Geocachers damaging Rare sites

[+PeoriaBill]

I ran across this statement while reviewing a site online. The author’s rant is blaming geocaching for the deterioration of this site. The site is online for everyone to see, so blaming geocachers is “assuming facts not in evidence”. Geocachers have guidelines that would tend to cause us not to destroy the area. Don’t understand comment about not respecting the site. Any similar stories or comments??

Rare B-17C Crash Site

 

And now for my Soap Box Rant;

 

Many historical sites and aircraft crash sites are becoming "geocache" sites. I personally believe this is in extremely bad taste, making a game of sites where men died serving their country. AND not to mention the additional traffic this activity brings to sites, many of these people that "geocache" have no clue or respect for these historical sites. Unfortunately there's a "geocache" located at this historical memorial site.

 

http://www.ghosttownexplorers.org/aircraft/b17c/01.htm

http://www.ghosttownexplorers.org/aircraft/aircraft.htm#b17c

 

[+Panther&Pine]

Is it better to have them forgotten? Caching can be used to educate people.

The US is a young country it is easier to avoid major battle fields, can you imagine trying to say no caches where someone has died in Europe?

 

Edit to add: it is unfair to assume only cachers are going to the site, we just happen to be an easy to prove access and visits group with our cache pages and habit of logging online. I don't know of many other activities that are that organized and public.

 

Edit for auto correct

Edited August 22, 2014 by Panther&Pine

[+niraD]

In addition to the comments already made, so what if this is making a "game" of important historical sites? If a teacher makes a "game" of learning the names of the US presidents (and their dates of birth, office, and death), or the names of the elements (and their properties and dates of discoveries), or the major battles of WWII (and their dates, locations, and casualty figures), does that somehow negate the lessons learned, or the value of any of the contributions to history?

 

I've learned a lot from geocaches at historic sites (including some at memorials, and even some in cemeteries). I think I managed to do so without compromising the historic/memorial sites in any way.

[+redsox_mark]

While I don't agree with the non-geocacher, what is most certainly true is

 

"the additional traffic this activity brings to sites"

 

How significant the extra traffic is depends on how well the site is known outside of geocaching, and how popular the geocache is.

 

If the site is not very well known, and the geocache is popular, there will be a visible increase in the amount of people visiting. And that can be resented by those to which this was a "secret place". If it is already a well known historical site which gets lots of visitors than the impact of a geocache is much less/negligible.

 

We have had some similar contention locally between caving clubs and geocachers. There are many caves and disused mines in my area. Previously these were generally only known to those in a caving club. Some of the entrances are locked and you need to borrow a key to get in... the general public doesn't find these places. A caver who is also a cacher has hidden many caches in some of these places; and there is now more traffic, and this causes some resentment amongst the cavers as others are now visiting their "secret place".

 

The geocachers have the same rights to be there as the cavers, but I can understand their attitude. And like the general spectrum of human behavior, most are friendly and accommodate the new visitors, but some resent them.

[+cerberus1]

"this is in extremely bad taste, making a game of sites where men died serving their country" from someone who notes, "I'm always looking to hear from fellow wreckchasers and looking for people to go wreckchasing with!"

Wreckchasing sounds like a game to me. Pot...

[+The_Incredibles_]

"the additional traffic this activity brings to sites"

 

This makes no sense at all. *He's* going there and bringing people with him! Maybe he should stop that ASAP if he's really concerned about traffic!!

 

ROFL. That reminds me of a puzzle cache that I found once. There was quite the steep hike to get to it and it was not found very often. A muggle had written a rant in the logbook about how 'nobody should be up here'. Huh? Are these people trying to be funny or are they just insane?

Edited August 22, 2014 by The_Incredibles_

[+Isonzo Karst]

well the site is known outside of geocaching, and how popular the geocache is

 

Yep.

I know of two instances where new trails exposed the remains of old cabins. In both cases, caches were placed nearby, and when land managers observed damage to the buildings, they blamed the geocaches.

One of the caches was brand new, a single find, the other had 10 finds.

Both caches were archived immediately, the damage continued. Now the land manager was forced to consider that the trail was the issue, not a specific user group.

 

The trails brought people, people entered the buildings, picked at them. Possibly some of those people were geocachers, but mostly not.

 

(I'd seen one of the buildings previously. I was shocked at the deterioration when I saw it again, after trail came through. No cache near at that point. Most of the serious damage was clearly being done by horseback riders, picking at the chimney at mounted level.)

[+geodarts]

Interesting. I have a cache that takes people to two 1945 Corsair crash sites. As a multi on a mountain, it is rarely visited. I considered using other debris locations, but in the end decided to limit it to the sites that have already been publicized in an authoritative guidebook to the trails of that area, using the same directions that allowed me to to find these locations when I first set out to find them.

 

I have another multi that highlights a different type of location but provides the coordinates for a nearby 1944 crash site. I did not think it was appropriate to leave a cache at that site, and the multi blocks it in any event, but since directions were similarly published I did not feel that I was giving away any thing that was better left unsaid. Back in the day, I made it into a "geocaching challenge."

 

I once came across another cache where the CO wrote about how this game can be used to preserve our history and record our memories. It's a good thought.

[+sbell111]

I'm reminded of this old thread.

 

I remain of the opinion that wreckage should be removed if at all possible. Therefore, there is no way that people can 'damage' these sites.

Edited August 22, 2014 by sbell111

[+narcissa]

"this is in extremely bad taste, making a game of sites where men died serving their country" from someone who notes, "I'm always looking to hear from fellow wreckchasers and looking for people to go wreckchasing with!"

Wreckchasing sounds like a game to me. Pot...

 

Seriously.

[+Touchstone]

Yep, haters are going to hate. Kind of old news, if you ask me. Here's one we DNF'd several years ago:

 

 

It was a B-23 training plane. One injury and an epic story of survival and rescue in the dead of winter. I'm glad geocaching brought me to this spot.

[+DanOCan]

I ran across this statement while reviewing a site online. The author’s rant is blaming geocaching for the deterioration of this site. The site is online for everyone to see, so blaming geocachers is “assuming facts not in evidence”. Geocachers have guidelines that would tend to cause us not to destroy the area. Don’t understand comment about not respecting the site. Any similar stories or comments??

Well, I think there may be a certain amount of truth to his statement.

 

Every "niche" hobby has a code of conduct (often unwritten) that the people involved with tend to adhere to.

 

I would fully expect people who chase wrecks of this nature have similar unwritten rules that I don't know of because I'm not heavily involved in the hobby. I don't know what the "norms" are for wreck hunting. While certain things are obviously wrong and I wouldn't do -- removing parts for their scrap value, as an example -- there are other more subtle things I might do as a Geocacher that violate a wreck hunter code of conduct and I would never know. Think of how certain hand gestures, while perfectly innocuous in North America, may be a grievous insult in another country/culture.

 

I'm sure many of us have seen damage caused by the hunting for a cache, much of it accidental. I've seen sprinkler heads dismantled, electrical boxes opened, stumps get pulled apart, bird nests dislodged, etc. I'm sure many of these plane wrecks are fragile and people poking around them hunting for a cache will cause inadvertent deterioration. As Geocachers we like to think of ourselves as being innocent, but we know that isn't always the case. How many times do we seen Europeans mention stone walls getting torn apart by people hunting for a cache? There is a certain segment of Geocachers who will do anything for a smiley and I have no trouble believing they do not have respect for the historic site.

 

Really, is his reaction to Geocachers any different than our own reaction to people discovering Geocaching via the intro app on their phones? "They don't know how to log trackables, they don't logon to the site to learn the rules, I can't get in contact with them to let them know there is a problem with what they did."

 

I think anytime you have a niche hobby that gets exposed to a wider audience you can expect this sort of

reaction from those who were part of the "in crowd" previously.

 

As for his comment about a cache at a crash site being in "extremely bad taste"? I'll respectfully disagree with him on that one. I think bringing attention to these locations and discovering the history is a great way to honor those who died in service to their nation.

[+wimseyguy]

This virtual cache in western MA has been visited by cachers 1.5x/month on average for the 12 years it's been listed here. I suspect routine hikers are there more frequently as the trails pass right by it.

And based on the images in the gallery I think that cachers are being appropriately respectful of the site.

 

I agree, it sounds like a NIMBY rant, and wreckchasing sounds far more disrespectful that geocaching at a wreck site does.

[+Harry Dolphin]

 

Here's one in New Jersey. Very interesting. No one does any maintenance on these things. This one is off in a swamp. The pilot ejected and survived in 1967.

Yeah. Sounds like a NIMBY problem.

[+mrreet]

The person should be glad it wasn't the National Parks Service. ... They sure know how to ruin a sacred area.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

Is it better to have them forgotten? Caching can be used to educate people.

The US is a young country it is easier to avoid major battle fields, can you imagine trying to say no caches where someone has died in Europe?

 

Edit to add: it is unfair to assume only cachers are going to the site, we just happen to be an easy to prove access and visits group with our cache pages and habit of logging online. I don't know of many other activities that are that organized and public.

 

Edit for auto correct

 

I agree.

These are among my very favorite places, along with cemeteries, and geocaching has brought me to hundreds....its the single best thing I like about the hobby. I have spent many hours in somber reflective thought at these locations.