Geocache Owners Read This!!

[weathermansam]

Another bit of information learned today the FS is working toward the removal of ALL geocaches from the Wilderness area itself.  They already had a map drawn up, info gathered from geocache.com and maybe other sources, and are looking them up and taking them out.  If you've got one out there and want to save the logs, I'd do it soon.  Keeping them elsewhere in the National Forest is fine from what they said, though.

[Uncle Wayne]

They've always been illegal in the Wilderness but for some reason they just recently decided to "enforce" the law.  But Sam's right, they are going to remove them and I was told trace down the owners if possible. 

[squidbilly]

You'd think Geocaching.com would let their reviewers know that caches are not allowed in wilderness areas.

It would be easy to contact the owners through the website and have them remove the cache.

[bramblypines]

What's next ? Are they going to tell us we can't use our GPS in the forest ?

I have read the Wilderness Act and I do not understand some of the rules they
have made up.

[weathermansam]

We can keep the GPS, but there seems there maybe a push toward keeping people from venturing off trail so much.  Another one of those tricky situations where the rules don't prohibit us from going wherever we want out there, but by doing so, we are, in fact, harming the quality of the wilderness area with the creation of social trails.  I'm torn on the idea.  I see the viewpoint, but I can't see myself never venturing anywhere other than the established trails out there.  In fact, I try to stay as far away from them as possible at times. 

[Joshua Szulecki]

While I've also sensed a weak push to keep us on the trails (which I'll fight tooth and nail) I don't think that is what this is about. I think this is more about leaving objects in the wilderness and also the semi-permanent nature of geocaches. Frankly, I tend to agree with them philosophically on geocaches, you are leaving a manmade object in a supposedly wild area. Whether I agree there should be absolutely no manmade objects is a different story. A bridge here or there might be welcome...

[Joshua Szulecki]

Keeping us on the trails would be hard in Sipsey, btw... The trails don't go anywhere good.

[weathermansam]

Keeping us on the trails would be hard in Sipsey, btw... The trails don't go anywhere good.

I kind of jumped subject, as these were two separate topics brought up at the meeting.  There was even a scenario set up by the FS on how to approach someone venturing off trail.  People are allowed to go anywhere they want out there.  It is a weak push, but they're about to have a group of people at their disposal to wander the trails and begin hinting and suggesting that people do these kinds of things. 

[Joshua Szulecki]

Oh great... I see somebody approaching bushwhackers and whining about erosion as a real fun conversation to have... I hope they got some pushback on this.

[weathermansam]

Oh great... I see somebody approaching bushwhackers and whining about erosion as a real fun conversation to have... I hope they got some pushback on this.

The problem is it's a double edged sword.  Wilderness regulations say we can go anywhere we want, and at the same time the social trails have a detrimental effect on the wilderness itself.  The VWRs have no law enforcement capacity [I wouldn't have signed up for it if it did].  I've stated my case that it'd be hypocritical of me to suggest [and we're suggesting, not telling] someone remain on trail when I venture off as much as I do and I don't plan to change.  Going up Bee Branch would technically be considered off trail as well, since that's a social trail.  The catch-22 there is if a FS ranger finds someone clearing that path, then they can get a ticket since it's illegal to clear pathways or cut things off of an officially designated trail from what I understand.  All the VFR's can do in such a situation is inform them of that, and suggest either an alternate route or suggest they do something else. 

[squidbilly]

They can remove all the flagging and reflectors while they are at it.

[Joshua Szulecki]

The problem is it's a double edged sword.  Wilderness regulations say we can go anywhere we want, and at the same time the social trails have a detrimental effect on the wilderness itself.  The VWRs have no law enforcement capacity [I wouldn't have signed up for it if it did].  I've stated my case that it'd be hypocritical of me to suggest [and we're suggesting, not telling] someone remain on trail when I venture off as much as I do and I don't plan to change.  Going up Bee Branch would technically be considered off trail as well, since that's a social trail.  The catch-22 there is if a FS ranger finds someone clearing that path, then they can get a ticket since it's illegal to clear pathways or cut things off of an officially designated trail from what I understand.  All the VFR's can do in such a situation is inform them of that, and suggest either an alternate route or suggest they do something else. 

Oh no, I get why they are pushing that direction, I just don't expect people to like being told what to do, especially by volunteers. Frankly, I put the blame for problematic social trails on the wilderness system itself, by making trail formation so difficult and for favoring existing former road routes. If FS trails were routed usefully, social trails would diminish.

Ultimately, I think they have bigger fish to fry than worrying about geocaches, but that's basically free so it is something attainable.

[Joshua Szulecki]

They can remove all the flagging and reflectors while they are at it.

Ha! That'll keep them busy. Heck, I'd almost be willing to buy the flagging fairy a GPS at this point.

[squidbilly]

Ha! That'll keep them busy. Heck, I'd almost be willing to buy the flagging fairy a GPS at this point.

Don't do that, the flag fairies would probably walk right off a cliff.

And as for reducing impact: If there were more trails in the rest of the NF, the Wilderness Area might not get so trampled.

[blisterbob]

Just the early steps of the 'wildlands project'
which is a part of the eventual 'agenda 21'.

Get out and enjoy our forests while the restrictions are minimal.

[weathermansam]

They can remove all the flagging and reflectors while they are at it.

That'll be part of our job description. 

Just the early steps of the 'wildlands project'
which is a part of the eventual 'agenda 21'.

Get out and enjoy our forests while the restrictions are minimal.

This isn't the point of the program.  We're not out there to restrict anyone.  Maybe I shouldn't have touched on the two edgier issues first here.  Our primary concerns are litter collection, getting to know the people using the wilderness, assisting medical situations, providing directions, promoting LNT principles and providing information about the rules and regulations out there.  As a hiker, I perform most of those duties anyway. 

Trust me, there's angst in it for me.  If I find someone taking an axe to the big tree,  the most I can do is advise them if a ranger sees them, he'll give them a fine.  As a volunteer wilderness ranger, I then have to turn and walk away.  As long as I am operating in that capacity, I'm powerless.  You think that or other similar situations won't piss me off?  It's infuriating to find bags of garbage buried at Fall Creek Falls, hemlocks cut down because someone wants to make a bough bed or to build and tie up some damn makeshift bench to other trees [and then have the nerve to leave it that way].  Things like this make me livid, and honestly, it's what keeps me off trail 9 out of 10 times.  I'm beginning to see these problems off trail now as well.  This is my wilderness they're destroying.  I'm proud to be a part of a group and an organization that's working to curb some of this. 

[Joshua Szulecki]

Sam, thanks for replying to that... I actually had to look that conspiracy theory up. 

I totally understand why you are involved and why they decided to have volunteer program. I generally support it. Obviously, I'm worried about somebody on a power trip pretending they have authority, but it was the edgier stuff that concerned me far more.

[weathermansam]

Sam, thanks for replying to that... I actually had to look that conspiracy theory up.  

I totally understand why you are involved and why they decided to have volunteer program. I generally support it. Obviously, I'm worried about somebody on a power trip pretending they have authority, but it was the edgier stuff that concerned me far more.

There's an article by George Wallace on 'Authority of the Resource', which is generally the approach we're taking with this.  Authority of the Agency is the more law enforcement-esque method the FS uses.  For all I know, a good deal of the caches may already be gone.  I've made mention that I think it'd be hypocritical of me to tell someone not to go off trail, and it'll essentially be left up to our judgement from what I can tell.  We're also a recon team of sorts reporting trail problems like downed trees, or hog damage, or if a section sloughs off into the creek like what happened near the tunnel on Borden Creek a few years back.  I don't think we'll have issues with people on a power trip with this group, and a handful frequent alatrails.  I'm just the loudmouth right now for a change     

[McDowra]

Well I guess i should have been paying better attention to the board but life has kept us busy lately.  I probably have more caches then anyone out there so I will began retrieving them. Do you have some sort of notice I could pass along to the other geocachers? The most visited cache I have in the Sipsey Area has 45 logged signatures in 4 years, nice to know they are going after a real problem area. Who can I contact to find out which  caches have been retrieved so that we are not both going after the same cache.

[weathermansam]

Well I guess i should have been paying better attention to the board but life has kept us busy lately.  I probably have more caches then anyone out there so I will began retrieving them. Do you have some sort of notice I could pass along to the other geocachers? The most visited cache I have in the Sipsey Area has 45 logged signatures in 4 years, nice to know they are going after a real problem area. Who can I contact to find out which  caches have been retrieved so that we are not both going after the same cache.

The FS had a map at the last meeting of known caches inside the wilderness, so they would be the first I'd contact.  The initial idea was for them or whoever finds the cache to put a note on geocaching.com that it was gone.  As for what's being done with them...keep them, take them to the ranger office, throw 'em away, I don't think anyone really cared, just as long as they were removed.