Geocaching In Wilderness

[+pbexplorer]

Today I have been looking at caches in Washington, specifically ones with good hikes, and surprisingly I have come across many caches in wilderness areas. As a cacher and a wilderness advocate I have always thought that putting caches in designated wilderness is and should be off limits. I have always considered wilderness to be areas where human impacts should be minimal and that a Leave No Trace policy should be followed to preserve the integrity of such areas. As such Leave No Trace means leaving nothing besides footprints (and hopefully not even those in fragile habitats).

 

I know that the National Parks have been off limits for some time. I also read in the forum recently that the National Wildlife Refuges are now off limits due to USF&W policy which has led to a threats by USF&W to prosecute cachers and cachers being angry and offended that such public lands are not open to their use for geocaching.

 

My question to all you cachers: What are your feelings, thought, and reasons for or against caching in such areas, especially wilderness areas? Should caching in Wildlife Refuges and Wilderness be off limits for the single fact that such areas were created to protect them from too much impact from humans?

[+JMBella]

Les is that you?

[+Bloencustoms]

Ouch! Let me get this hook out... Ok, I don't believe a geocache has enough impact to warrant banning them from wilderness areas. In fact, the only places caches shouldn't be allowed are those that don't allow people to visit at all. If the area can support any public human activity, it can support caching.

[+pbexplorer]

Nope, not Les, I'm David.

[+rusty_tlc]

I'd say if somebody was motivated to go into a wilderness area they would be the type that would show the proper respect. If fear of human impact is that great the area should be closed entirly. Clearly a bad idea. Whats the point if nobody enjoys it, clear cut the forest and be done with it.

[+JMBella]

Nope, not Les, I'm David.

Have you met Les I think you two would get along famously.

 

I think what BC said pretty much sums it up. If an area is open to the public for hiking, it should be open for geocaching. What kind of impact do you think geocaching causes?

 

(I can't believe I'm getting sucked into this topic. Someone through in a life jacket for me and Bloencustoms)

[+Ltljon]

If these areas are so fragile, maybe no one should be allowed to visit them.

[+rusty_tlc]

If these areas are so fragile, maybe no one should be allowed to visit them.

If no one can visit what's the point? Harvest the timber and don't tell anybody, just close the area.

[+Metaphor]

Would I want to see urban-style cache blankets in Wilderness Areas? Certainly not. A few well-placed, unobtrusive cache over square miles (tens of square miles) of area? Yes. I'm an advocate of Wilderness areas, and if anything geocachers are, for the most part, more enviromentally concerned than the casual public user. I've seen Leave Major Trace campers squash and burn in wilderness areas, and I've filled my pockets with candy wrappers and other trash droppings from hikers too many times. After all, we, as cachers, have got something to prove. As a hiker and backpacker, I already have permission to use these areas; as a geocacher, I have to show that I am more conscious of impact than they are.

 

Realize though that these are generalizations, and there are ne'er-do-wells on both sides. If regulated camping is an approved activity, why not regulated geocaching?

[+Bloencustoms]

Yep. JMB, if you lend me your cellphone, I'll call a friend with a boat and give them the coordinates. Then there will be a way out of here. I think Rusty touched on what I was thinking about. What use is recreational land if you protect it to the point that nobody can use it? We already have lands set aside for that purpose. If geocaching is too hard on the land, so is any human presence at all.

 

pbexplorer, would you vow to never visit the wilderness again ifeveryone else agreed to do the same? That's the only way to truly protect it. If the goal is to preserve the land for future generations, should that come at the cost of the present generation's deprival? Wild places are beautiful. I'm sure you will agree. But the only way to know this is to visit them. We are a country, and we share our public lands. No one person is more deserving than another to experience that beauty. The ways in which we choose to experience it are as different as one person from the next. Caching is simply another way to experience it.

[+pbexplorer]

In front country areas that have caches that are placed in area with ground cover much of the area can get trampled. That is not such a problem when it comes to the backcountry since there are few caches in wilderness and few cachers that go after them but it is not unlikely. Also, just the fact you are introducing an object of human origin that is not used for safety or health into such areas reduces the wilderness aspect of the area. I have always considered wilderness to be an area that should be left with minimal impact but at the same time left for people to enjoy. Also, what I am hearing is that if an area is open to hiking geocaching is a natural next step. The same question could be asked if non-wilderness areas that allow mountain bike use is the next stepto allow motorized bikes on the trail? I think virtual caches would be incentive enough for people to enjoy the natural beauty of an area, don't you?

 

Who's Les? Is he a big wilderness advocate?

[+Bloencustoms]

Wow, I thought I'd gotten that hook out!

 

Ok, if a cache is hidden from view and the only way to know it is there is to have viewed the listing for it, how does it affect the "wilderness experience" for a person who is not aware of it's presence? Is it the idea that when you look out upon a vast expanse of land, there might be some object left there by a human that bothers you?

 

If you have enjoyed hiking through the wild before you knew about caching, has that knowledge spoiled the experience for you?

There is almost no place left on this planet that has not already been explored. The only way to feel like a true explorer is through suspension of disbelief. The trail you walk on was made by a man. Yet you can still feel like the first person to turn that corner and see each new vista for the first time. Don't let the fact that a few carefully concealed caches might be out there spoil your enjoyment of the great outdoors.

[+Criminal]

It’s been my experience that once you get past the three mile point, you will find nothing but responsible users. That applies to hikers, campers, and geocachers. There’s a camaraderie and a fellowship between the people who hike those long trails and climb the mountains that precludes irresponsibility.

 

On my way up to Marmot Pass (12+ miles) I was amazed to see camping spots that were obviously very well used but remarkably trash free.

 

The people you have to worry about rarely will venture beyond about three miles. The actual mileage will decrease in proportion to the degree of elevation gain as well. Hide your cache outside that window and you’ll not likely see problems. Visitors to these cache sites will be few, thus there is little worry that new trails will be created.

[+rusty_tlc]

In front country areas that have caches that are placed in area with ground cover much of the area can get trampled.  That is not such a problem when it comes to the backcountry since there are few caches in wilderness and few cachers that go after them but it is not unlikely.  Also, just the fact you are introducing an object of human origin that is not used for safety or health into such areas reduces the wilderness aspect of the area.  I have always considered wilderness to be an area that should be left with minimal impact but at the same time left for people to enjoy.  Also, what I am hearing is that if an area is open to hiking geocaching is a natural next step.  The same question could be asked if non-wilderness areas that allow mountain bike use is the next stepto allow motorized bikes on the trail?  I think virtual caches would be incentive enough for people to enjoy the natural beauty of an area, don't you? 

 

Who's Les?  Is he a big wilderness advocate?

So we should go in and remove Zane Grey's cabin? And all the other trappers and miners cabins? What about the Basque tree art?

 

I doubt that anybody would go into a wilderness area just because there is a cache there. There is a cache on Fordyce Creek Trail (4X or ATV access) I plan to log it this summer, if the cache is gone I'll will go there anyway. I like to four wheel, I want to see the area and meet the challange.

[+pbexplorer]

It is actually very likely that you will see new trails and areas get trample beyond the three mile point. I have worked on backcountry restoration and monitoring crews 3 mile and beyond the trail head. The areas range from high to low usage and have all been impacted by hikers and backpackers.

[+pbexplorer]

I'm not talking about historic sites I'm talking about current human impacts.

[+rusty_tlc]

It is actually very likely that you will see new trails and areas get trample beyond the three mile point. I have worked on backcountry restoration and monitoring crews 3 mile and beyond the trail head. The areas range from high to low usage and have all been impacted by hikers and backpackers.

I worked trail construction and maintainence in the late seventies. Hikers were cutting the switchbacks then and I'm sure they are cutting them now. How will introducing geocaches into an area change that? We also cached tools and supplies along trails back then. Was that wrong? They were modern day artifacts.

[+JMBella]

In front country areas that have caches that are placed in area with ground cover much of the area can get trampled. That is not such a problem when it comes to the backcountry since there are few caches in wilderness and few cachers that go after them but it is not unlikely. Also, just the fact you are introducing an object of human origin that is not used for safety or health into such areas reduces the wilderness aspect of the area. I have always considered wilderness to be an area that should be left with minimal impact but at the same time left for people to enjoy. Also, what I am hearing is that if an area is open to hiking geocaching is a natural next step. The same question could be asked if non-wilderness areas that allow mountain bike use is the next stepto allow motorized bikes on the trail? I think virtual caches would be incentive enough for people to enjoy the natural beauty of an area, don't you?

 

Who's Les? Is he a big wilderness advocate?

I can't ... help it... BC! hurry up and make that call.. can't.. not ---post!

 

OK. Here's the thing. NO! Motorized bikes are not the next step. That argument doesn't even make sense. What you're saying is that it's OK to hike in the wilderness, but you can't hike to a specific location in which a HARMLESS box is hidden and where no one else will ever likely find it. NOT EVEN THE ANIMALS! (that is unless you're geocaching). You're also saying that geocachers will do MORE damage than a bear or other animals?! A bear! 1000s of pounds! Walking all around, where ever the heck it wants. That's fine. But a guy that weighs 175 lbs will completely devastate the wilderness? (warn meter spike coming up)C'mon, go hand cuff yourself to a tree on the other side on the mountain where they're about to level the trees to put up a 2000 unit apartment complex. There are bigger more important things to worry about. I'm sorry to flame you, but in the grand scheme of things this is not something to waste your valuable passion for the wilderness on. The geocachers that I know are extremely proactive when it comes to land preservation and the environment. The fact that you are taking something that we love and Turning into something negative like this is offensive.

[dsandbro]

Hasn't this topic already been done to death?

 

Whether caches are allowed in National Forest or BLM Wilderness is determined on a case-by-case basis by local managers. Most agree that is a sound and sensible policy and far superior to a blanket ban that ignores local conditions, type of cache, resource sensitivity, and level of visitor use.

 

The taxpayers pay local managers to make professional decisions on what is appropriate and what is not in their Wilderness. Let's let them do their job free of excessive and nonsensical one-size-fits-all regulations mandated from Washington DC.

[+SBPhishy]

If they have all been impacted by hikers and backpackers already, there is no need for new trails and areas to be trampled. Hide the caches right off of the existing trails.

 

I don't think that caching will add anything negative to anything that is going on already. It's not a "gateway drug" in that, just because you allow caching there, doesn't mean that soon you will allow people to throw beer bottles on the ground. Or, like the previous example with mountain bikes. Just because you allow mountain bikes, doesn't mean that eventually, you will allow motorbikes. I think they are exclusive to one another.

 

I think cachers are every much as consciencious or more so than backpackers a hikers. If hikers are allowed there, there is no reason that caching shouldn't be. Maybe extra precautions should be taken with the cache, like using ammo boxes only, so they have a lesser liklihood of being torn apart by an animal, or failing because of the elements.

[+pbexplorer]

I'm sorry if I offended you. I too love caching and wilderness. I just find that there is a conflict when introducing pseudo-permanent items into wilderness. I'm not trying to create conflict but I wanted to know cachers opinions on the subject since I am new to the forum. As for leaving caching tools for future use those were used to improve trails to protect the area from erosion and for hiker safety and they would be removed when done using them. My crew also cached tools next to a ranger station but removed them at the end of the season. Also, I'm not talking about switch backs, I refer to side trails and areas that get trampled in a localized spot off trail.

[uperdooper]

i think he needs to read this. MARKWELL

[+JMBella]

I'd love to hear what Les has to say on this one. I'd like to petition the mods to let his post through. Besides pbexplorer needs some back up here.

 

OT: By the way. You'll all be thrilled to know That Les has in fact found his first cache here. Congrats Les. And welcome to the family. He even seemed to enjoy it immensely. Something tells me we'll see him placeing ammo boxes all over the wilderness now. OK. One step at a time. Seriously Les, congrats on your first find.

[+rusty_tlc]

I'm sorry if I offended you. I too love caching and wilderness. I just find that there is a conflict when introducing pseudo-permanent items into wilderness. I'm not trying to create conflict but I wanted to know cachers opinions on the subject since I am new to the forum. As for leaving caching tools for future use those were used to improve trails to protect the area from erosion and for hiker safety and they would be removed when done using them. My crew also cached tools next to a ranger station but removed them at the end of the season. Also, I'm not talking about switch backs, I refer to side trails and areas that get trampled in a localized spot off trail.

I can't speak for anyone else but no offense here.

 

Here is an excersise to see what the impact of a wilderness cache might be. Look at the log dates for a wilderness cache, maybe the one you mentioned at the beginning of this. How many logs a day are there? My remote caches get visits in terms of one a month if that, and they are 4X accesable. That's point one.

 

Point two, I have posted notes to cachers when the area around a rural cache started to show signs of visitation. Without fail they moved the cache far enough to eliminate the problem.

[+Bloencustoms]

Another point I'd like to add concerning "human presence". What about the humans? Nothing spoils the wilderness like humans do. The last thing I want to see when I'm in the wild is evidence of human presence. Once, I found a toothbrush carelessly left beside a stream in the Whiskeytown Natl. Recreation Area in CA. I freaked out and ran about wailing and gnashing my teeth. When I came out of my wacko state, I realized that I had entirely forgotten to trash out the toothbrush, and freaked out all over again. The second time I came to my senses, I nearly freaked right out yet again when I realized how much carbon dioxide I must have exhaled into the pristine wilderness around me. It might be colorless and odorless, but under the right conditions, it could aid in the formation of carbonic acid and dissolve a few atoms off of some cave formation somewhere. The whole experience had me so flustered that I was totally unprepared for what happened next. As I was leaving the area, I encountered one of the worst abominations, the most horrible blight upon the land ever concieved in the darkest reaches of the netherworld... another human! I was aghast. I could barely breath (good for the environment) and I froze solid in my tracks and muttered "You have a nice day too.", hoping that they wouldn't shed too many skin cells as they hiked up the trail.

The experience has changed me. I have gone to great pains to avoid any evidence of human presence when venturing into the wilds. I no longer take a mirror with me, for that very reason.

[Keystone]

The mods have not been very busy this week. This is a good thing. Let's keep it that way by continuing this discussion constructively, as it has been for the most part. A few more Markwells to prior exhaustive discussions of this subject might help pbexplorer appreciate why his question has received such a swift and vocal response.

 

Allow me to observe that pbexplorer may be a relative newcomer to the forums, but he has logged 46 finds and hidden one cache during a full year of involvement with our activity. This is not someone who set up an account here just to stir up trouble. We can discuss this issue with other members of our community in a civil manner.

[+yumitori]

Rusty, if your caches are legally accessible by ATVs or 4-wheel drive vehicles, then they are not in wilderness areas. If you, as a private citizen, are entering wilderness areas using a vehicle, you are violating the laws and regulations governing the region's management.

[+JMBella]

I can't speak for anyone else but no offense here.

I'll speak for me. I'm offended. I've been involved in geocaching only about 7 months or so. Since then I've become very conscience about land preservation. To give you a little background: I used to work for my families development company. My job was to acquire land to develop. Can you believe that? I was the guy yelling that all you people were tree Huggers. Since I started geocaching my attitude has changed dramatically. I'm now involved will several preservation societies, I do regular trail maintenance around my area, and don't even get me started on "cache in, trash out." Now your trying to tell me that what I have been doing is ruining the wilderness. Hello! Geocachers are advocates for land preservation! You're debating with the wrong people.

 

edit: self modded.

Edited January 29, 2004 by JMBella

[+JMBella]

The mods have not been very busy this week. This is a good thing. Let's keep it that way by continuing this discussion constructively, as it has been for the most part. A few more Markwells to prior exhaustive discussions of this subject might help pbexplorer appreciate why his question has received such a swift and vocal response.

 

Allow me to observe that pbexplorer may be a relative newcomer to the forums, but he has logged 46 finds and hidden one cache during a full year of involvement with our activity. This is not someone who set up an account here just to stir up trouble. We can discuss this issue with other members of our community in a civil manner.

I realized he was a contributing member. I did I think he was a troll. I wanted pbexplorer to know that as well. I appreciate that you've been caching for a year. Anyway I'm over it now. I think BC's friend with the boat has shown up to save us so I'll try not to post here any more. Mainly because I can see I won't change your mind and I think it's pretty obvious you're not changing mine. We'll agree to disagree and I wish you luck with your conflict.

 

Here are some markwells as requested.

Markwell 1.

Markwell 2.

[+rusty_tlc]

Rusty, if your caches are legally accessible by ATVs or 4-wheel drive vehicles, then they are not in wilderness areas. If you, as a private citizen, are entering wilderness areas using a vehicle, you are violating the laws and regulations governing the region's management.

Notice I said remote not wilderness. The point was any thing in a remote or wilderness area will not get frequent visits.

[Tahosa and Sons]

No.

 

For those of you who don't really know or understand what the real meaning of wilderness is this may help you.

[+JMBella]

Great that helped a lot. Thank you.

 

DEFINITION OF WILDERNESS

© A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.

 

Going down the list:

1. where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. When I cache, I do not stay there for an extended period of time. Check.

2. without permanent improvements An ammo can is certainly not permanent. Check.

3. with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; Since a cache is hidden, I guess that makes it unnoticeable. Check.

 

Just in case you we're thinking about arguing the definition of untrammeled, I already looked it up for you.

untrammeled: \Un*tram"meled\, a. Not hampered or impeded; free. not confined or limited.

[+Renegade Knight]

Caches have been a wilderness tradition since they invented mankind.

 

Wilderness is nothing more than a designation for a specific type of land use.

[+pbexplorer]

I'll speak for me. I'm offended.

 

JMBella, I am sorry to offend you. I think many people have taken what I have said and asked as implying that geocachers are not repsonsible people that care for the environment. I have not said that and am NOT saying that. When I posted I wanted to get opinions and thoughts because as I see geocaching and wilderness there is a conflict, if not legally in some particular wilderness areas then ethically. I am just interested in a discussion that is of interest to me and had not known it has been hashed out before. Again, sorry for anyone that has been offended.

Edited January 29, 2004 by pbexplorer

[+JMBella]

I'll speak for me. I'm offended.

 

JMBella, I am sorry to offend you. I think many people have taken what I have said and asked as implying that geocachers are not responsible people that care for the environment. I have not said that and am NOT saying that. When I posted I wanted to get opinions and thoughts because as I see geocaching and wilderness there is a conflict, if not legally in some particular wilderness areas then ethically. I am just interested in a discussion that is of interest to me and had not known it has been hashed out before. Again, sorry for anyone that has been offended.

Like I said, I'm over it. I respect your decision not to seek caches in the wilderness. I don't agree, but that is your choice. If that's what you believe to be right than you should stick by your decision no matter what.

To answer your original question.

Should caching in wilderness be allowed?

Absolutely, emphatically, YES. Whether you choose to geocache in the wilderness is entirely up to you.

[+pbexplorer]

2. without permanent improvements An ammo can is certainly not permanent. Check.

 

As for an ammo can being a permanent improvement, after being there a year that seems permanent to me. Pretty soon we will be erecting biodegradable houses that are not "permanent".

[+pbexplorer]

Like I said, I'm over it. I respect your decision not to seek caches in the wilderness. I don't agree, but that is your choice. If that's what you believe to be right than you should stick by your decision no matter what.

 

I'm still thinking about the ethics of caching in wilderness, that's why I put the question up for discussion. Until I come to a definate answer I probably will not look for them in wilderness areas.

[uperdooper]

i think he needs to read this. MARKWELL

i know i am quoting myself, but i don't think he is checking out the markwells. pbexplorer. click on the word "MARKWELL" in my quote, and the Markwells 1 and 2 in JMBella's post to see why this is such a sensitive topic.

Edited January 29, 2004 by uperdooper

[+JMBella]

2. without permanent improvements An ammo can is certainly not permanent. Check.

 

As for an ammo can being a permanent improvement, after being there a year that seems permanent to me. Pretty soon we will be erecting biodegradable houses that are not "permanent".

A cache can be removed at any time by simply picking it up and walking away. ie.. If the area is being negatively effected by excessive traffic. Which I've never seen in nearly 300 finds.

 

As far as getting a definite answer. You never will. Just like Les never did. He's searches for caches that have only been placed with "permission". That's his decision and thats fine. If you can enjoy the sport without searching in the wilderness, and I'm sure you can and have, great. I'm not sure if there's anything left to debate.

[+pbexplorer]

i know i am quoting myself, but i don't think he is checking out the markwells. pbexplorer. click on the word "MARKWELL" in my quote, and the Markwells 1 and 2 in JMBella's post to see why this is such a sensitive topic.

 

I read it earlier and I thought it was interesting. He has some good points if you put the hollier than thou fought for your freedom aside. I just don't understand what permission has to do with what I was asking. I'm just trying to get at how caching in wilderness affects wilderness.

 

Also, I don't know where Markwells 1 and 2 are. Please post the links or text.

[+shawhh]

i feel that there is no more degradation of a wilderness area through leaving a geocache than there is by placing a trail marker, regulation sign, or even a trail through the area. all are manmade intrusions into the wild world. as has been stated before the wilderness designation is only a term for a particular land use policy. there is no land in the lower 48 that hasn't felt the hand of man. if we truly want to pretend that there is true wilderness in the united states then we should lobby our representatives to suspend trail construction and maintenance, trail signage, and state unequivocally that there will be no rescue of people within the designated area. at that point we would have, as best we could at this late date in the development of our land, returned the land to wilderness, and anyone entering it would have a full wilderness experience complete with consequences for not being prepared. i have thought of this on many occasions while hiking or canoeing through "wilderness" areas and truly would not mind being able to pretend for a while that i wasn't only a good dayhike away from a road or a cell phone call away from a rescue if i screwed up. -harry

[uperdooper]

Here are some markwells as requested.

Markwell 1.

Markwell 2.

ask and you shall receive.

[+GEO*Trailblazer 1]

If you are that concerned then do not hunt cache's in the Wilderness,

Pick up the evidence left by someone other than a Geocacher.

 

I am a Treehugger, but I also believe that we can responsibly, with the help of the Land Managers of these Wilderness(Wild) area's make them more benificial.

 

The one's that are in the Wilderness(Wild) Area's are the one's I look for most,along way from Civilization.

 

As for impact as stated this is minimal, cause most people are scared to venture to far.

 

Wilderness Areas here are off limits for caches.

 

Just my.02

 

As far as permanent object in Wilderness Area's...........................

 

Well a Lookout Tower ain't Wild,pristine,or part of the original enviroment.

 

Is it considered permanent?

[+briansnat]

This has been discussed many times. According to the Wilderness Act of 1964 here is a partial list of activities that are allowed in wilderness areas:

 

Prospecting

Treasure Hunting

Mining

Drilling

Grazing livestock

Building roads, reservoirs and power lines (by edict)

 

Hiking, camping and horseback riding are also allowed, all of which have an impact equal to, or greater than geocaching.

 

To quote the act:

Wilderness Areas ... shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness...

 

So seeing as I can bring a herd of cattle to graze in a wilderness are, or strip mine it, I fail to see how concealing a small Tupperware container that will be visited by, at most, a half a dozen people over the course of a year,is inconsistent with the purpose of a Wilderness Area. Perhaps Pbexplorer can fill me in.

Edited January 29, 2004 by briansnat

[+JMBella]

This has been discussed many times. According to the Wilderness Act of 1964 here is a partial list of activities that are allowed in wilderness areas:

 

Prospecting

Treasure Hunting

Mining

Drilling

Grazing livestock

Road construction

Building reservoirs

 

Hiking, camping and horseback riding are also allowed, all of which have an impact equal to, or more than geocaching.

 

To quote the act:

Wilderness Areas ... shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness...

 

I fail to see how concealing a small Tupperware container that will be visited by, at most, a half a dozen people over the course of a year,is inconsistent with the purpose of a Wilderness Area.

That info is also available via the link posted by Tahosa and Sons.

 

BTW: hehehe. There's a forum on that site as well. This should be interseting. No. I shouldn't. I won't. Leaving well enough alone. Oh look at that. I found David over there too. Not sure if that's you Dave, but you make a similar argument here as the Dave that's there. At any rate there's some really interesting reading in those forums dating back to 2001.

Edited January 29, 2004 by JMBella

[+pbexplorer]

Nope, not me again. I didn't know that there is a forum at the wilderness site.

 

This is the first forum I've posted to for a very long time.

[+Ltljon]

If these areas are so fragile, maybe no one should be allowed to visit them.

If no one can visit what's the point? Harvest the timber and don't tell anybody, just close the area.

I hope you detected my sarcasm...

[+geckoee]

...Pretty soon we will be erecting biodegradable houses that are not "permanent".

Sign me up for one of those! When I die I want my house to die with me! ... please!

[+Renegade Knight]

...Pretty soon we will be erecting biodegradable houses that are not "permanent".

Sign me up for one of those! When I die I want my house to die with me! ... please!

Come to think if it, I'm going to kick off one of these days. Too bad I'm not permanent.

[+briansnat]

I feel that there is no more degradation of a wilderness area through leaving a geocache than there is by placing a trail marker, regulation sign, or even a trail through the area. all are manmade intrusions into the wild world. as has been stated before the wilderness designation is only a term for a particular land use policy. there is no land in the lower 48 that hasn't felt the hand of man. if we truly want to pretend that there is true wilderness in the united states then we should lobby our representatives to suspend trail construction and maintenance, trail signage, and state unequivocally that there will be no rescue of people within the designated area. at that point we would have, as best we could at this late date in the development of our land, returned the land to wilderness, and anyone entering it would have a full wilderness experience complete with consequences for not being prepared. i have thought of this on many occasions while hiking or canoeing through "wilderness" areas and truly would not mind being able to pretend for a while that i wasn't only a good dayhike away from a road or a cell phone call away from a rescue if i screwed up. -harry]

 

Bravo! Well stated!

Edited January 29, 2004 by briansnat