Follow-up From Michael Donnelly

[+jeff35080]

http://www.counterpunch.org/donnelly03022005.html

 

Geocaching: A Second Look

 

As a result of many lucid rejoinders from dozens of geocachers (I did note they are techno-literate, if not techno-junkies -- got to drop that word "fetishists," as they really don't like that!), I've found out more about who geocachers are and what they are about and I've softened my stance; though thankfully I did not know about the three caches in the Opal Creek Wilderness when I wrote about the other offending one.

 

But what could be wrong with people getting out and exercising on our public lands, no matter what the motivation? Simple hiking is a lost healthy pleasure these days. And what could be wrong with a group that, while hiking, encourages a policy of Cache In; Trash Out? Just a couple things: Wilderness and other eco-sensitive areas. (The Sacred Nature argument alas is completely dismissed by these folks.)

 

Geocaches are not allowed in designated Wilderness. Why? Well, ALL technologies are off-limits there --- from mountain bikes, to wheel-barrows, to high-tech items. And, nothing is to be taken from or left in the Wilderness. This ethic is under assault from many angles, mostly commercial in nature and most are far greater threats than geocaching.

 

A major element of Wilderness is what one attaboy respondent called "the disconnect." When hiking/camping in a Wilderness Area, one becomes but another warm-blooded mammal, nothing more. Wilderness is a great leveler. You are on your own. Nature treats all the same. That disconnect with the modern, anthropocentric reality of much of the rest of the planet is what most folks are seeking when they visit these lands. Even cell phones get in the way of the disconnect. (Yes, someone also took me to task for opposing cell phone use in Wilderness. I once saw a guy buy a cell phone off a rafter in a different party just to silence it.) Most importantly, that disconnect is also what makes life for the species there so much different than just it being a large, outdoor zoo.

 

Earth First! co-founder Howie Wolke noted that "It's not really Wilderness unless there's something there that can eat you." That level of disconnect is rarely attainable anywhere anymore --- outside the big wild areas of Montana and Alaska. Regardless, we can and must be vigilant on encroachments into typical Wilderness areas in the Lower 48 states.

 

Given that geocaches are not allowed in Wilderness and that conscientious geocachers have no problem with this (some have settled on Virtual Caches), what really remains to be done is this:

 

1)  identify and remove ALL caches in Wilderness Areas (perhaps a team of geocachers could take this on);

 

2) before placing a cache on Multiple Use areas of Public Lands, be sure to consult with the local Rangers as to other concerns about sensitive species, Cultural Sites, etc. The posted Geocaching Rules state that the landowner should be contacted first, but from the responses I got from Wilderness Rangers, it appears that this hasn't been happening with Public Lands;

 

3)  no drive up caches. And, certainly no Off Road Vehicle (ORV) caches.

 

If folks are out there exercising and hauling off trash left by other, less considerate recreationists, I'm all for it.

[+sept1c_tank]

Well, I'll be durn'd.

[+bigredmed]

Still sounds as if he would be happy if folks got on the site and targeted our caches placed in "Wilderness". Not sure if that is a legally defined term or not.

 

Perhaps someone could clarify that term?

[+geobc]

Geocaches are not allowed in designated Wilderness. Why? Well, ALL technologies are off-limits there --- from mountain bikes, to wheel-barrows, to high-tech items. And, nothing is to be taken from or left in the Wilderness. This ethic is under assault from many angles, mostly commercial in nature and most are far greater threats than geocaching.

 

A major element of Wilderness is what one attaboy respondent called "the disconnect." When hiking/camping in a Wilderness Area, one becomes but another warm-blooded mammal, nothing more. Wilderness is a great leveler. You are on your own. Nature treats all the same. That disconnect with the modern, anthropocentric reality of much of the rest of the planet is what most folks are seeking when they visit these lands. Even cell phones get in the way of the disconnect. (Yes, someone also took me to task for opposing cell phone use in Wilderness. I once saw a guy buy a cell phone off a rafter in a different party just to silence it.) Most importantly, that disconnect is also what makes life for the species there so much different than just it being a large, outdoor zoo.

What a ridiculous conceit. I can understand the restriction on motorized vehicles if they are trying to preserve the ecology of specific areas, but to dictate HOW you enjoy the area even when you are not destroying the environment is offensive and speaks volumes about his agenda.

 

Wilderness is not a great leveller if you've got your high-tech clothing, maps, bear spray, compass, and freeze-dried food. He should get off his high horse about people who bring GPS units into the woods. What he is arguing is a matter of degrees. It is HIS particular definition of a wilderness ethic. And his definition is too narrow (and obviously subjective) to be applied to large tracts of public land.

 

GeoBC

[+sbell111]

Where exactly is this wilderness that technology is banned from?

[+jeff35080]

At least he somewhat changed his tune. I'm surprised since the original 'article' was quite extreme.

[ju66l3r]

What he is arguing is a matter of degrees.  It is HIS particular definition of a wilderness ethic.  And his definition is too narrow (and obviously subjective) to be applied to large tracts of public land.

Not really. Here is the NPS page on "Wilderness".

 

http://wilderness.nps.gov/default.cfm

 

Wilderness, as stated by the Wilderness Act of 1964, is "an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain."

 

The idea that was laid out in the Wilderness Act is to have places that are only touched by man when he visits (and even then in a potentially limited way). Leaving a cache there does not jive with the idea behind "Wilderness".

 

I found the FAQ, timeline, and a few other things at the NPS page to be highly informative and to agree on the whole with Mr. Donnelly's comments. I also don't think he's too wrong in his second column. It's good to see that he's come to a better understanding of geocaching. It's a shame more people here won't necessarily come to better understand his goal for "Wilderness" areas.

Edited March 2, 2005 by ju66l3r

[+sbell111]

There is nothing new to this. No caches have been allowed on NPS land for years.

[+Renegade Knight]

Caches have a longstanding history in all remote lands.

 

There is no such thing as wilderness. Only a land use designation. This summer my brother in law won a contract to build cabins. They would be placed in Wilderness (or at least more wild than our lower 48 wilderness) for use as emergency shelters.

 

However I'll give the guy a thumbs up. We still may not agree but he does show the ability to listen and learn and that's more than a lot.

[+Greymane]

I would certainly not consider myself a tree-hugger. I am somewhat nature minded and have planted thousands (yes, thousands) of trees in my time, but I encourage the use natural areas. I have done rock climbing and horseback riding in many parts of the country. That said, do we really need to have caches EVERYWHERE? I think there is enough latitude in most areas that we can leave this one haven untouched.

 

(I now step off my soapbox.)

[+carleenp]

That is much better than his first piece.

[+sbell111]

...I think there is enough latitude in most areas that we can leave this one haven untouched.

Latitude, I get it it. We play a game using coords. Hahahaha.

 

Seriously, though. I'm not at all clear what this wilderness is. Is it the wilderness that is managed by NPS? If so, we all understand that caches are verboten. If it is just some tree-filled area that is not regulated, then I don't see why I can't leave a box of trinks there.

[+YuccaPatrol]

I can only assume that if "ALL technologies" are banned from wilderness areas that this guy follows the law and enters such areas completely naked since even a zipper is a sort of modern technology.

 

And certainly no portable water purifiers for this guy, he drinks the water straight from the stream regardless of an parasites that it might contain, because, it's not really wilderness if there is not something there that can eat/kill/harm you.

[+welch]

.

 

(the search button answered)

Edited March 2, 2005 by welch

[magellan315]

I have to admit unlike some the past nature types who have posted here and then moved on, at least this guy is a lot more open minded and willing to engage in some sort of rational discourse. Yes he would still like to see Geoaches removed from areas he considers "wilderness", but other than that he is willing to see caches placed as long as we get permission and avoid placing them in sensitive areas.

 

At least on some level he understands what the appeal is towards Geocahing and that we also try to act as responibsles stewards of the land through the concept of CITO.

[ju66l3r]

I can only assume that if "ALL technologies" are banned from wilderness areas that this guy follows the law and enters such areas completely naked since even a zipper is a sort of modern technology.

 

And certainly no portable water purifiers for this guy, he drinks the water straight from the stream regardless of an parasites that it might contain, because, it's not really wilderness if there is not something there that can eat/kill/harm you.

Replacing his view with an extreme variation and then declaring it absurd/hypocritical/wrong does nothing to further the discussion and is no different than what was so obnoxious and incorrect about Mr. Donnelly's first piece on geocaching.

[+sbell111]

I disagree. The suggestion that everyone who goes into the wilderness must do so without technology of any kind is silly, imo.

[+sept1c_tank]

I can only assume that if "ALL technologies" are banned from wilderness areas that this guy follows the law and enters such areas completely naked since even a zipper is a sort of modern technology.

I can tell you that when I enter a wilderness area, I at least wear a loin cloth.

[+zcubed]

I can tell you that when I enter a wilderness area, I at least wear a loin cloth.

As long as that loin cloth was cut with a flint rock and sewed with a bone needle!

[+bigredmed]

I can only assume that if "ALL technologies" are banned from wilderness areas that this guy follows the law and enters such areas completely naked since even a zipper is a sort of modern technology.

I can tell you that when I enter a wilderness area, I at least wear a loin cloth.

You had to use technology to make the loin cloth, therefore you violated the no technology rule.

 

Naked, weapon less, tool less, etc. Then you are really technology free. Of course the knowledge in your head comes from technology and will help you fashion tools from the surrounding plants and animals, therefore you will have to have some sort of a lobotomy before entering the wilderness or risk turning it into a factory for more technology.......

 

Seriously, as others have said, NPS land is off limits. For all their straining at gnats, the pharisees in charge of the National Parks will allow SUV's pulling mobile homes full of mountain climbers to come into the parks and hammer steel spikes into cliff faces, but will not let us leave an ammo can behind. As long as this is the state of affairs, we are not going to be putting caches in these areas.

 

If this is what he is worried about, then we can agree to disagree about the relative wisdom of the NPS and not bother him with our caches. As others have said, though, ecofascists are "camel's nose" kind of people. Give them this and pretty soon they will be regulating BLM land away from us, then state parks, and then urban parks, etc.

Edited March 2, 2005 by bigredmed

[+sept1c_tank]

I can tell you that when I enter a wilderness area, I at least wear a loin cloth.   

As long as that loin cloth was cut with a flint rock and sewed with a bone needle!

But wouldn't a flint rock and bone needle also be "technology," just from a different era?

[+sbell111]

At least the mountain lions will be well fed.

[+sept1c_tank]

OK. So I kill an animal with my bare hands, rip the pelt from the carcass, leave it to dry in the sun and tie it around my waist with a grapevine. But still, isn't the very idea of covering my naked body a "technology," a social technology?

 

I think the concept of technology itself is a type of technical progress for humanity.

 

Now, what about the sea otter (and other animals) that have evolved to using tools, or "technology" to exist? Do we ban them from wilderness areas?

 

Is the use of fire for heat, light or cooking technology?

 

I guess I'm more of a "techie" than I thought.

[+briansnat]

The idea that was laid out in the Wilderness Act is to have places that are only touched by man when he visits (and even then in a potentially limited way). Leaving a cache there does not jive with the idea behind "Wilderness".

 

Sorry bud. You and Mr. Donnelly have it wrong. A wilderness area is nothing more than a political designation and the land designated as a wilderness area is often no different than the land just outside its boundaries. It's not necessarily more sensitive. It's not necessarily more pristine. It's not necessarily more wild.

 

Unfortunately your concept of a wilderness area doesn't jib with the Wilderness Act of 1964, which allows for the grazing of livestock, mining, prospecting, drilling, building roads, erecting power lines and dams. Other accepted uses include hunting, horsepacking, camping, backpacking and "treasure hunting" . Comparatively, geocaching is quite benign.

 

Some passages of the act to note:

Except as otherwise provided in this Act, wilderness areas shall be devoted to the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use.

 

Nothing in this Act shall prevent within national forest wilderness areas any activity, including prospecting, for the purpose of gathering information about mineral or other resources, if such activity is carried on in a manner compatible with the preservation of the wilderness environment.

Edited March 3, 2005 by briansnat

[+CacheKestrel]

Just wanted to thank those who took the time to 'educate' Michael Donnelly as to what GeoCaching is all about.

 

Ignorance is the enemy!

 

I think that protecting the natural environment is a noble cause, but to single out GeoCachers as a threat is more then misguided, it’s damaging. GeoCachers could become allies for this effort. The appreciation for the “Sacred Nature” that many of us cherish is a common thread.

 

The responsible use of technology is not a threat to the Wilderness but provides more people the chance to experience what makes it special. Wilderness areas are vulnerable to political decisions that ignore the needs of this natural environment.

Edited March 3, 2005 by CacheKestrel

[+WARedBear]

Well, ALL technologies are off-limits there --- from mountain bikes, to wheel-barrows, to high-tech items.

 

So I guess a guy with a pace maker can't take a walk in the park and enjoy the scenery because of the "technical" pump in his chest. Sorry...

[+1stimestar]

First, a bit of back ground:

 

Denali, the "High One," is the name Athabascan native people gave the massive peak that crowns the 600-mile-long Alaska Range. Denali is also the name of an immense national park and preserve created from the former Mount McKinley National Park. In 1917 Mount McKinley National Park was established as a game refuge. The park and the massif including North America’s highest peak were named for former senator – later President – William McKinley. In 1980, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) enlarged the boundary by 4 million acres and redesignated it as Denali National Park and Preserve. It exemplifies interior Alaska’s character as one of the world’s last great frontiers, its wilderness is largely unspoiled.

 

This increased land also contains active mines owned by individuals. You can bet they are using what ever technology they can afford. Also, here is the gear checklist for back country permits into the wilderness. When I was applying for mine last year the ranger asked if I had a gps or compass as they recommend having "something". I didn't bring my gps but did have my compass.

 

Backcountry: gear checklist

The following equipment is highly recommended when venturing out into Denali's backcountry:

 

Equipment

 

Hiking boots (waterproofed) and wool socks

Neoprene socks and gaiters for river crossings

Rain parka and pants (ponchos not recommended)

Polypropylene, nylon, or wool clothing (avoid cotton). Be prepared for temperatures ranging from 30 ºto 80 ºF (-1 ºto 27 º C) in the summer months

Stove, fuel, cookware and water bottles

Water filter (preferably equipped with silt stopper device)

Compass and map (maps available at Visitor Access Center)

Toilet paper and trowel

Tent with rain fly and waterproof floor (bivouacking is not recommended)

Sleeping bag and pad (for any overnight summer trip, protection to 20 º F (-7 º C) is suggested)

Insect repellent and/or head net

Emergency gear, such as first aid kit, knife, and a signaling device such as a whistle, signal mirror, or flare

Large plastic or waterproof bags to protect the gear inside your pack

 

 

All sorts of technology is recommended and I don't think anyone will claim that there is any place under the US flag that is more wild then we have here...

 

Edited to add a link to the map which shows Denali National Park Wilderness and the additions of the land marked Denali National Park, and Denali National Preserve. Notice that Denali National Park Wilderness is where the one road through the park is, the ranger and visitors' centers, the regulated camp grounds are... http://data2.itc.nps.gov/parks/dena/ppMaps/denamap01%2Epdf

Edited March 3, 2005 by 1stimestar

[+Ambrosia]

Give them this and pretty soon they will be regulating BLM land away from us, then state parks, and then urban parks, etc.

This is already starting to happen.

[+briansnat]

Well, ALL technologies are off-limits there

 

This is just plain untrue. He's either making this up, or misinformed.

[+Bob Blaylock]

I can tell you that when I enter a wilderness area, I at least wear a loin cloth.   

As long as that loin cloth was cut with a flint rock and sewed with a bone needle!

  Cutting and sewing, and in fact, any use of — or creation of — tools, is technology.

[+One of the Texas Vikings]

First, a bit of back ground:

 

Denali, the "High One," is the name Athabascan native people gave the massive peak that crowns the 600-mile-long Alaska Range. Denali is also the name of an immense national park and preserve created from the former Mount McKinley National Park.

 

It is also the name of a 4wd !

[+Snoogans]

FINE.

 

But he can KMA on this one:

3)  no drive up caches. And, certainly no Off Road Vehicle (ORV) caches.

 

My ORV caches are in ORV designated areas. This weiner needs to do some more homework.

[+Snoogans]

Well, ALL technologies are off-limits there

 

This is just plain untrue. He's either making this up, or misinformed.

Amen.

 

Except for last year when I got sick on vacation, I have spent at LEAST 10 days (sometimes more than 20) camping in designated wilderness areas every year for the last 17 years.

 

I have personal caches in those areas dating back to the 80's, but I digress.

 

I can't tell you how much trash and barbed wire and other remnants of technology are left behind by the pack stock trade. These people ruin the wilderness for those of us who get there on our own power. But I can't list a friggin' ammo can. Pa-lease!!!

 

The whole wilderness argument is a load of carp to me and probably to a few others who ACTUALLY go there.

[+ytimk]

Well, ALL technologies are off-limits there --- from mountain bikes, to wheel-barrows, to high-tech items.

 

Well, I guess if you have to use a wheelchair you are not allowed to go out and enjoy the 'wilderness'?

[+CYBret]

Does anyone else have the feeling that Mr. Donnelly just told us all to go to hell, but did it in a way that made us think we'd enjoy the trip?

 

He's still playing by his own rules with his own agenda. It's his wilderness and if we don't play right he'll take his trees and go home.

 

Bret

[+wadel]

It amazes me that people fret and froth at the mouth at the thought of an ammo can hidden out in a wilderness area that might be found 5 times per year. However, the string of pack horses that leave road apples every 25 feet, muddy up the trail beyond belief when wet and then trample huge sections of meadows are A-OK. In the overall picture of things that are allowed in designated wilderness areas, geocaching is one of the lowest impact items. There is even a push to start a new mine in the Cabinets Wilderness Area. An ammo can seems a little petty in comparison.

 

My opinion is true of wilderness areas around central/northern Idaho. This may not be true elsewhere.

[+AtoZ]

Other then this guy is some what idealistic he has NO idea what he is talking about:ALL technologies are off-limits there No where does it state that technology is banned in Wilderness areas. It states that activities taht leave long term marks mof mans presents are banned. Motor vechiles etc with some exceptions oare banned. So what is hi point other then he has a typewriter/computer and can publish an editorial or article???

 

cheers

[+ICHTHYS]

Here is an interesting article to go along with this discussion, and a website to get additional information:

 

http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/issues..._wilderness.pdf

 

http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm

 

Also, no technology allowed?

 

Fish & Wildlife Service - Refuge Manual 6 RM 8 - “Wilderness Area Management” 5/8/86

 

Section: 8.9 A: Public Use Guidelines

 

Text:

Congress has indicated that wilderness areas are to be set aside for the use and enjoyment of the public. A wide variety of activities, such as hiking, bird watching, hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography are permissible, but not mandated, in wilderness areas. Wilderness areas may be closed to all public use if such use is determined to be incompatible with refuge purposes. Where public use is permitted, the possibility of serious damage to the wilderness resource through overuse exists. Habitats that recover slowly from damage, such as desert and tundra, must be identified and protected from overuse. Excessive public use of sensitive areas or small units, particularly those located in populated areas, may warrant special regulations to limit the number of visitors or the duration of visits. Generally, this can be accomplished through a permit or registration system.

 

Cameras are technology aren't they?

Edited March 3, 2005 by Team VanderTroll-BR

[+geobc]

What he is arguing is a matter of degrees.  It is HIS particular definition of a wilderness ethic.  And his definition is too narrow (and obviously subjective) to be applied to large tracts of public land.

Not really. Here is the NPS page on "Wilderness".

 

http://wilderness.nps.gov/default.cfm

 

Wilderness, as stated by the Wilderness Act of 1964, is "an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain."

 

The idea that was laid out in the Wilderness Act is to have places that are only touched by man when he visits (and even then in a potentially limited way). Leaving a cache there does not jive with the idea behind "Wilderness".

He specifically made the connection between "wilderness" (not the official act, but his wilderness ethic) and "ALL technologies":

 

Geocaches are not allowed in designated Wilderness. Why? Well, ALL technologies are off-limits there --- from mountain bikes, to wheel-barrows, to high-tech items. And, nothing is to be taken from or left in the Wilderness. This ethic is under assault from many angles, mostly commercial in nature and most are far greater threats than geocaching.

 

A major element of Wilderness is what one attaboy respondent called "the disconnect." When hiking/camping in a Wilderness Area, one becomes but another warm-blooded mammal, nothing more. Wilderness is a great leveler. You are on your own. Nature treats all the same. That disconnect with the modern, anthropocentric reality of much of the rest of the planet is what most folks are seeking when they visit these lands. Even cell phones get in the way of the disconnect. (Yes, someone also took me to task for opposing cell phone use in Wilderness. I once saw a guy buy a cell phone off a rafter in a different party just to silence it.) Most importantly, that disconnect is also what makes life for the species there so much different than just it being a large, outdoor zoo.

 

He went on to use a cell phone as an example, a technology that leaves no impact on the wilderness.

 

THAT is a matter of degrees, since I reasonably assume that he is using some technologies when he is entering a wilderness area. These are precisely the kinds of people I fear influencing land management decisions because their agendas are so extreme and heavily based on spiritual beliefs. Likewise, I don't like resource companies heavily influencing land management either. Contrary to popular thinking, the two extremes do not balance each other out. What we are seeing in my area is dirt roads gated to prevent public use. Some are gated by land preservationists who only want hikers to enter an area (even though the dirt roads have existed there for a hundred years or more), others are gated by logging companies "temporarily" so they can go about their operations without fear of vandalism and for their own convenience (less hassle for them if they don't have to worry about public traffic).

 

Meanwhile, the taxpayers and owners of public land are left with dwindling recreational areas, areas which now see heavier use which leads to over-use problems and additional closures.

 

GeoBC

[+justybug]

does the map used to get him to these natural areas count towards the tech no-no he espouses??

or does he walk in from his mud hut by the river bank, 3 days walk away...

can't we all just get along???

i am glad to see he altered his viewpoint somewhat, but the whole "my agenda is more important than yours" thing, ack....

when he goes into his Sacred Nature rituals, are they CITO'ing on the way out? are they using flint and steel to light the sweetgrass smudge?

[magellan315]

In original article when he started talking about sacred rituals I really thought a cache had been placed on an indian reservation or an area used by local indians for their religious ceremonies.

[ju66l3r]

THAT is a matter of degrees, since I reasonably assume that he is using some technologies when he is entering a wilderness area. These are precisely the kinds of people I fear influencing land management decisions because their agendas are so extreme and heavily based on spiritual beliefs. Likewise, I don't like resource companies heavily influencing land management either. Contrary to popular thinking, the two extremes do not balance each other out. What we are seeing in my area is dirt roads gated to prevent public use. Some are gated by land preservationists who only want hikers to enter an area (even though the dirt roads have existed there for a hundred years or more), others are gated by logging companies "temporarily" so they can go about their operations without fear of vandalism and for their own convenience (less hassle for them if they don't have to worry about public traffic).

 

Meanwhile, the taxpayers and owners of public land are left with dwindling recreational areas, areas which now see heavier use which leads to over-use problems and additional closures.

Agreed. I think his position is extreme when it comes to public land management, wild or otherwise. But what I tend to agree with him on is that there should be areas where we just don't tread much at all. While people in this topic are quick to point out mining/logging as example of the allowances of the Wilderness Act for geocaching, those allowances in the actual Act are governmental bastardizations of the ideal. "Sure, we can't shut out the industries that donate to we who actually enacted the legislation to protect these areas...so we write in that it's Wilderness (except when companies want to use it)." That's not justification for geocaching, that's political corruption of a worthy ideal.

 

I think the ideal is a good one. Let's take some land and put it aside and not use it for anything other than letting it be to visit on rare occasion (with our zippers and first aid kits) and let's look around and see "the wild". There will be people who go further and claim that GPS is against this idea of "the wild" and there will be people who go in the other direction and claim that they can mine an area and it'll still be "the wild". But I'd prefer to err on the side of "the wild" and not want to put an ammo can or tupperware behind a tree in "the wild" just as I'd not want a company to set up shop in one and just as I'd not want someone to ask me to leave my belt buckle and shoelaces at the gatehouse.

[dsandbro]

After mulling this post over for a day I decided to add my 2 cents (and still get change).

 

He has too many inconsistencies in 'his' definition of Wilderness. He references the spiritual values, but don't most people find spirituality everywhere? Either you have spiritual values or you do not. They do not magically manifest themselves in you only if you cross a Wilderness boundary, an arbitrary line on a map that means nothing to nature. If one needs to travel great distances in a Wilderness area to find spiritual respite, then I would question whether you have found any spirituality at all.

 

He quotes that it is not truly wilderness unless there is something there that can eat you. Under that criteria central Antarctica is not wilderness because there are no large predators there. Around here there are mountain lions. Mountain lions are found where there is prey, and prey is found in greater quantities in the areas that have had timber harvests. So the mountain lions are predominantly seen in the harvested areas. I do not recall ever seeing one deep in the wilderness. So under his definition, logging creates wilderness.

 

He talks of escaping technology, but as many others pointed out no one goes hiking anymore without technology of some level. He has created artificial categories of acceptable and non-acceptable technologies. He has no more right to establish preferences and ideals for others than I do for him. The Wilderness Act allows personal electronic devices and GPS is firmly in that classification.

 

And what is the greater wilderness impact -- seeing a group of neon-colored people bobbing along a trail in the latest designer gear or a well camouflaged cache that is hard to find when you have the coordinates and are actively searching for it? He presumes a lot if he thinks everyone shares his values and he is the arbiter of what is sacred. He is more enamored with the mythical ideal of Wilderness than the reality of Wilderness, and he is unable to discern the difference.

[+geospotter]

13 states will issue you a permit to drill for oil in a wilderness area.

 

Hmmm....

Edited March 3, 2005 by geospotter

[dsandbro]

13 states will issue you a permit to drill for oil in a wilderness area.

 

Hmmm....

Mineral rights on federal land are not controlled by the states. They are controlled by the BLM, regardless of whether it is national forest or BLM public lands. If the mineral rights were retained prior to the legislation creating the Wilderness, then the rights still exist. Mineral rights inside a Wilderness may or may not be transferable. You have to check the wording of the specific legislation that created that particular Wilderness.

 

The federal law that facilitated oil and gas exploration on federal lands, and exempted the exploration from many of the environmental studies that are required for other projects, was signed into law in 1996 by [GASP!] President Bill Clinton. Bush is merely following one of clinton's environmental policies.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

While it is nice to see that there is a more rational response this time, he still has a long way to go, as he has not addressed many of the complete untruths that were stated in his original post, like that part about all geocaches being harmful to the environment(sp?), when in truth the vast majority of caches are in urban areas.

 

The part I really love is to wonder how they found that cache he was complaining about anyway, if it was so far off the existing path, they would not have found it.

 

One other point, for any spiritually motivated person going to the sacred site in question,

"What the hell is this?" rang out.

this type of outburst would be strictly out of line, and I doubt it actually occured, and with all the lies we know were in his first rantings, I don't know if I can bring myself to believe any of the other things he says, such as that story about the rafters cell phone.

[+briansnat]

...like that part about all geocaches being harmful to the environment(sp?), when in truth the vast majority of caches are in urban areas.

 

Whether they're in an urban area, wilderness area or in between, I reject the idea that geocaches are inherently harmul to the envrionment.

[Azaruk]

Whether they're in an urban area, wilderness area or in between, I reject the idea that geocaches are inherently harmul to the envrionment.

 

On that note - we work closely with wilderness and reserve management and staff to ensure that our caches are hidden in areas with no adverse effect on the environment.

 

The only time we place caches within vegetation off the trail, it is in 'alien' vegetation. There is massive effort in these areas at the moment to eradicate alien vegetation, so park/reserve management are happy for us to destroy it completely!!!

 

Because we have made it a point to work closely with the authorities, we enjoy a great deal of support from them and often get calls telling us that their staff have discovered a new place that would be ideal to place a cache in!

 

Now that is a great collaboration and, imho, shows that our caches are extremely "environment friendly".

[+Robespierre]

"I've softened my stance" does not impress me. As I stated elsewhere, I think he should have to write 100 times on the board, "I'm a complete Ninny with such a high opinion of himself that he does not need to have his facts straight. I am worse than Rush Limbaugh, my new idol."