Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shannon
I've seen over months' time side trails and underbrush disruption develop as people "bushwhack" to find a cache that some more thoughtful locating could access with far less disruption. It is for this reason that I think I prefer virtual caches and microcaches.
|
Thanks for the info about the logs at ER. You are right about social trails if the cache is not well designed or put in a bad location. Noone likes to see that, especially those of us that are geocaching primarily as an enhancement to our love of the outdoors. However, microcaches are not the answer.
Microcaches in the woods close to a trail are the worst possible combination for disruption of the area. Microcaches are harder to find than something larger, like an ammo box. Therefore people are at the cache site longer and are more likely to tear up the whole area looking for it. Any hide (large or small) that is close to a trail will likely be approached from the same spot on the trail, i.e. the closest approach from the trail. Unless the area is rock or some other hard surface, you will get a social trail from that closest spot on the trail to the cache. I know it may seem counterintuitive, but a cache that is (1) large (therefore easier to find), (2) a fairly long distance off-trail (therefore lending itself to multiple approaches rather than a single trail), and (3) on a hard surface is the best combination for the least disruption of the area. If I could only get this message through to more cache placers I think there would be fewer problems....or that continues to be my naive hope.
[/soapbox]