|
Post by Forum Admin on Sept 22, 2006 10:18:00 GMT -9
|
|
|
Post by youknowme on Dec 24, 2012 9:27:04 GMT -9
After looking through all the threads I decided that this one most accurately addresses the point I would like to make. Click on the link that will take you to the Geocachers' Creed and give it a good once over. It seems as if some of us have forgotten what the creed really means.
I am mostly speaking about caches that damage the environment. More specifically, caches that require tree climbing. I know that there is an attribute for tree climbing but I think some trees can be climbed without causing damage to them and some most assuredly can not.
I believe that the future of this activity partially hinges on the cachers of the world keeping a relatively low profile. If we tear things up we will gradually lose more and more area to cache.
I am not looking to offend any of my fellow cachers. I just want us to do what's right.
|
|
|
Post by fuzzybelly on Dec 24, 2012 10:21:07 GMT -9
I'm really glad you posted here for us to go back and read about the Geocachers' creed. I know I will remember this when I'm on an exceptionally difficult hide and i start digging around to much. Sometimes I need help remembering the "lift, look, replace" technique. I need to use that as much as the fuzzybelly technique
|
|
|
Post by GreatlandReviewer on Dec 27, 2012 9:55:05 GMT -9
One of the Fundamental Guidelines (I.1.5) reads, " Wildlife and the natural environment are not harmed in the pursuit of geocaching.
Geocaches are placed so that plant and animal life are safe from both intentional and unintentional harm. In some regions geocaching activity may need to cease for portions of the year due to sensitivity of some species."All cachers who hide a cache acknowledge that they " read and understand the guidelines for listing a cache" when they check the box on the online cache submission form. The onus of not harming the environment falls on both the cache hider and the cache seeker. The cache hider should consider the damage the lowest common denominator cacher would/will inflict on the environment when seeking the cache, especially if it is a tricky hide. The cache seeker must be careful in their search of an area so as not to damage it.
|
|
|
Post by ladybugkids on Dec 27, 2012 10:03:34 GMT -9
More specifically, caches that require tree climbing. I know that there is an attribute for tree climbing but I think some trees can be climbed without causing damage to them and some most assuredly can not. I believe that the future of this activity partially hinges on the cachers of the world keeping a relatively low profile. If we tear things up we will gradually lose more and more area to cache. As the hider of two of Alaska's first tree climbing caches, I agree that some trees are meant to be climbed while others are not. The trees I selected are stout of trunk and branches, and can be climbed without damaging the tree or putting the climber in any undue risk. I suspect that some trees that are being damaged while cachers are pursuing a smilie probably don't have to be climbed at all. A little extra effort or creativity may put the cache in hand. In my opinion, there is never a good excuse for cachers to be trampling undergrowth, breaking branches or tearing bark off live trees, or otherwise not practicing "leave no trace" searching techniques. Sadly, that is not always the case. I can't count the number of times I've been one of the first five cachers to enter an area where a new cache is hidden and the place already looks like a war zone. Let's all be careful and considerate out there.
|
|
burtonsinak
Bronze Cacher
Posts: 60
GeocacheAlaska! Membership Level: Sourdough
|
Post by burtonsinak on Dec 27, 2012 13:02:24 GMT -9
Ok then what could or should be done if we as cacher find this damage being done? I know it will be said that we or the reviewer are not the caching POLICE, but in a way I think we are too even tho its not spelled out that way. Yes we can say on the log in our own name that we will not partake in this cache because of XXXXXXXX. But unless many to most of the cachers do this it mostlilkely won't change much. Yes, I too have some in trees, Big ones and dead ones that need to be climbed. If there is a problem with any of them lets talk. I have several more trr caches planed, and I will keep this info in mind and uses when placing/hiding them.
|
|
|
Post by GreatlandReviewer on Dec 27, 2012 13:59:26 GMT -9
The entire caching community is accountable for making certain the game is played in ways that comply with the guidelines. Sometimes cache owners didn't consider unintended consequences for certain hides at certain locations and need to reconsider the hide. Sometimes cachers get blinded by the quest for a FTF or smilie and tear up an area. Sometimes an initially good idea goes bad due to muggles or forces of nature.
If a cacher has first-hand knowledge that a cache does not comply with the guidelines or local land management policy, a cacher may:
1. Contact the cache owner through his/her profile and discuss the issue offline 2. Elevate the issue and write a "Needs Archived" log on the cache page. This doesn't mean the local reviewer will automatically archive the cache, but s/he will look at the facts and perhaps contact the cache owner for additional information. 3. Contact the local reviewer thorugh his/her profile and provide the specifics about the concern 4. Contact Groundspeak at contact@geocaching.com.
In the latter two, the GC number should be provided.
In my opinion, it's best that cachers work out issues amongst themselves and do what's best for the game on their own. For example, if someone notices the ground being trampled or a tree being torn up or a rock wall being dismantled or landscaping being torn up, they can bring up the issue with the cacher who may be able to remedy the situation by: 1) providing additional clues via the attributes, encrypted hint, or other means, to guide people toward a less destructive search/approach; 2) moving the hide or changing the container size to simplify the search; 3) doing something else; 4) archiving the cache. As a Reviewer, I prefer this be the first step because my player alter ego (Ladybug Kids/LBK) may not have recently (or ever) visited the cache site and doesn't have the first-hand information more recent searchers have.
Failing that, the Reviewer can be brought into discussions about guideline compliance, and if that fails, the paid Lackeys at Groundspeak will help.
|
|
burtonsinak
Bronze Cacher
Posts: 60
GeocacheAlaska! Membership Level: Sourdough
|
Post by burtonsinak on Dec 27, 2012 14:21:05 GMT -9
That sounds good. I will make the first step of contact. This also is a good thing I would think to put in the news letter as not many cachers come to or read the forum. These have been good reminders and info we all need to hear again and more involved discussion/breakdown. Even if just one or two gett somethings from it here or the news letter thats better then non getting it or no change.
Also I know I have said now at least 2 times that things should be put in the news letter as its good info. Im not trying to push the work onto the newsletter people but its all here and sometimes may be exspaneded on too. Thank you
|
|
|
Post by ladybugkids on Dec 27, 2012 17:13:11 GMT -9
Also I know I have said now at least 2 times that things should be put in the news letter as its good info. Im not trying to push the work onto the newsletter people but its all here and sometimes may be exspaneded on too. Thank you The "newsletter people" are the caching community and as such, the newsletter does not write itself. Cachers can help the Newsletter Editor by writing content they think should be in the newsletter. The "editor" isn't necessarily (and, in my opinion, shouldn't be) the newsletter "author." The editor has plenty to do with compiling/formatting a dozen or more pages submitted by several different authors/reporters. Speaking of the newsletter, the January 2013 issue is the last edition I'm slated to publish as my term of Secretary wraps up. A couple of people have expressed an interest in taking the reins, but no one has made a firm commitment. We need someone commited to turning the crank every month for the job.
|
|
|
Post by fuzzybelly on Dec 28, 2012 9:02:56 GMT -9
If you want to see a tree hide that is not damaging to the tree and fairly safe to climb for nearly anyone, check out TomAnobles cache in Portage Valley; GC34DF8. As LBK said, Sturdy and Stout of trunk and limb.
All who reads must admit, the tree cacheing competition is starting to get just a little bit outta control. After putting myself in an uncomfortable position on one, I've decided they're just smileys I'll not get a chance to find.
Of course the main fear is that someone falls and gets hurt. All the warnings on a cache page may stop most, but we're some amazing apes and even the lure of a smiley can be to attractive for some. And I'm sure none of us would want to hear of one of our friends getting hurt on one of our own caches.
|
|
|
Post by fuzzybelly on Feb 27, 2015 7:38:50 GMT -9
IMHO, it's time to bring this thread back to the fore front.
I feel like we as the Anchorage geocaching community are starting to push rule #3 a little.
And maybe #4 should be expanded a little bit. If a cacher, or a group of cachers are searching for a high D rating cache and it's right out in the open or outside a hundred windows, there's no way that won't cause alarm or at least curiosity from all the muggles who see what's going on over there.
Bring me to an interesting place or a beautiful view.
|
|
|
Post by barnacle9 on Feb 27, 2015 23:34:16 GMT -9
I have a tree cache coord.info/GC35M6X with exactly 2 finds. I think I might need to find a friendlier tree. I agree a cache should not cause significant damage to mother nature, but I think people sometimes get a little uptight. Diplomacy is good
|
|
|
Post by NorthWes on Mar 2, 2015 16:42:22 GMT -9
IMHO, it's time to bring this thread back to the fore front. I feel like we as the Anchorage geocaching community are starting to push rule #3 a little. And maybe #4 should be expanded a little bit. If a cacher, or a group of cachers are searching for a high D rating cache and it's right out in the open or outside a hundred windows, there's no way that won't cause alarm or at least curiosity from all the muggles who see what's going on over there. Bring me to an interesting place or a beautiful view. Having just returned from a madcap travel weekend that saw me in Portland OR one day and Fairbanks the next, I can vouch for what fuzzybelly says about bringing me to an interesting place or a beautiful view, that doesn't put me in a place where I'm going to trigger a defensive reaction from the neighbors. Unfortunately in the course of my journey, I was accosted by a 'neighbor' out in the middle of nearly nowhere (stupendous view though, and a charming little cache series). I was merely driving down the road when this individual pulled his farm truck across the road to block it... I spent the next 45 minutes being diplomatic, sympathetic, and a wee bit scared... swore at one point I could hear a banjo... and I had to hear this guy complain about all the 'townies' who come out and tear up his fencelines looking for these caches. Clearly, it wasn't the cache that bothered him - it was cachers' bad behaviors.
|
|