers, I have not met one who is not enviromentally concise. I do not want to bring down the right of religious freedom for the Native Americans he traveled with; But the land is supported by public money contributed by geocachers and non-geocachers alike. If geocachers are not able to enjoy the wilderness they payed for and supported, what rights do other outdoor enthusiasts have? Exactly, the public lands need to be free for everyone; geocachers and muggles.

Link to comment

While the article itself is rather inflamatory in nature, there are a few facts that must be considered:

 

1. Was the cache placed appropriately? There are restrictions on placing caches in Wilderness Areas, were they obeyed? If yes, then no problem with the cache. If no, then did the hider knowingly disobey them? If yes then bad cacher, if no, then no wories. Contrary to what is stated in the article, there are situations under which a cache is allowed in a designated wilderness area(permission must be obtained first and the cache must be 'registered').

2. Are lists of these designated Wilderness Areas available to reviewers in a form they can use? How obvious was it that it was a designated wilderness area? Human being will always make mistakes

3. It seems that there was some minimal research done by the author of the article, unfortunately it lead him to the wrong conclusions (see my earlier post about the FAQs). We need to make sure that the information that an outsider might come across clearly conveys what we are doing and the rules that we try to follow.

 

The article is not well written, and confuses the main subject, geocaching, with that of urban sprawl. While we can't do anything about urban sprawl (at least not much), we can do something about the few valid points that he presents.

 

Oh and welcome to the forums ;)

Link to comment
My main beef is with the use in designated Wilderness. I have no problem with regulated use in Multiple Use areas of our public lands. I'm still not sure how I feel about "Virtual Caches" in Wilderness areas.

 

What possible objection can anyone have to a virtual in re environmental impact?

 

I think the site originally in question would make a great virt! Nothing disrepectful about visiting the site and taking a picture to prove you've been there.

 

I expect a "you'll make a trail" issue coming, but then we're back to I-can-go-but-you-can't territory!

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler
Link to comment

Many areas have been otherwise hidden from public knowledge, and let's face it - not many people read. So when you can easily plug in 100 of the most interesting and relatively unknown cool locations within 10 miles of you, traffic increases significantly. And the land managers don't quite know what to do about that.

Link to comment
Well his response to Ibycus' email was far less ultraist than his orignial article.

Agreed. If he's not as biased as his article is - why write it with such a biased slant?

 

Also, the URL he provided doesn't go to the USFS website. While I don't doubt the author has some knowledge on the subject - it does not appear to be official policy.

 

I found 2 active caches that might be the ones in question. I don't particularly want to draw attention to them, but if you want to find them I'm sure you can. There was one other cache in the area but it was archived in 2001.

 

Here's part of the description from one of the caches.

 

The trail you'll take to get here was built illegally in 1988 by a small group of people in a last ditch effort to bring public attention to Opal Creek and save its ancient forest. They dubbed it the "Bear Trail" and were threatened with prosecution over its unauthorized construction. Oddly in the 50 year battle over this area the trail seems to have been the single most effective thing.

 

So it's ok to break the law and build a trail, but hiding one little box in the woods that has only been attempted 18 times in 2 years and a second one that's only been attempted 26 times in 2 years. (Well, logged online. Not sure what the rate of non-webloggers is in that area). Doesn't seem like a lot of traffic to me.

 

I doubt any of those were groups of 26 hikers brought there by a "tourist guide". It seems that's the real issue.

 

Here's the official Opal Creek page: Willamatte National Forest - Opal Creek Wilderness - according to the permits for Wilderness areas - it seems that only 12 people or less should be in a group (a free permit is required). Perhaps that party of people should have been reported to the rangers.

 

At the very least - the "article" was a gross overreaction. Based on what I can find - geocaching isn't the issue, but it's an easy target for people to attack.

 

southdeltan

Edited by southdeltan
Link to comment
What possible objection can anyone have to a virtual in re environmental impact?

 

A virtual will have basically the same impact as a real cache. The plants don't know what you're looking for, only that they got stepped on.

There has been a lot of references to trampling in this forum in the past. Here is a link to a technical library where several research papers on this topic can be found. Search on 'trampling'

 

http://leopold.wilderness.net/pubs.cfm

 

In a nutshell: There is a measurable effect on vegetation from foot traffic, but the effect is minor and temporary. A year later the impact is statistically insignificant. Given the relatively few geocaches that are a significant distance off a trail, and the relatively few geocachers that will actually travel that far cross country in a backcountry wilderness, the trampling caused by a geocache is insignificant compared to the impact on and alongside main trails caused by general recreation use.

Link to comment

Okay, you're new and are probably unfamliar with the history in the forums. 

 

As for discussing the ugly side of the game, this is done all the time. 

 

1) Drilling holes in trees

2) Cache placement

3) Geolitter

4) Hostile muggles

5) Being questioned by police

 

A myrid of issues are brought up here.

Ok, I apologize for my killjoy post. I found myself regretting it even before seeing the replies because I know from other discussion sites how this kind of thing gets rehashed to the point of inducing groans in the regulars. And I am aware of CITO and realize most cachers are responsible. (I have been trying to catch up on history by reading old threads, but there is a lot to get through here and I haven't seen this stuff brought up yet).

 

Still, I think the tone of this thread implies that (some) others don't take any of it seriously. Again, I see the sarcasm and I hate to be one of "those" people who can't take a joke as a joke. But the response from the OP's cited author is an example of what I was trying to point out: outsiders are going to see it differently from insiders. Sure, it's fun to bag on someone who disagrees with "us", but this thread strayed well into another realm that I found a bit nauseating.

 

And, getting back into that "other" topic, I am dedicated to "leave no trace" outdoor activity, but I have caught myself crossing lines I was not comfortable with as I searched an ever-widening area for a redirect (that I later learned was missing). I think this is the biggest down side to the game and it bears repeating even if we are all sick of hearing it.

 

Again, sorry to stumble my way into your conversation. I'll be a little more careful about how and when I enter a thread in future.

 

treedweller

Link to comment
Also, the URL he provided doesn't go to the USFS website. While I don't doubt the author has some knowledge on the subject - it does not appear to be official policy.

A more "official" URL for info on federal lands might be http://www.recreation.gov/faqgeocaching.cfm

 

The BLM link is my favorite. It says in part:

placing the caches in Congressionally designated wilderness or wilderness study areas, at cultural resource sites, at areas with threatened or endangered species, or any other special fragile area, it would be appropriate to issue a letter of authorization with special stipulations attached that would address those concerns.

Notice that isn't a ban on BLM-managed wilderness areas.

 

And the best line:

The BLM believes that geocaching is an appropriate casual use of public land. 

 

If you go to the USFS website a do a search for geocaching, you will find over 300 links, mostly to individual park pages that have a statement similar to this one:

Geocaching is an entertaining adventure game for gps users. Participating in a cache hunt is a good way to take advantage of the wonderful features and capability of a gps unit. The basic idea is to have individuals and organizations set up caches all over the world and share the locations of these caches on the internet. GPS users can then use the location coordinates to find the caches. All the visitor is asked to do is if they get something they should try to leave something for the cache.

 

Allegheny National Forest geocaching policy.. Geo-caching is a permissible dispersed recreation activity on most areas of the Allegheny National Forest.

 

1. Geo-caching is a permissible dispersed recreation activity on most areas of the Allegheny National Forest.

 

2. Areas where geo-caching is not permitted include: Hickory Creek and Allegheny Islands Wilderness; Tionesta Scenic and Research Natural Areas; Hearts Content Scenic Area and all developed recreation sites.

 

3. No soil disturbance is permitted for any geo-cache placement on the Forest. Caches should be covered with leaves or woody debris if the geo-cacher chooses to screen the cache at the site.

 

4. We ask all geo-cachers to remove their cache if the site receives a large number of visits by others as evidenced by a well-worn trail or path.

 

5. We ask that all caches be removed after one year regardless of site activity and moved to a new location or removed from the National Forest.

Notice it's generally a permissible activity on USFS lands.

Link to comment

"Surely geocachers, themselves, have to have opinions on where it is inappropriate to place caches. As I mentioned, Synagogues, Cathedrals, Mosques, etc. would seem to be off-limits. Any others?"

 

Ok, I see his point, however........

 

Mainstream religious 'sacred sites' are generally well marked structures. If you arrived at one looking to places a cache you'd immediately know that this was not an appropriate location. This is generally not true with 'non traditional' sacred sites. As has been stated before, known 'culturally significant' places are protected by law.

 

Wulf

Link to comment
The thing I find ammusing is he aludes to but never states that it is an Indian sacride place, which many people would be up in arms about defending.  But even after reading throught it couple times I am left wondeing what is theis supposed sacride place?  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.  But I just find it interesting that the allusion to an Indian site is strong.  If it had been and Indian site then the Federal goverment would have been all over it.  I think they were as much interlopers as any one else in the area.  And how about the lighte they brought in to light the candles that is not premeited in a designated wilderness area.

 

cheers

>throught it couple times I am left wondeing what is theis supposed sacride place? 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. But I just find it interesting that the allusion to

 

Every religion was a fringe group at some point.

Link to comment

I found 2 active caches that might be the ones in question.  I don't particularly want to draw attention to them, but if you want to find them I'm sure you can.  There was one other cache in the area but it was archived in 2001.

 

Here's part of the description from one of the caches.

 

The trail you'll take to get here was built illegally in 1988 by a small group of people in a last ditch effort to bring public attention to Opal Creek and save its ancient forest. They dubbed it the "Bear Trail" and were threatened with prosecution over its unauthorized construction. Oddly in the 50 year battle over this area the trail seems to have been the single most effective thing.

 

So it's ok to break the law and build a trail, but hiding one little box in the woods that has only been attempted 18 times in 2 years and a second one that's only been attempted 26 times in 2 years. (Well, logged online. Not sure what the rate of non-webloggers is in that area). Doesn't seem like a lot of traffic to me.

 

 

You failed to read further down the cache page to this:

Today this place is nothing but peaceful and amazing. Hopefully it will remain that way for another thousand years. It's interesting to note that as far as you’ve hiked to get here you still haven’t reached the actual wilderness area, though it’s not far beyond.

 

Neither of the two caches you mention as suspect are within the wilderness boundary.

 

Wilderness and Scenic Recreation Area Boundary

Link to comment
Just wondering, about the comment about 'such technology being off-limits'. Are there such areas? Seems unlikely to me. Seems like the author is peeved about his private place being overun by technology, he certainly hasn't bothered to research his few facts very well.

Actually, GPSs ARE off-limits in some Wilderness Areas (though I doubt it would be enforced). :mad:

 

sign.jpg

 

(Picture of a sign at a Wilderness Area near my home.)

Edited by geospotter
Link to comment
Actually, GPSs ARE off-limits in some Wilderness Areas (though I doubt it would be enforced).  :mad:

Yea but do they really mean GPSr or radios, walkmans, iPods and those types of things? Besides the sign have you seen anything that gives more detailed information?

 

A GPSr could make the difference between someone getting back from a hike or park rangers having to go out and find someone that got lost.

 

After all "electronic devices" is pretty vague, a pacemaker could be considered an electronic device. Or for that matter even a flashlight.

Edited by GrizzlyJohn
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...