[Az-Geocaching] National Forests
Richard Pinnell
listserv@azgeocaching.com
Thu, 23 Jan 2003 13:26:22 -0700
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C2C2E3.05A43ED0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
When you think about
the damage other types of recreational and economic uses are doing, =
caching
seems extremely low impact by comparison. So cows are OK, but not =
caches?
I guess this would be my question too. It would seem that more people =
engage in other types of activity that would cause more problems than =
geocaching. In other words, I can tell my friends that he/she should =
hike to this really cool, off-trail location that I found in a National =
Forest, but if it's posted on a website as a geocache then it's against =
the rules. Either way there is a possibility of a new trail being =
started as people find out about this location. I'm not sure of the =
difference. Isn't geocaching (in National Forests) just hiking with a =
goal of finding the cache. If the concern is new trails being started, =
then wouldn't they just have to ban hiking altogether? The problem of =
new trails isn't really going to diminish by just banning the few (in =
comparison) geocachers.=20
I'm not trying to stir things up, but this kind of doesn't make any =
sense. I certainly understand the need of the rangers to protect our =
National Forests and I appreciate their effors, but it seems like they =
are trying to correct some issues by banning a very small (in comparison =
to other activities) group of people.
Just some thoughts.
Rich
Team Gizmo
------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C2C2E3.05A43ED0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1126" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><EM><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" =
size=3D3>When you=20
think about<BR>the damage other types of recreational and economic uses =
are=20
doing, caching<BR>seems extremely low impact by comparison. So =
cows are=20
OK, but not caches?</FONT></EM></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><EM><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"=20
size=3D3></FONT></EM></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" =
size=3D3>I guess this=20
would be my question too. It would seem that more people engage in other =
types=20
of activity that would cause more problems than geocaching. In other =
words, I=20
can tell my friends that he/she should hike to this really cool,=20
off-trail location that I found in a National Forest, but if it's =
posted on=20
a website as a geocache then it's against the rules. Either way there is =
a=20
possibility of a new trail being started as people find out about this =
location.=20
I'm not sure of the difference. Isn't geocaching (in=20
National Forests) just hiking with a goal of finding the =
cache. If the=20
concern is new trails being started, then wouldn't they just have to ban =
hiking=20
altogether? The problem of new trails isn't really going to diminish by =
just=20
banning the few (in comparison) geocachers. </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I'm not trying to stir things up, but this kind of doesn't make any =
sense. I certainly understand the need of the rangers to protect =
our=20
National Forests and I appreciate their effors, but it seems like they =
are=20
trying to correct some issues by banning a very small (in =
comparison to=20
other activities) group of people.</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Just some thoughts.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Rich</DIV>
<DIV>Team Gizmo</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"=20
size=3D3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><EM><BR></EM></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C2C2E3.05A43ED0--