Another Anti-geocaching Article

2.7k · February 16, 2005

GrizzlyJohn Posted on Feb 16 2005, 06:32 AM

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

Not to mention Cell Phones. Are there any Cell Towers there?

February 16, 2005

Not to mention Cell Phones. Are there any Cell Towers there?

I don't know but I would guess there are no cell towers there. It kinda makes it a little harder to enforce a lot of other things if you allow a tower to be thrown up. But you could then hide a cache there, make it a multi and have the coordinates to the place where you wanted the person to end up in the first place.

February 16, 2005

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

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.

Yes, they DO really mean radios, walkmans, iPods, and 'those types of things'.

Can't have those noises disturbing all of those 'natural' noises.

I agree that it is too vague. Funny, you should mention 'pacemaker'. I also mentioned it when I first encountered the sign!

"Saw this one so I left my GPS, FRS radios, digital camera, and watch in the car. Good thing I don't have a pacemaker."

February 16, 2005

This politician failed to back up all the comments made on this forum, he did say he was reading them.

He only picked out what he wanted to defend.

Oh yea, he said he didn't drive a Yugo, and few other points, but did not say he didn't have kiddy porn on his PC.

He did not reply to coming up with the so called log book he found?

What about the phony names he made up? Is this true?

I think he picked the wrong group to mess with, now he can not back up his claims to it being Geocacher's as thrashers.

He would better off finding someone else to build his platform on.

If I lived in that area, I would be watching this wack job!

I think the last thing he needs is a honest, ecology minded group mad a him.

Ignoring, but with one eye open, and the editors that print his hogwash should be made aware of the facts.

It would be better for him to ignore us.

It's easy to get mad when you see so many lies in print, from a politicians mouth!

2.1k · February 16, 2005

My personal feeling is that some of what he wrote was probably an honest mistake written 'in the heat of the moment'. (Notice I said some, and not all). It is very easy to stew for a long time, getting madder and madder about something without bothering to do proper research. And then when he did do some research, what did he find, but a statement in our own FAQs backing up his worst fears. It basically says there that you are allowed to place a cache anywhere you like! I know else where this is narrowed down a bit, but maybe we need a link from one to the other? I'm all for keeping it simple, but when simplicity confuses the point at issue, perhaps we need some clarification?

I also think that a lot of what he wrote was probably formed from preconcieved notions about technology and the wilderness. Notice most of the article doesn't specifically mention geocaching, but is rather a general attack on civilization encroaching on natural areas. This same thought applies to virtuals, some areas might not be able to handle increased traffic. You go and tell a community of people (either in a trail guide or on a website or whatever) about a really cool area, and all of a sudden that place has been 'destroyed' by people who are seeking to enjoy it. Personally I don't think that geocachers will contribute a significant enough impact to be noticable, but I can at least imagine where he might be comming from.

I think it would be really hard to justify not allowing GPS in an area when as has been pointed out a GPS can make the difference between a hiker finding his own way out, and having to have S&R teams come to find him or his body there (iPods, Stereo etc., by all means ban those...).

The other thing he mentioned was the lack of respect for an area, and that you'd never see this kind of thing in a more traditional sacred place. To be honest, I'm not sure that that is entirely accurate. After all we all know about cache in cemetaries. I'm sure that there is at least on cache that requires you to visit a historical church, and to be honest I'm not sure this is a bad thing, as long as it is done with respect, and 'tastefully' (and assuming it is on private property, permission is obtained). If the cache is designed to educate people about an area, I think it is more than appropriate (in fact I asked him this in my reply letter, if the cache were specifically designed to educate people about the traditions and culture surrounding the site, what his reaction to it would have been)

Anyways just some thoughts. Now I have to go read that article quoted further up re. the creation of social trails, and their ecological impact...

5.3k · February 16, 2005

My personal feeling is that some of what he wrote was probably an honest mistake written 'in the heat of the moment'.

Sounds more like hate of the mement

February 16, 2005

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

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

Makes me wish I'd taken a picture of the one at Sam Houston NF. It didn't say "electronic devices" but it did say no aircraft on the trail.

Edited February 16, 2005 by jmorris9999

1.3k · February 16, 2005

CP tends to be more academic than other political op-ed sites, which is why it seems condescending and holier-than-thou.

Funny. I can read things like Science, Nature, and the American Journal of Biochemistry without feeling like the authors are condescending and holier-than-thou.

That attitude doesn't have much to do with being "academic."

February 16, 2005

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).

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

I'm curious. Where exactly is the wilderness area that has that sign?

I doubt it is a federal wilderness designated under the 1964 Wilderness Act, or some private individual has posted an unofficial sign as some sort of protest. Perhaps a state or county wilderness, or private land adjacent to a federal wilderness.

The Wilderness Act specifically allows horses and personal electronic devices (which includes GPSr, iPods, etc.). The Act also allows hunting and fishing subject to state and local fish and game laws.

But back to the original intent of this forum -- Prior to my retirement from the FS I was the unofficial 'geocache monitor' for the Forest where I worked. Basically, I checked every one placed (It was a tough job but someone had to do it. The taxpayers paid me to geocache!) There is a cache in a designated Wilderness with the knowledge and approval of my superiors. When I raised the issue of a cache in the Wilderness I basically received a shrug and the comment that if it is not a problem then leave it alone. Additional discussion with law enforcement said the same thing. The LEO sought legal clarification on geocaching in general from legal staff further up the food chain (how high I cannot say), and according to non-judicial legal interpretation geocaches are NOT litter. There is a specific legal definition of litter and geocaches do not meet the definition. Geocaches are not abandoned property, as by definition they are not abandoned. And although not specifically either banned or allowed under the Wilderness Act or other federal regulations, the wording can be interpreted either way; in the lack of a definitive and formal court ruling any interpretation is subjective and arbitrary and the FS lets local managers decide locally on a case-by-case basis. The LEO also said he would not want to try to argue a citation for 'illegal geocaching' in front of a federal magistrate -- he would lose.

The only two geocaches in our local area that raised concern were outside any wilderness boundary (one near an archaeological site, another in a rock outcrop that may be risky for some people to climb). In both cases we decided to leave them because of light use, less than a half dozen or so visits per year and neither created any problems or impacts.

1.5k · February 18, 2005

Ok.... I've resisted posting as long as I can....

So.... Did I hear this guy right? He's practicing RELIGION on PUBLIC land? I thought we were suppose to remove all religious symbols from all public land to avoid the appearance that government was sanctioning a specific religion!

</me shuts up to avoid going off the deep end>

Edited February 18, 2005 by Right Wing Wacko

1.4k · February 18, 2005

heh...touche.

February 18, 2005

So.... Did I hear this guy right? He's practicing RELIGION on PUBLIC land? I thought we were suppose to remove all religious symbols from all public land to avoid the appearance that government was sanctioning a specific religion!

Gonna be a little bit hard to move the Alamo off public lands. Not to mention all the missions that are on public land. And at least two in San Antonio still conduct services. Course, might defeat the purpose in making them public lands in the first place.

February 18, 2005

I'm curious. Where exactly is the wilderness area that has that sign?

I doubt it is a federal wilderness designated under the 1964 Wilderness Act, or some private individual has posted an unofficial sign as some sort of protest. Perhaps a state or county wilderness, or private land adjacent to a federal wilderness.

The Wilderness Act specifically allows horses and personal electronic devices (which includes GPSr, iPods, etc.). The Act also allows hunting and fishing subject to state and local fish and game laws.

But back to the original intent of this forum -- Prior to my retirement from the FS I was the unofficial 'geocache monitor' for the Forest where I worked. Basically, I checked every one placed (It was a tough job but someone had to do it. The taxpayers paid me to geocache!) There is a cache in a designated Wilderness with the knowledge and approval of my superiors. When I raised the issue of a cache in the Wilderness I basically received a shrug and the comment that if it is not a problem then leave it alone. Additional discussion with law enforcement said the same thing. The LEO sought legal clarification on geocaching in general from legal staff further up the food chain (how high I cannot say), and according to non-judicial legal interpretation geocaches are NOT litter. There is a specific legal definition of litter and geocaches do not meet the definition. Geocaches are not abandoned property, as by definition they are not abandoned. And although not specifically either banned or allowed under the Wilderness Act or other federal regulations, the wording can be interpreted either way; in the lack of a definitive and formal court ruling any interpretation is subjective and arbitrary and the FS lets local managers decide locally on a case-by-case basis. The LEO also said he would not want to try to argue a citation for 'illegal geocaching' in front of a federal magistrate -- he would lose.

The only two geocaches in our local area that raised concern were outside any wilderness boundary (one near an archaeological site, another in a rock outcrop that may be risky for some people to climb). In both cases we decided to leave them because of light use, less than a half dozen or so visits per year and neither created any problems or impacts.

Did you log your finds? If so, cool.

For a long time I've wondered what the land-management professional's (rangers) view is about geocaching as it relates to an increase in visitors.

It seems to be a conflict in that on one hand, it seems that rangers want fewer visitors to their area to reduce the impact on the environment and franlyy, to make their job easier.

On the other hand, Rangers are outdoorsmen at heart and they like to share the great outdoors with others and encourage couch-potatos to get outside and take a hike. It may also be that park needs a level of visitors to justify the staffing level. Geocaching generally brings in more visitors. From the Ranger's perspective is that good or bad.

What's the inside story?

February 18, 2005

Oh sure...THAT's a brilliant idea! Can you just imagine this guy's rants if he caught you whizzing on one of HIS sacred sites?

Yep, his sacred site, that I am 100% POSITIVE that not one human throughout known time has ever wizzed there before...

NOT!

Hell, the reason that the site quoted is considered SACRED is that someone's relatives LIVED, ATE, FARMED, PLANTED, DEFICATED AND URINATED THERE BEFORE. That is what usually happens at places where people live. So, the petrified fecal matter remaining is also SACRED, but our bodily wastes are just adding to the Earth's pollution in general. I'm sure. I'm sure that if this guy were to really look at the BIG PICTURE, he could never claim that everyone dead one hundred years or longer had some sort of beneficial impact on the planet, other than their decomposing bodies, assuming they left one.

The real point is this: At one time a native people found that particular spot to be beautiful and bountiful, or a safe place to continue their race/people/existance. The fact that future peoples, regardless of their indiginous-ness would find it equally attractive is not lost on him, since he himself finds it so. Why should the rest of us not be able to appreciate the beauty of that land, assuming we work to maintain that beauty after we leave?

The guy's a dirt muncher... why waste any more breath on him unless he swerves his loyalties towards E.L.F.? Then he becomes a target...

RedwoodRed

February 18, 2005

For a long time I've wondered what the land-management professional's (rangers) view is about geocaching as it relates to an increase in visitors.

Some of our local rangers/park/F&G workers in this area are avid Geocachers. When one of them was at a recent meeting with his 'superiors', the question was asked of the employees, "How do we get more people into the Parks?" This is because increased visitors to the area bring in additional funds that the Parks need for services, etc.

When the employee who is an avid Geocacher replied that the Park Service would do well to embrace Geocachers and encourage that activity, he was told that Geocaches were litter, and that Geocachers as a group are "a problem".

So, the Parks want increased visitors and their money, but not the added traffic... typical Government "Catch-22" beaurocracy.

RedwoodRed

February 19, 2005

Let them be anti-geocachers. It allows me more of the mountain tops that they arent upon when I am there. I get all theat nature and beauty to myself. Oh please do stay home and watch your tv, spend money at your favorite corporation on their tv commercials, get fat, and die young. More for me to enjoy for longer then. :mad:

5.9k · February 24, 2005

I read about this in the NW forums and composed the email below before I saw this thread. After skimming this thread, I think I wasted my time.

Wow, that’s some rant!

I am an avid geocacher and lover of the forests. It wasn’t always that way though. I favored logging and my opinion of the spotted owl was that if it couldn’t adapt to living in a phone pole, it should be allowed to die off as evolution had intended. In the summer of 2001 I started geocaching but became bored with the local parks. I started hiking to far away caches on the trails through forests whose beauty I had never known. I have crested a number of smaller peaks and recently completed a 20+ miler. At 41 years old, I am in great shape thanks to the forests.

I am very pro-forest now. I still hunt and hide geocaches, mostly deep in the forests where few will ever travel. You see, most geocachers are not going to chase down a cache that is more than two miles from the parking lot. Since I have started geocaching I have NEVER seen any of the trails you complain about.

My opinion of nature is not too different than your own. Animals such as the deer and elk also make trails in the forests. Would you ban them from the forests? We are all part of nature, two legs or four. If any of my caches were to cause damage to the forest, I would remove it immediately.

I am sorry to hear that a place special to you has been corrupted, but I do not believe that corruption was caused in any way by geocaching. If the location is as difficult to reach as you say, there will not have been many finders. You are alienating a large group of people who are actually on your side! I hope you can find a way to resolve this issue without such emotional rhetoric.

Chris

February 24, 2005

This author is obviously a paid schill for the global health care/pharmaceutical complex. It is their goal to make outdoor recreation so fraught with regulation and so hard to pursue that people instead choose to sit on their couches or drive in their cars with little physical movement. This increases their potential customer base by creating health problems that eventually translate into profits. <_<

February 24, 2005

This author is obviously a paid schill for the global health care/pharmaceutical complex.

Yeah! "Don't go outside and play! Sit around, get depressed and have your doctor prescribe Zantax/Prozac/your drug of choice here!"

February 24, 2005

Oh my God... I had posted a reply to a similar post in the Northwest board about this same article.. I thought that maybe the cache owner was wrong by putting the cache where he did on (sacred ground?) and voiced an opinion in appeasment of this particular persons spiritual zeal..

Hmm,, Now that I see Jeremy's link to the guys website... I see that he is a politician.. Now, I am thinking that maybe he wrote this article to garner votes... by appealing to a subject that would have mass appeal..

The fact that he is a politician.... Well, lets just say I have an opinion about that ... probably should keep it to myself.. But, that is just about all I needed to know.. Sheesh! <_<

February 24, 2005

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

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

Makes me wish I'd taken a picture of the one at Sam Houston NF. It didn't say "electronic devices" but it did say no aircraft on the trail.

In China our tour got to visit an underground structure that housed one one of the Emporers of China. The sign said had a list items that were forbidden. Amoung them was "firecrackers and explosives". I wish I took a picture of the sign.

February 25, 2005

In China our tour got to visit an underground structure that housed one one of the Emporers of China. The sign said had a list items that were forbidden. Amoung them was "firecrackers and explosives". I wish I took a picture of the sign.

At the Beijing airport, there was a hilarious sign showing pictograms of what you couldn't carry onto the plane. Apparently, AK47s, grenades, switchblades, swords, etc were forbidden.

GeoBC

March 7, 2005

I find it easiest to leave a trail of scorched plants and small woodland creatures. You can eat some of those animals after you get to the cache too.

March 9, 2005

Since they all endanger the environment/habitat, not to mention spiritual values, perhaps it's time to close this "sport" down?

Ha ha little does he know you CANT shut the sport down. Bwaha ha ha ha.

Edit: spelling

Edited March 10, 2005 by Stony2008

March 10, 2005

And then some young upstart caveman started ransacking the wilderness for sticks to build a fire to cook meat.

Another Anti-geocaching Article

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

Join the conversation