Page 1 of 2

Geocache haters

Posted: 15 February 05 9:42 am
by The Garner Family
http://www.counterpunch.org/donnelly02142005.html

Articles like this really get me annoyed.

Hundreds of miles of sloppy, illegal trails have been carved to geocaching sites. And it's not like these GPS users don't have a lot of other tech fetishes that they also bring along.

The authors main complaint is that their 'secret' sacred site which they visit every year has become popular. The author seems to believe that only those 'in the know' should be able to visit sites like this and that its location shouldn't be published anywhere, least of all to a bunch of 'knuckleheads' like geocachers.

I believe that 'knuckleheads' come in all varieties and that wilderness belongs to everyone. Sure, we all should respect the areas that we visit & the geocachers creed is to leave stuff as it is, but spiritualists are just as likely to ruin a site like this as geocachers are... the only difference is the numbers.

If Michael Donnelly truly cared about this site he'd be looking for a way for everyone to enjoy it.... all his article shows is his abbsolute selfishness.

Posted: 15 February 05 11:05 am
by GEK
I loved the line about technology being prohibited in the wilderness.

"Ooooh, the evil satellite demons are coming to haunt our sacred site. All those harmful electromagnetic rays will kill all the furry animals and corrupt the wilderness"

What a dork! I'd love to know what this so-called sacred site is. Probably somewhere for him and his hippy mates to smoke pot and play drums.

Hey, hang on. That sounds like fun.

Posted: 15 February 05 12:17 pm
by orac7000
Upon reading his article, it appears that the site in question is a sacred site for indigenous North Americans. No probs, all they had to do was ask that the cache be moved. We are not perfect, maybe the placer did not realize the significance of the site. We have the same thing down here in Tassie, we do not place caches in the wilderness parks, for the same "human pollution" reasons. <br>
(flameproofsuit on) The last line says it all tho, he is a tree hugging greenie ACTIVIST (the kind that give your average enviromentaly concious greenie a bad name!) (flameproofsuit off)<br>
He does not say that he is a member of this group, just that he goes with them!!<br>
He hates the technology, but uses the internet to complain about it.<br>
Which bit of "GET A LIFE" can't he understand.

Posted: 15 February 05 12:24 pm
by Cached
-- that being the intrusion of technology in Wilderness and the loss of wildness that results. Cell phone use in Wilderness is another component. The use of 3-D mapping to preview your "Wilderness Adventure" is another example.
How does using a cell phone in the Wilderness cause a problem?

How does previewing a 3D map cause a problem?

A nutter, I'm sure.

Posted: 15 February 05 12:49 pm
by ian-and-penny
The author has got a fair point. If it's a sacred site the cache should be moved.

- BUT -

The author should contact GC.com not bleat about it all over the internet. After all Jeremy should have "Guidelines" that cover this sort of eventuality (hasn't he??)

Posted: 15 February 05 12:56 pm
by maccamob
There are well over 100,000 people playing the game worldwide," said Bryan Roth, who handles business development at Groundspeak, a Seattle company that runs the game.
And it's not like these GPS users don't have a lot of other tech fetishes that they also bring along. Off Road Vehicle (ORV) trails have been gouged in to some sites, as well. ORV use on Public Lands has risen from 5 million users in 1972 to over 40 million today.
In 2002, we had more than 214 million visits, including 12.7 million wilderness visits.
He shoots down his own argument with his statistics. It's not the <b>100,000</b> cachers (world wide) who are responsible for the large increase in wilderness use, as can be seen by his own citing of the <b>40 million</b> 'ORV' users on Public lands in the US, or the <b>12.7 million</b> wilderness visits. Cachers are just an easily identifiable and topical target to use as a scapegoat.

Posted: 15 February 05 12:57 pm
by EcoTeam
The same argument is being debated about publishing guidebooks for the canyons in the Blue Mountains, and the "hoards" of extra people it draws. They claim it ruins the eco-system etc, yet every study done proves that it actually has negnigable impact on the ecosystem.

These people are just plain nutters. It's OK for them to go in, as of course they make ZERO impact :roll:, but it's not ok to share with the other kiddies who make ALL the impact.

EcoDave :)

Posted: 15 February 05 1:18 pm
by Rabbitto
Although I also agree he has way over-reacted, there is one point that we should take on board, which is - The placement and hunt for caches in environmentally sensitive areas. We have all seen the "Cache Highway" that leads you to GZ if you are about tenth in line to a relatively new cache. In most cases, this is not too much of a problem in long grass or weeds, but in a fern gully this can cause a fair bit of damage.

In our early days, we placed a cache in an area like this and although it was right next to the track, it was fairly well hidden and many cachers unable to find it from the track started to divert a few metres off to search other possible areas. Within a couple of weeks a fair bit of damage was done, which we were unaware of until we were emailed by a later finder. We changed the cache description immediately to state that you would not need to leave the track and put a fairly obvious clue to avoid further damage. The mistake was ours as it is finders nature is to widen the search as hiding places are dismissed. Especially if reception is poor.

Basically in areas such as this, as hiders we need to make sure that finders know that the cache is accessible from a track and as finders have faith that hiders will have done just that. If we find any exceptions to the rule we need to actively encourage the change. In this way we can keep our sport respected in Australia and not give writers of the above article ammunition.

In general, I think we do fairly well but with an increasing number of people coming into the sport, we need to keep vigilant.

Posted: 15 February 05 1:49 pm
by Dingbats
Hear hear Rabbitto.

Posted: 15 February 05 2:44 pm
by Lt. Sniper
If its so sacred then why the hell is he taking a group there, what a lot of crap, he has no idea about anything. As someone mentioned he gives normal activist a bad name, what a tool, what a nut, what an idiot!

Posted: 15 February 05 2:55 pm
by Geof
A lesson that can be gained from this is:
Think what muggles will make of your log entrys should they find a cache.

They have some valid points but I think they went a bit over the top.

Posted: 15 February 05 3:09 pm
by Lt. Sniper
Thats kid muggles

Posted: 15 February 05 4:22 pm
by GEK
I tried to work out what cache he could possibly be talking about and failed miserably. No one has been able to work it out on the gc.com forums either, although he gives enough hints in his article to identify the general region. Also, the cacher names he mentions from the log books don't seem to exist on gc.com

So I'm guessing either
a) This was not a gc.com sanctioned geocache
or
b) He comes from the Michael Moore school of left-wing propagandists and he invented a plausible but ultimately bogus story.

I'm going with b) because like Moore, his hails from Flint, Michigan. And he is a politician too so I think it's time we gave this drivel the respect it deserves.

i.e. None

GEK

Posted: 15 February 05 4:29 pm
by Cached
I tried in vain to locate the Quotes from Silver - the website is there - but be buggered if I can find the quote.

Googled it as well to no avail.

Posted: 15 February 05 5:02 pm
by xf king
This guy has gone right over the top. I cannot believe that some people cannot just email the geocaching site and ask for the cache to be removed. As Iam sure that 99.9 cachers would kindly do so.

I agree with rabbittos words about caches hidden in fern gullies. I have seen the damage done and sometimes myself I'm hesitant to place caches too far off tracks for that very reason. In all my upcoming caches I will be leaving my email address behind for removal. Or if it needs instant removal just to email me and tell the reason why. I wont get mad, and I surly hope I wont have to deal with a bloke that goes public about it.

Burial sites, sacred sites and graveyards are also a no go list for my caches, and if I ever go out and do such caches I would be very careful of where I thread....