Backpacker Magazine Poll

[ktroxell72]

In a recent post I posed the question as to whether bushwhacking for caches damages the environment. The April 2008 edition of Backpacker Magazine takes the question a step further; Does Geocaching Violate Leave No Trace?

 

An online poll conducted by the magazine found 42% who believed geocaching does violate leave no trace and 58% who said it does not. (I could not find the orignal link to the poll).

 

The magazine poll asked if these hidden containers are harmless, or do they flout low-impact ethics?

 

One of the statements by those against leaving the caches behind said "even if every geocacher removed a ton of trash from the wilderness areas, it doesn't erase the fact that they deliberately left a box filled with toys behind."

 

Do you think geocaching violates leave no trace?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Do you think geocaching violates leave no trace?

Yes, if "Leave No Trace" is strictly interpreted... As does most of the rest of human activity.

 

Is geocaching's violation of Leave No Trace concepts flagrant and damaging to the ecology? No.

[+Renegade Knight]

When I read up on Leave no Trace I found out that LNT violates it's own ideas on what's best for the environment.

 

As for the box left behind. All caches are temporary.

Just like backpackers bring in a pack full of crap and then remove it later, so does geocaching. The only difference is the time scale.

 

Caching is a casual land use well within the ethics of preserving our lands for both our enjoyment and the enjoyment of future generations.

[+DavidMac]

Do you think geocaching violates leave no trace?

 

No. Irresponsible geocachers violate leave no trace. As do irresponsible backpackers, hikers, hunters, campers, frisbee golf players, etc. There are bad apples in any activity.

[+carleenp]

I think that geocaching does violate a literal interpretation of leave no trace, but then so does just about any outdoor activity. The bigger question is should anyone care about literal/strict interpretations of it? I know that such interpretations of leave no trace do not persuade me that there is something wrong with my choices in geocache locations.

[+Stargazer22]

Do you think geocaching violates leave no trace?

 

Only if the geocacher leaves a copy of Backpacker Magazine in the woods!

 

But seriously, I think the intent of leave no trace is not to cause any serious ecological damage to the environment. I don't think geocaching does that.

 

Irresponsible geocachers, as well as hikers, bikers, equestrians, etc... are the ones that truly violate leave no trace. Not only are geocaches eventually proven to be temporary, they are camoflaged so as to not draw attention. If you can stand within 10 feet of the cache and not even see it, I don't see how that has any serious impact on the environment.

Edited March 6, 2008 by Stargazer22

[+StarBrand]

Taken in the strictest sense - walking through the woods and brushing up against the vegitation is a violation of "leave no trace".

 

Are the vast majority of Geocachers out to destroy "nature" - absolutley not. I would strongly argue that many of our activites is good use of the natual environment.

 

Humans can and do affect the environment - as do moose, deer, beaver, trees etc......

 

Reasonably minimize the effect is best we can do.

[+Knight2000]

ehhh.

 

If we act responsible while geocaching then things are better after we leave than before we get there.

 

Lets not get crazy with trying to examine everything over and over again.

[+nikcap]

ehhh.

 

...

 

Well said.

 

I always leave a cache site with trash and garbage that other people left behind, does that off-set the trace I'm leaving?

Edited March 6, 2008 by ekitt10

[+Mule Ears]

Maybe the question is meant as a Zen kōan, you know, like what is the sound of one hand clapping?

 

If a hiker leaves an object that is hidden from sight, has he left a trace?

[Trinity's Crew]

Maybe I could buy some cache offset credits. Better yet, maybe I could start selling them!

[+briansnat]

Technically everything we do violates LNT.

[+J-Way]

If you get permission to place the cache, then no. Unless you also consider permanent trash cans, shelters, privies, bridges, hard-packed trails, and steps (down a steep slope) to also violate LNT. You are leaving something, but it is something that enhances the usability of the land and increases the enjoyment of some people who come after you.

 

If you do NOT get permission, then you're littering.

[+nekom]

As far as I'm concerned `leave no trace' is hippie garbage. The earth isn't some living creature that we need to pay tribute to, and we don't owe the earth ANYTHING. We do, however, owe it to our children to take care of the place.

 

Geocaching has less negative impact on the environment than riding quads, fishing, hunting, pretty much anything else people do. Littering is of course unacceptable for cachers, and picking up litter is very much encouraged, but I'll make no apologies for breaking a few twigs or trampling some grass.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I'm curious as to why a geocacher with no finds feels the need to ask the same question twice in such rapid succession.

 

I'm also curious as to the relevance of asking backpackers about geocaching... Though I've done my share of backpacking. I've hiked half of the AT. I'm also a trail maintainer. I could write a book about the trash I've hauled out! Some very strange stuff. 1 black sandal, black, very small. 1 pair men's boxers, blue. 1 baseball bat. &c.

Hey! Let's poll geocachers about the impact that backpackers make on the environment.

So, to answer your question: IMHO, Geocachers are no worse at leaving no trace than backpackers. Few geocachers set up camp in the woods, crushing the groundcover. Few geocachers need to dig cat holes.

Now, compare geocachers and backpackers to snowmobilers/ATV riders, hunters, and day-trippers. (Wasn't a geocacher who left the beer ball on my trail! Nor the Dos Equis bottles.) And I think you'll find that geocachers and backpackers are more environmentally friendly than most of the people out there in the woods.

[+briansnat]

I'm curious as to why a geocacher with no finds feels the need to ask the same question twice in such rapid succession

 

Yeah, I'm starting to smell "hidden agenda".

 

Hey! Let's poll geocachers about the impact that backpackers make on the environment.

 

As a backpacker myself, the impact I've seen on the environment by backpackers has been quite extensive in many areas. To compare it with the impact of geocaching is like comparing the impact of a Mack truck with that of a ping pong ball.

 

I could write a book about the trash I've hauled out! Some very strange stuff. 1 black sandal, black, very small. 1 pair men's boxers, blue. 1 baseball bat. &c.

 

...and that was just from inside the caches

Edited March 7, 2008 by briansnat

[ktroxell72]

Harry Dolphin, they are actually two different topics. Possible damage from bushwhacking is not the same thing as leave no trace behind. As I explained before, the reason I have no finds is that whereissit is my alter ego. When I first signed up for geocacching.com I used my real name as my username. So I came up with a different name for the forum to protect my identity, just as you have done. Unless your last name is Dolphin. And Briansnat, I have no agenda other then to discuss the issues. And I was not on the grassy knoll either, leave the conspiracy theories to the Warren Commission.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Ah! A sock puppet account!

[Tahosa and Sons]

Well all I can say is that I am a certifed trainer of LNT priniciples.

 

So lets look at what LNT.ORG has to say.

Mission Statement:

The Leave No Trace Center for Outdoor Ethics is an educational, nonprofit organization dedicated to the responsible enjoyment and active stewardship of the outdoors by all people, worldwide.

 

Further on in their website they state: Leave No Trace is best understood as an educational and ethical program, not as a set of rules and regulations.

 

And look here to see who some of their corporate sponsors are and you will find a link to Groundspeak. So that would imply that cachers do support the ethical principles of LNT. And do you think all of those other sponsors would tell us to stay home leave the environment alone and stay on the couch, I don't think so.

 

I've been caching for over 6 years and have many fine caches in some very pristine backcountry here in CO, and I do not believe we are in any way harming the enviroronment. I've spent the last 8 seasons as a volunteer backcountry ranger for the USFS and have seen more damage done by mountain bikers, campers, hikers, hunters and none by cachers.

[+CYBret]

I've spent the better part of my life wandering around in the woods for one reason or another. It's either been hunting, fishing, hiking, caching or just plain goofing off.

 

In all those situations I've observed a lot of trash that just "happens" to be there. I've never witnessed it being left...it just shows up! Beer cans, fast food wrappers, bottles, cigarette packages. They're all over the place. I've never been with anyone when they threw them there. It's odd...who's leaving this stuff?

 

I'm guessing that's how most of us are. We're not the ones littering we're just the "observers of the trash." I'm also guessing that's how it is with the fine people at LNT too. They see the trash....it's obviously coming from somewhere....who do we blame?

 

Enter geocachers. We're organized, we're easy to find on a website, and it's very easy to point a finger our way and say, "they're leaving boxes in the woods." I see a lot more Bud Light cans in the woods than geocaches...and most of the cachers I know don't drink that crap so I know it's not them.

 

My point is, I think we've become a convenient straw man for these people. I really appreciate what their message is and what they're trying to do, but the only reason we get singled out is because it's easier to point to a website of outdoor enthusiast and say, "we don't like what you're doing" than track down every Tom, Dick and Bubba who are actually the real problem.

 

Bret

[gonegeofishing]

On a recent hike I met up with some of the locals. Beaver, Badger, and Bear. We all marveled at the pristine environment around us.

 

After much trudging, and frequent water breaks, the group stopped dead in their tracks in front of me. Suddenly Beaver spells out an “L”. Badger is working on an “N”, and Bear with a stupid grin on his face is working on a “T”. If I had not been so dehydrated I may have been able to write an “N”.

 

Sorry fellow hikers that I was not up to the task. In the end we “TNLN”. Did not even try to explain CITO to these guys. Thanks for a great hike and “TFTC”.

 

LNT. You be the judge.

[4wheelin_fool]

In a recent post I posed the question as to whether bushwhacking for caches damages the environment. The April 2008 edition of Backpacker Magazine takes the question a step further; Does Geocaching Violate Leave No Trace?

 

An online poll conducted by the magazine found 42% who believed geocaching does violate leave no trace and 58% who said it does not. (I could not find the orignal link to the poll).

 

The magazine poll asked if these hidden containers are harmless, or do they flout low-impact ethics?

 

One of the statements by those against leaving the caches behind said "even if every geocacher removed a ton of trash from the wilderness areas, it doesn't erase the fact that they deliberately left a box filled with toys behind."

 

Do you think geocaching violates leave no trace?

 

After caches are removed there is absolutely no trace. "Geotrails" only need a season or so of non-use before nature completely takes back the area. I've noticed paved roads in the forest that have plants and trees growing through them from non-use and, although it may take a lot longer, eventually they will disappear too.

 

Let me point out that there are plenty of archived caches still out there. But there are even more "geogeeks" who think that finding ancient archived caches is an interesting twist on the hobby and will go out their way to search them out and remove them. So in the end there is no trace.

[+wimseyguy]

Someone should tell the deer and squirrels about this Leave No Trace concept.

[+stites1]

Maybe the question is meant as a Zen kōan, you know, like what is the sound of one hand clapping?

 

If a hiker leaves an object that is hidden from sight, has he left a trace?

 

 

"OOOOHHHHMMMMMM"

 

thanks for the Moment O' Zen

[+El Diablo]

 

In all those situations I've observed a lot of trash that just "happens" to be there. I've never witnessed it being left...it just shows up! Beer cans, fast food wrappers, bottles, cigarette packages. They're all over the place. I've never been with anyone when they threw them there. It's odd...who's leaving this stuff?

 

Bret

 

Also how do all those golf balls get in the woods? I've found dozens of golf balls lying on the ground while caching in the woods, and not a golf course within miles.

 

Now back on topic... I think people make too much out of nothing. Nature has a habit of taking care of herself and reclaiming what she's lost. Backpacker magazine should be really really careful about bringing up who causes more damage. Cachers don't camp as pointed out earlier. We don't build cooking fires or dig latrines. Don't come back with backpackers only camp in desginated camping spots either. Those spots are a violation of of leave no trace since they are man made.

 

Bottom line is.....Don't start throwing stones in a glass house.

 

El Diablo

Edited March 9, 2008 by El Diablo

[Tahosa and Sons]

Now back on topic... Don't come back with backpackers only camp in desginated camping spots either. Those spots are a violation of of leave no trace since they are man made.

El Diablo

As a matter of fact there are designated camping spots in designated travel zones in many of the Designated Wilderness Areas here in CO. And these type of camping areas greatly reduce the environmental impact caused by backpackers. Here is a list of the regulations for the Commanche Peak Wilderness Area. And the rules for camping are less strict if it is in a General Use Area in National Forests.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Backpacker is a print magazine, no? As in printed on live-harvested-tree paper?

 

And they make their living advertising lots of leather stuff (as in harvested from living animal skin)?

 

And they advertise lots of plastic and nylon camping gear that will be in landfills (or forests) basically forever?

 

And it's a safe bet that their staff drives a car (cough cough) with no passengers to work every day? It's an outdoor magazine, wanna bet most drive a < 15mpg SUV?

 

But they question if our walking in the woods leaves any harm?

 

[+El Diablo]

Now back on topic... Don't come back with backpackers only camp in desginated camping spots either. Those spots are a violation of of leave no trace since they are man made.

El Diablo

As a matter of fact there are designated camping spots in designated travel zones in many of the Designated Wilderness Areas here in CO. And these type of camping areas greatly reduce the environmental impact caused by backpackers. Here is a list of the regulations for the Commanche Peak Wilderness Area. And the rules for camping are less strict if it is in a General Use Area in National Forests.

 

You are right. Those areas do reduce enviromental impact. I have no problem with them or backpackers. I do have a problem with backpacker trying to create an illusion that cachers are not as enviromentally safe as they are. The fact of the matter is that they cause more damage on an average than a average cacher.

 

El Diablo

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Now back on topic... Don't come back with backpackers only camp in desginated camping spots either. Those spots are a violation of of leave no trace since they are man made.

El Diablo

As a matter of fact there are designated camping spots in designated travel zones in many of the Designated Wilderness Areas here in CO. And these type of camping areas greatly reduce the environmental impact caused by backpackers. Here is a list of the regulations for the Commanche Peak Wilderness Area. And the rules for camping are less strict if it is in a General Use Area in National Forests.

 

You are right. Those areas do reduce enviromental impact. I have no problem with them or backpackers. I do have a problem with backpacker trying to create an illusion that cachers are not as enviromentally safe as they are. The fact of the matter is that they cause more damage on an average than a average cacher.

 

El Diablo

Yeah! NOW y'all are beginning to see the light! Ban backpacking and geocaches in the forest... plant more urban micros!

 

Save the ecology!

 

Edited March 10, 2008 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+El Diablo]

Now back on topic... Don't come back with backpackers only camp in desginated camping spots either. Those spots are a violation of of leave no trace since they are man made.

El Diablo

As a matter of fact there are designated camping spots in designated travel zones in many of the Designated Wilderness Areas here in CO. And these type of camping areas greatly reduce the environmental impact caused by backpackers. Here is a list of the regulations for the Commanche Peak Wilderness Area. And the rules for camping are less strict if it is in a General Use Area in National Forests.

 

You are right. Those areas do reduce enviromental impact. I have no problem with them or backpackers. I do have a problem with backpacker trying to create an illusion that cachers are not as enviromentally safe as they are. The fact of the matter is that they cause more damage on an average than a average cacher.

 

El Diablo

Yeah! NOW y'all are beginning to see the light! Ban backpacking and geocaches in the forest... plant more urban micros!

 

Save the ecology!

 

 

I don't think I would go that far Ed.

 

El Diablo

[+briansnat]

Backpacker is a print magazine, no? As in printed on live-harvested-tree paper?

 

And they make their living advertising lots of leather stuff (as in harvested from living animal skin)?

 

And they advertise lots of plastic and nylon camping gear that will be in landfills (or forests) basically forever?

 

And it's a safe bet that their staff drives a car (cough cough) with no passengers to work every day? It's an outdoor magazine, wanna bet most drive a < 15mpg SUV?

 

But they question if our walking in the woods leaves any harm?

 

 

It wasn't an editorial statement, it was simply a poll. And actually most respondents believed that it didn't violate LNT principles, which was a surprise to me.

[+briansnat]

Now back on topic... Don't come back with backpackers only camp in desginated camping spots either. Those spots are a violation of of leave no trace since they are man made.

El Diablo

As a matter of fact there are designated camping spots in designated travel zones in many of the Designated Wilderness Areas here in CO. And these type of camping areas greatly reduce the environmental impact caused by backpackers. Here is a list of the regulations for the Commanche Peak Wilderness Area. And the rules for camping are less strict if it is in a General Use Area in National Forests.

 

You are right. Those areas do reduce enviromental impact. I have no problem with them or backpackers. I do have a problem with backpacker trying to create an illusion that cachers are not as enviromentally safe as they are. The fact of the matter is that they cause more damage on an average than a average cacher.

 

El Diablo

 

They do not reduce impact. They concentrate it. Anybody who has ever camped at a designated, backcountry campsite knows that the impact is significant. They're just saying, "Go ahead and screw this spot up and leave every place else alone". You want to see what a designated backcountry campsite can look like, check minute 4:48 of this video. About a quarter acre swath of ground devoid of nearly any vegetation.

 

And as I mentioned above, it was nothing more than a poll. Backpacker was not making a statement in favor of, or against geocaching. They took a poll, that's all. They take a poll every month on a variety of subjects.

Edited March 10, 2008 by briansnat

[+edscott]

We leave a trace by living.. and by dying.

[+the hermit crabs]

I'm curious as to why a geocacher with no finds feels the need to ask the same question twice in such rapid succession

Yeah, I'm starting to smell "hidden agenda".

Maybe the hidden agenda here is that we are all supposed to join the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.

[+Nishnabotna]

 

It wasn't an editorial statement, it was simply a poll. And actually most respondents believed that it didn't violate LNT principles, which was a surprise to me.

But it was very close. It's easy to see the perception that an awful lot of backpackers have.

Then again, this is Backpacker Magazine, the magazine that advised me to leave my first aid kit behind because someone else would come along to take care of me.

[+Renegade Knight]

 

It wasn't an editorial statement, it was simply a poll. And actually most respondents believed that it didn't violate LNT principles, which was a surprise to me.

But it was very close. It's easy to see the perception that an awful lot of backpackers have.

Then again, this is Backpacker Magazine, the magazine that advised me to leave my first aid kit behind because someone else would come along to take care of me.

 

That's because you should only hike in areas with cell phone reception and where people come along often enough to have a paved trail.

Edited March 10, 2008 by Renegade Knight

[+Packanack]

You don't need no stinking first aid kit, just drink the water

 

Taking Leave no trace to the extreme, you will no longer be allowed to pee after taking your meds. That's right just hold it a little longer.

 

In other words we are allowing some people to dictate how we should enjoy our public lands, and they are getting out of hand. I have heard some say that people have no place in the wilderness.

 

In my own experience and opinion fishermen leave the biggest mess, styro bait cups, beer cans and coffee cups , and all manner of detritus, used line, wrappers etc. etc. but that is just one man's opinion.

Edited March 11, 2008 by Packanack

[+Too Tall John]

I believe the few geocachers who do not respect LNT ideals are far outnumbered by the number of irresponsible people from other user-groups. This doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to strive toward those ideals.

 

Will the lack of a hint on my cache lead to unnecessary damage?

What kind of impact will cachers have on this area?

Should I move the cache after some time to reduce that pesky geo-trail?

...Then again, this is Backpacker Magazine, the magazine that advised me to leave my first aid kit behind because someone else would come along to take care of me.

That's just funny...

 

Personally, I don't want some numbnuts who isn't smart enough to think for himself and bring a first aid kit touching me if I am injured. By listening to such advice not to carry a kit, they are automatically saving me from their ineptness.

 

If they seem competent enough or I am desperate enough, they can use mine. I'm a Wilderness First Responder, I can walk 'em through most stuff.

 

From the other direction, if I happen upon someone who followed the advice and didn't bring a kit, I will (and did already) prove the magazine right.

 

If the two people involved have no first aid kits between them, they deserve each other.

[+El Diablo]

Looking at the whole picture, mankind has always left a trace. We left a trace when we evolved, when we built our cites, created homes, and jobs. Our entire heritage is due to the traces we left.

 

El Diablo

[+edscott]

Looking at the whole picture, mankind has always left a trace. We left a trace when we evolved, when we built our cites, created homes, and jobs. Our entire heritage is due to the traces we left.

 

El Diablo

 

yes what I said, but I used fewer words so left less of a trace.

[+currykev]

Since I regularly take other peoples litter away with me while out caching I say NO it doesn't,as geocaching actually helps the LNT impact.

Edited March 14, 2008 by currykev

[+fox-and-the-hound]

When I read up on Leave no Trace I found out that LNT violates it's own ideas on what's best for the environment.

 

As for the box left behind. All caches are temporary.

Just like backpackers bring in a pack full of crap and then remove it later, so does geocaching. The only difference is the time scale.

 

Caching is a casual land use well within the ethics of preserving our lands for both our enjoyment and the enjoyment of future generations.

 

Well said and my sentiments exactly. LNT has a fatal flaw from the start in that it sees humans as not part of nature. We're animals and we affect nature, too. Nature will be here and surving long after we're extinct. Leave no trace? Eventually. Meanwhile, we'll CITO and teach our children the same