PDA

View Full Version : Wilderness Caching



Bushcraft
08-26-2009, 09:57 AM
Per Westy’s recent Wilderness!!! (http://www.kifaruforums.net/showthread.php?t=18916) thread, I know that caching equipment is frowned upon (okay, against the law) in most wilderness areas...but I still do it, and will continue to squirrel away the occasional temperature safe food items and perhaps the occasional piece of gear (i.e., fuel, frying pan, pot, lantern) when I know I'm going to be returning to spend a lot of time in a particular area year after year. It's not like I'm leaving entire canvas tent camps slung up in sealed 55 gallon drums hung high in some trees, and no sane person would EVER find the cache and no critters save perhaps some very, very determined chipmunks with a death wish would EVER spoil said cache(s).

So...question...does anyone else cache the occasional item for an upcoming wilderness hunt? And, what do you typically cache and how do you securely cache the material?

CCH
08-26-2009, 10:35 AM
In answer to your actual question: Haven't done it but have considered caching water in non-wilderness areas. Planning on stocking up on firewood from surrounding area in a wilderness. Not sure if that counts as caching as it's just moving detritus from one spot to another.

Additional unsolicited commentary: I think it's a tough call as to whether one should cache. I understand the practicality and "low impact" nature of caching, but if you're pro-wilderness and want an area that is protected from wheeled traffic and other things, it seems like you should try to follow other restrictions as well rather than picking and choosing the laws you think are right. I guess I like the idea of human use of wilderness as being temporary and largely confined to one's actual presence there rather than leaving things behind on a permanent basis.

I think it's a question of where do you draw the line. I'm not picking on you Bushcraft, this is more of a philosophical question than a critique of carefully caching a couple of items but if no one sees the 55 gallon drum full of stuff, is that any worse than your stuff that's hidden away? If that's not a big deal, then is it okay to start making quasi-permanent shelters that are tucked away and "out of sight". If someone stashes away a meat hauling cart that they only use in hunting season and no one sees it stashed or in use, is that bad?

I don't think that what you describe has a true impact on anyone's wilderness experience but I do think that when we start crossing the lines, we start creating some very gray areas. Opinions of which rules are reasonable and should be followed can vary greatly with the individual and it becomes a pretty slippery slope once things become optional and subject to individual preference.

Songdog
08-26-2009, 11:04 AM
One of the areas I deer hunt fairly close to home is very dry with the exception of a single year round creek that flows through a valley at about 3000ft. I typically camp near the highest elevation in the area at 8000ft. I spend my summer scouting trips caching water at the top. I also will pre cut/split stovewood for later in the season.

If someone is crazy enough to climb those 5000ft and can make use of the firewood and water, more power to them. Truth be told, there isn't a human footprint around.

This area isn't a wilderness area.

evanhill
08-26-2009, 11:33 AM
The purpose of laws are to provide a much needed element of discretion for those who don't come by it naturally.

Man's responsibility as a steward notwithstanding, he is a part OF nature, not apart from it. When I travel the backcountry, I see evidence that the elk and deer has been there, where they've slept, etc. I'm not philosophically opposed to seeing the evidence that man has been somewhere as well.

Is it an unwanted intrusion when a natural spring has been improved (to every animal's benefit) with some rockwork? Is it an unwanted intrusion when a high country lake has been stocked with a trout species that didn't manage to get there on its own hook prior to de-glaciation? Is it an unwanted intrusion when some firewood has been split and left in the crook of a tree for future use? How is this different than a squirrel's abandoned nut cache? I would submit that these are all examples of good and wise stewardship.

Stewardship is the key though. You have to use your discretion and ask yourself if your actions improve, degrade, or have no impact on your trust lands. Failing discretion, follow the regulations.

Buck W
08-26-2009, 11:37 AM
Well said, Evan.

Sawtooth
08-26-2009, 11:42 AM
The federally-designated wilderness in which I hunt does not prohibit caching. My camps in the wilderness are off-trail, hidden to the point of invisibility, small, and clean. My cache container is never larger than a backpack-sized Rubbermaid tub, painted camo, duct-taped shut, and well-hidden. It never contains food or anything that smells like food. It's hauled out immediately after hunting season, or when I have meat on the ground, whichever comes first. I have also cached stovewood, but it was also hidden, and never more than I needed for the season.

I agree with Evan. Discretion. Common sense. Don't infringe on others' rights to a quality wilderness experience. Follow the rules.

CCH
08-26-2009, 11:52 AM
I think it's defining "impact" that becomes the sticky part. There are a lot of folks who would argue that using a wheeled cart to haul their meat out of a wilderness has no impact. In fact there are many uses of designated wilderness that have no real impact on it nor do they degrade it other than possibly someone else's experience of it, but they are specifically prohibited. I have no idea what impact hang gliding has on wilderness areas, but it's prohibited right there on the signs along with any wheeled vehicles. I think many, if not most, mountain bikers would say that their use of Wilderness would not degrade or negatively impact it. Do you report or confront someone riding their bike in a designated Wilderness while packing in your cache?

Again, I don't think that caching stuff hurts my wilderness experience, what I'm wondering is whether we should toe every line because it IS Wilderness and so much can argued to be non-impactful that many of the rules could be considered "breakable" depending on your viewpoint and interests. In that case we edge towards National Forest as far as recreational use, rather than Wilderness.

And if it's not against the rules in the Wilderness in question as in Sawtooth's case, there is no need for discussion. :D

moho
08-26-2009, 11:58 AM
In lightly used but formally designated wilderness in MT and ID, I have occasionally cached small bundles, for relatively short periods, containing items like Coleman fuel, a grill, saw blades, an expendable tarp, etc. I've never had any indication that humans found them, though once rodents chewed up a tarp. In de-facto wilderness in AK, I have stashed fuel and camp equipment for short periods and that has generally worked out OK. I don't consider leaving firewood as caching and almost always try to leave some in a sheltered place. But I almost never camp in park-like areas where that would be a problem in any case.

These days, in all but the most remote areas, I avoid caching gear or supplies since you can't count on the stuff being there when you may need it. And in heavily used areas in the lower 48, it runs the risk of offending someone or violating regs. IMO, the era of the outfitter who leaves tent frames, cots and corrals up, other stuff in barrels is – or should be - over in virtually all the lower 48.

Westy
08-26-2009, 12:01 PM
I have come across wheeled carts, artificial shelters, food, water, firewood, and other gear "hidden" in Wilderness areas - I guess it wasn't hidden very well after all. When appropriate or possible, I try to remove such caches I find. Most of those "hidden" items I've run across appear to have been there, untouched, for years. At that stage, it is not only breaking the Wilderness laws, but remains as unclaimed litter.

The majority of the places I go, I do not see other people. The reason being that I spend time exploring the interiors of Wilderness where many others are not capable of getting to, let alone packing an animal out of in a timely manner. On those experiences, I want to know that the wilderness is undisturbed, and that if I see somebody else in there, I know they have worked as hard as me in preparing for an adventure where only the capable venture. In my adamant opinion, caching cheats the intent of Wilderness.

Two years ago, I found a wheeled cart four miles from the trailhead cached in some bushes, "hidden". I felt cheated. Here I was, humping my food, water, shelter, and gear necessary for a four-day elk hunt...all in my pack. Beyond what I was carrying, I had purposefully designated extra capacity to take out backstraps and maybe part of a front shoulder on a first trip. In my view, somebody cached that cart in an attempt to shortcut the effort and skill necessary to hunt Wilderness as is intended. I should have dismantled it, but I didn't have a formed opinion on the issue yet - if I came across the same cart today, I most likely would remove critical parts or remove the entire cart.

Much of the challenge of hunting Wilderness is being able to hunt it as is without altering the conditions or landscape. If you have demand for extra supplies on a hunt, hump in a hundred pound pack (or use pack animals), set up a base camp, and hunt from it. Then, when you're done, pack out everything you packed in, and make sure your sight is as close possible to how it was before you got there. If you're not able (or willing, which implies laziness and is much worse, IMO) to supply your hunt with the supplies necessary on the subject trip, then I would suggest that's not a hunt you should be doing - choose a different hunt.


I just read EvanHill's post, and while I agree that Stewardship is key and that we should become part "of" nature in Wilderness, the caches I have come across do not fall under that description. If somebody notices my footprints, dropped crumbs from a sandwich, or sees where I urinated, then they see my temporary impact on and presence in the area - much like you see the presence of animals all around in a Wilderness. Plastic, cast iron, wheels, etc. are man-made, non-natural items (even if they are being used to store natural materials such as water), and I don't think they belong in a Wilderness year-round. Along that same vein, what if someone is an expert in woodcraft and builds a cabin entirely out of natural materials - lodgepole lengths for the walls, mud for chinking, branches for insulation, etc. Why not build a village of them? They're 100% natural after all. Camoflauge it, make it discrete, or however else it could be rationalized. Should that be allowed? He's only "caching" materials for next year's hunt.

A Steward is defined in one context as: "A person who manages another's property; one who administers anything as the agent of another or others." It doesn't specify the values or principles that underlie that stewardship. In the case of Wilderness, it is the laws governing such areas that define the values to be managed and upheld. I, for one, believe in them and try to follow them as best I can.

Bushcraft
08-26-2009, 01:04 PM
I think there's a world of difference in a) hiding (or not) of "wheeled carts, artificial shelters, etc., in designated wilderness areas where others frequently roam, and b) very discreetly caching a small, camouflaged, water/critter-proof gallon sized container of consumables someplace waaaay back in the pucker brush where only the very capable can roam.

For example, there's a series of high basins deep in one of our wilderness areas that is rarely visited by man and incapable of being visited by beast (much less a game cart) that Randy, KevinB, Evan and I will be bear & deer hunting in over the next month. We've planned two scouting/bear trips in addition to nine days of the high-buck season in September. I have no moral qualms about very discreetly caching some sealed temperature safe food, a fuel canister or two and perhaps a small frying pan on the last scouting trip, in addition to knocking up some firewood to have on hand in the likely event that it will be snowing or raining sideways once we get in there. I certainly don’t want to be making a bunch of noise knocking up firewood which could potentionally disturb the bucks in the area come game time. All of it except for the wood will be consumed and/or hauled out upon our departure. I won’t speak for them, but I’m fairly certain that they don’t subscribe to the notion that we are cheating anyone (including ourselves) by temporarily caching some consumables for the upcoming trip. Keep in mind that this is about 15+ miles of trail and bushwhacking in some big, steep, remote country with massive elevation gain/loss/gain just to get where we think we’ll ultimately want to put our base, if we put a base.

If anything, I think they’d agree that we’d be cheating our intellects for not having done so.

<O:p</O:pAnother component to the discussion is the size of the wilderness areas in question. For example, from what I understand from talking with folks at the CO rondy, their pocketed wilderness areas are not very large in comparison to the millions and millions of contiguous acres set aside in Washington and Idaho. It stands to reason that these smaller pockets of wilderness are going to have a much higher concentration of human activity and it will be harder to find expansive areas that are only accessible via two legs and considerable bushwhacking. 4-6 miles of hiking to get to the heart of them versus 15-25+ in larger wilderness areas. These smaller, higher concentration use areas demand a much higher standard of Leave No Cache than massive, rugged, remote areas like the Selway, Frank Church in Idaho and the contiguous Henry Jackson/GPW/Mather/North Cascades/Pasayten complex in Washington that only get visited by a handful of crazies a few times per year, if not per decade. I’m not slighting anyone’s wilderness areas, just pointing out a difference that may make a difference.<O:p</O:p

moho
08-26-2009, 01:25 PM
I see Bushcraft posted as I was typing. I generally agree.

Abandoning an illegal cart in a designated Wilderness wouldn't be a problem with caching per se. The cart is a violation in itself and abandoning it is littering or improper dosposal. Most regs in WAs I'm familiar with allow caching for up to 14 days in a 45 day period, though I'm sure that varies. Permanent structures are also prohibited under the Act and in recent years there were some court cases involving outfitter's tent frames that stayed up for years. I believe they lost.

So hypothetically, what about leaving a base camp in place for a night or two while spiking out, perhaps bundling heavy gear and stringing it between trees to avoid rodents? That seems to be caching, but is it abusive? In a truly remote area, I wouldn't feel that way, or that I was somehow diminished by someone else doing it.

Jefferson Herb
08-26-2009, 01:28 PM
If a cach is found near a trail,there was'nt much thought in it anyway.Some wilderness areas still have miners cabins etc from days gone by,Historical? tear them down? keep them in repair for emergency shelter?Everyone can have a different outlook.
If you can hide it well enough from those who would loot,destroy,or consider it trash,they'll never know will they?

CCH
08-26-2009, 02:50 PM
Well based on the regs Westy linked to in the other thread, it appears that different areas have different restrictions on caching. As Sawtooth said, his area allows it but the area I'm going to doesn't. For me that makes this a very different conversation. We're not talking about a blanket rule like the no wheels one, but one that varies with locale.

moho, for your example (base camp, hanging food, etc.) I'd think that as long as you are still in the area, that isn't caching but that's just my interpretation.

Westy
08-26-2009, 02:58 PM
<O:p</O:pI think there's a world of difference in a) hiding (or not) of "wheeled carts, artificial shelters, etc., in designated wilderness areas where others frequently roam, and b) very discreetly caching a small, camouflaged, water/critter-proof gallon sized container of consumables someplace waaaay back in the pucker brush where only the very capable can roam.<O:p</O:p

What is that difference? Does that mean that stealing candy from the 7/11 is okay, but mortgage or securities fraud is off-limits? The law and intent of the law remain constant regardless of scale. Oh, I know, since nobody is harmed, it's fine. Except for the guys who forget to retrieve their cache, or for the guys who get an animal, and vow to return to pick up the extra 20 pounds that was too much to bear on the way in. That rationale doesn't cut it for me.


<O:p</O:pFor example, there's a series of high basins deep in one of our wilderness areas that is rarely visited by man and incapable of being visited by beast (much less a game cart) that Randy, KevinB, Evan and I will be bear & deer hunting in over the next month. We've planned two scouting/bear trips in addition to nine days of the high-buck season in September. I have no moral qualms about very discreetly caching some sealed temperature safe food, a fuel canister or two and perhaps a small frying pan on the last scouting trip, in addition to knocking up some firewood to have on hand in the likely event that it will be snowing or raining sideways once we get in there. I certainly don’t want to be making a bunch of noise knocking up firewood which could potentionally disturb the bucks in the area come game time. All of it except for the wood will be consumed and/or hauled out upon our departure. I won’t speak for them, but I’m fairly certain that they don’t subscribe to the notion that we are cheating anyone (including ourselves) by temporarily caching some consumables for the upcoming trip. Keep in mind that this is about 15+ miles of trail and bushwhacking in some big, steep, remote country with massive elevation gain/loss/gain just to get where we think we’ll ultimately want to put our base, if we put a base.

Sounds like great country. Sounds a lot like country I hunt in. Sounds a lot like hunts I do. Sounds like a hunt I'd be really proud of doing...except for the caching part. If I were to hunt that same area, I would feel cheated, because I would follow the law, be limited by what I could carry within the restraints of what the law dictates. The advantage would lie with the hunters who had stepped through the regulations to give themselves an unfair advantage - and if it isn't an unfair advantage, then why do it at all? What is the total weight of your cache? From the items listed, it doesn't sound like more than twenty pounds. Why don't you haul in a 75 pound pack instead of 55? or 95 instead of 75? If you can't swing the hunt within the restraints of the law for that area, like I said before, I would suggest spending more time in the gym or doing a different hunt. Or bring your goats.


<O:p</O:pIf anything, I think they’d agree that we’d be cheating our intellects for not having done so.

That's too bad. Sometimes it's possible to be too smart.

<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:pAnother component to the discussion is the size of the wilderness areas in question. For example, from what I understand from talking with folks at the CO rondy, their pocketed wilderness areas are not very large in comparison to the millions and millions of contiguous acres set aside in Washington and Idaho. It stands to reason that these smaller pockets of wilderness are going to have a much higher concentration of human activity and it will be harder to find expansive areas that are only accessible via two legs and considerable bushwhacking. 4-6 miles of hiking to get to the heart of them versus 15-25+ in larger wilderness areas. These smaller, higher concentration use areas demand a much higher standard of Leave No Cache than massive, rugged, remote areas like the Selway, Frank Church in Idaho and the contiguous Henry Jackson/GPW/Mather/North Cascades/Pasayten complex in Washington that only get visited by a handful of crazies a few times per year, if not per decade. I’m not slighting anyone’s wilderness areas, just pointing out a difference that may make a difference.<O:p</O:p

You're absolutely right, the areas we hunt are easily accessible, rolling hills with paved trails leading into every basin, and that means we should follow the law, but you shouldn't. I get it - makes perfect sense. Honestly, I should leave my Longhunter in the car since I can practically drive my truck to where I shoot my elk - which is also easier here because the areas are so small there is no place for the elk to hide.

Actually, if I understand correctly, Colorado has more Wilderness than any other state - who cares if it's contiguous? While in some edeavors, size matters, in this discussion, I don't think it makes a difference in the least. If I'm following correctly, you're telling me you can't carry 20 extra pounds in on the hike in (when you have fresh legs), but you expect to be able to pack out deer and bear in a reasonable time frame so as not to spoil meat? That math doesn't add up for me. What's your plan for getting this game out of these far away places that are so necessary to cache gear?

I was in a car accident in November. My back isn't a third of what it was this time last year. I've hardly spent any time in the backcountry this summer in large part because of how much it hurts to wear a pack right now. My hunts will be less amibitious than the past couple years because I can't handle the same types of weight for the same lengths of time and mileage. TS. I don't complain, I don't make excuses, and I don't cheat the regulations with rationalizations for why it's okay. I'll do what I can and do it to spend time in areas where I have always hoped others followed the same set of rules I do. No wheels and no caching.

Just like I am a hell of a lot more proud of a smaller elk I take in the Wilderness than I would be killing a big one on a game ranch; I am a hell of a lot more proud of playing by the rules and honoring the restrictions placed upon lands (in the interest of preservation) that I hold very close to my heart. I'm sorry to hear that I appear to be in the minority on that point.

Westy
08-26-2009, 03:00 PM
If you can hide it well enough from those who would loot,destroy,or consider it trash,they'll never know will they?

Great thought. If I can get away with embezzling, why don't I?

snakey2
08-26-2009, 03:09 PM
Just a thought, if you shot an animal and couldn't get it all out in one load (say a large bull elk for one or two guys), wouldn't leaving part for the next trip constitute "caching" in virtually the same sense as taking in a load then coming out for more?

CCH
08-26-2009, 03:21 PM
Just a thought, if you shot an animal and couldn't get it all out in one load (say a large bull elk for one or two guys), wouldn't leaving part for the next trip constitute "caching" in virtually the same sense as taking in a load then coming out for more?

Somehow I just don't see leaving a load of meat that you cannot carry while you are in the area and plan to go right back up and pack it out, the same as caching gear for months or indefinitely. Also if you want to take extra loads of gear up for the same trip, I don't think that would qualify as caching. To me as long as you are in the area and returning for the loads at either end of your trip, you're not caching.

The regulation for the area I'm going to hunt reads:

CACHING OF EQUIPMENT PROHIBITED : 72 HOURS

STORING EQUIPMENT, PERSONAL PROPERTY OR SUPPLIES FOR LONGER THAN 72 HOURS IS PROHIBITED.

In this particular wilderness, I think you'd be okay making multiple trips with meat or gear. I think you're also okay setting up a base camp and even spike camping away from it within that time frame. I think you're in violation if you take in your gear even a week before the season and leave it. I'm not a lawyer but that sure seems like the meaning of the written reg.

As to the cheating concept, Westy I understand where you're coming from BUT if caching is legal in that area and a guy goes to the trouble of making the extra trip to take in gear as permitted, I don't view it as such. If it's an area where caching is not permitted, that's another story and we get back to my question of where do you draw the line and why is it okay for us to break this rule but others (especially those that don't effect us and that we "like") should be enforced?

snakey2
08-26-2009, 04:13 PM
I have hung meat more than 72 hours sometimes depending on the hunt. It seems that making a distinction between food going one way and food going another is pretty picky. I would second Evan Hill and believe that good personal judgment should rule over hard and fast rules made by the gov. If everyone using the wilderness made a cache such that it was hidden to all but themselves there would not be an issue. Those that leave their junk where it can spoil other peoples experience cause the problem and hence the regulation.

Sawtooth
08-26-2009, 04:20 PM
As to the cheating concept, Westy I understand where you're coming from BUT if caching is legal in that area and a guy goes to the trouble of making the extra trip to take in gear as permitted, I don't view it as such. If it's an area where caching is not permitted, that's another story and we get back to my question of where do you draw the line and why is it okay for us to break this rule but others (especially those that don't effect us and that we "like") should be enforced?


Hmmm, so I wonder...so if I can legally cache a small container of gear in a designated wilderness, I'm not "cheating", but if I do it illegally in another wilderness, I am? I'm not sure I understand that line of thinking.

I agree with you CCH. It might take a hunter two trips going in with gear, if he so chooses, including the legal cache. Along the same vein, it might take him two MORE trips packing meat out than the next guy, based on backpack size, physical ability, length of trip out, etc. Does any of this make him a cheater? I submit that it doesn't.

Common sense is the key. Restraint on size and visibility of a cache, making sure it's legal, etc.

Kevin B
08-26-2009, 04:38 PM
Just to be clear westy, how far do you carry this 100% adherence to law, code, regulation? And is that consistent or, gasp, situational?

You've basically said not to adhere leaves one in a sub ethical position if not an embarrassingly self disrespecting one. Do you obey all laws all the time? Never go over the speed limit? Ever enter a cross walk once it started counting down in red numbers? Ever park someplace for too long or in the wrong spot? Ever go over the due date on your tabs on your rig? Did you have your very first taste of adult beverage on your 21st birthday? All laws are designed with a well intended purpose. Everyone I know situationaly breaks laws, some more rarely than others. Some by being sure to take steps to avert the consequences the law attempts to prevent to begin with.... like retrieving all your gear stored some days ahead of a hunt. I tend to judge the person not based on whether they have or have not fully adhered, but based on the significance of what the law was designed to do, if they created risk or harm to themselves or others by what they've done and if they did anything to mitigate negative consequences the law attempts to prevent.

There's a reason a 5 over speed ticket costs $65 instead of a year in jail. All laws aren't created equal. Ever notice that some laws don't get enforced, guys get a "warning"?

You simply have made these particular regs sacrosanct without providing any basis why they are inherently more important than others you might not defend so seriously. I doubt if someone posted "do you sometimes drive 58 MPH in a 55?" that you would attack the questionners integrity. In some aspects of your life you will, and do situationally, break laws while choosing to adhere with rigidity in others. It's anything but clear how that produces a more ethical outcome or person. And it's anything but clear to me why cashing items I return to my home after a trip is a greater lapse in conduct than any number of things I don't think twice about. I entered two crosswalks on the red 9 count down (9 seconds left) on my way back from a workout today. $75 ticket if called on it. Losing no sleep over my indiscretion.

All this without addressing that the "law" can be completely arbitrary. What's ok here is not there and the situations are identical. Laws are what they are. Sometimes they really are a moral issue (murder/theft) other times they are attempt to socially engineer and others are just a dissuasion for an activity. It begs the question, if a certain thing is really that important, why isn't it penalized robustly?

"I don't cheat the regulations with rationalizations for why it's okay." Yes you do. You just chose to rationalize that other regs in other areas of your life are of lesser import and elevate these regs and therefore your sense of your ethics. Anyone here ever break a gun carry law? National Park? Are they taking a calculated risk with little or no impact on others or are they unethical cheaters?

The regs in question are anti-litter and human impact related. They are not game regs. A person stashing a fuel can is not cheating the other hunters when his camp is located next to the outfitter camp that is eating steaks every night and drinking canned beer. I can pay $750 to have stuff dropped off for me by horse and then picked up. Or I can illegally drop 10 lbs of stuff for myself, use it, then take it home. Laws are crude tools trying to accomplish, sometimes, noble ends. They catch up much activity that is ethical and reasonable but for the presence of the law to begin with.

CCH
08-26-2009, 04:46 PM
Sawtooth, my line of thinking is just that I find it tough to say that it's okay for me to pick when I should follow the rules and when I shouldn't. The logic that if it's okay in one place, then it's okay in another despite the regulations doesn't hold true for me. If so, why is the meat cart a problem when I cross from National Forest to Wilderness? It's okay in one place and it doesn't do any damage so what's the big deal about using it across the border? It's just a regulation specific to that location and I'm not having any impact on my surroundings or others. Heck, I'll get off the trail and give hikers and horses the right of way. That foot powered wheel isn't going to damage the trail any more than a horse and won't leave any droppings. What is the harm? Just like the cache, there probably is no harm but is it okay to do?

It seems like a lot of the sentiment is "no harm, no foul" as long as we think the rule being ignored isn't a big deal in our estimation and that is what I'm disagreeing with, not that I think caches have some tremendous impact on the wilderness.

Westy
08-26-2009, 05:01 PM
Hmmm, so I wonder...so if I can legally cache a small container of gear in a designated wilderness, I'm not "cheating", but if I do it illegally in another wilderness, I am? I'm not sure I understand that line of thinking.

If I go 60 mph on the freeway, it's legal. If I go 60 mph in a school zone, it's illegal. The implications here are obvious. Maybe the rationales for why it's legal to cache in some areas and not others isn't, but it doesn't invalidiate the discretion.


I agree with you CCH. It might take a hunter two trips going in with gear, if he so chooses, including the legal cache. Along the same vein, it might take him two MORE trips packing meat out than the next guy, based on backpack size, physical ability, length of trip out, etc. Does any of this make him a cheater? I submit that it doesn't.

I'm fine with legal caches - I agree.


Common sense is the key. Restraint on size and visibility of a cache, making sure it's legal, etc.

Absolutely agreed.

Sawtooth
08-26-2009, 05:40 PM
CCH, we're on the same page. I was agreeing with you earlier. Just deciding to follow specific wilderness regulations to the letter is about all it takes to make the right decision. Those area-specific rules were developed by land managers, and vary from place to place for a reason.

Westy
08-26-2009, 05:49 PM
Just to be clear westy, how far do you carry this 100% adherence to law, code, regulation? And is that consistent or, gasp, situational?

Of the ones that are important to me, I do my best to be 100% adherent, absolutely.


You've basically said not to adhere leaves one in a sub ethical position if not an embarrassingly self disrespecting one. Do you obey all laws all the time? Never go over the speed limit? Ever enter a cross walk once it started counting down in red numbers? Ever park someplace for too long or in the wrong spot? Ever go over the due date on your tabs on your rig? Did you have your very first taste of adult beverage on your 21st birthday?

To respond generally, I get what you're saying and acknowledge the legitimacy of your comments. I can tell you though that there are people who viamently advocate for each one of those situations you just mentioned for different reasons: Speed limit - a mother whose daughter was killed by somebody speeding; cross walk - a man whose brother was killed while j-walking; parking spot - a disabled veteran who didn't get to the store in time because somebody was parked in the handicap spot, etc. I advocate for the values and laws that are important to me. If you choose to brush me off as over the top or irrational, I understand, but Wilderness is important to me, and I do my best to treat and advocate for it as to the letter as I can.


All laws are designed with a well intended purpose. Everyone I know situationaly breaks laws, some more rarely than others. Some by being sure to take steps to avert the consequences the law attempts to prevent to begin with.... like retrieving all your gear stored some days ahead of a hunt. I tend to judge the person not based on whether they have or have not fully adhered, but based on the significance of what the law was designed to do, if they created risk or harm to themselves or others by what they've done and if they did anything to mitigate negative consequences the law attempts to prevent.

Agreed. I've had more than a few negative experiences with this from people who were not responsible, and it makes me sick. That's why I'm speaking up. What's important to you in life? For me, Wilderness is right up there behind family and friends, so I advocate strongly in areas where I think I might be able to positively change one person's perspective.


There's a reason a 5 over speed ticket costs $65 instead of a year in jail. All laws aren't created equal. Ever notice that some laws don't get enforced, guys get a "warning"?

I sure do notice that. I'm a commercial banker and just finished helping unwind a massive fraud case. Just because law enforcement or another form of policing doesn't have the time, resources, or interest to enforce some laws does not invalidate them. And yes, of course there are varying degrees of punishment for varying degrees of violation, but that doesn't mean that a lesser violation doesn't have an impact too.


You simply have made these particular regs sacrosanct without providing any basis why they are inherently more important than others you might not defend so seriously.

Sacrosanct is probably a little strong, but I hear ya - here is my basis: I spend a lot of time running around Wilderness areas every year. I LOVE it. Being in a place that is as it was a thousand years ago, undisturbed by man, and protected for the fauna and flora which inhabit it is spiritual for me - much more important to me than whether I'm doing 37mph in a 35mph zone. I completely understand that not everyone will subscribe to the same thought process that I have on this matter - that's okay - I certainly don't latch on to other people's passions at a whim and wholely align my perspectives with them. That said, if somebody raises a valid point, especially if they are passionate about the issue, my paradigm often shifts to incorporate their perspective. Thanks for bringing that up - I should have elaborated on that to begin with.


I doubt if someone posted "do you sometimes drive 58 MPH in a 55?" that you would attack the questionners integrity. In some aspects of your life you will, and do situationally, break laws while choosing to adhere with rigidity in others. It's anything but clear how that produces a more ethical outcome or person. And it's anything but clear to me why cashing items I return to my home after a trip is a greater lapse in conduct than any number of things I don't think twice about. I entered two crosswalks on the red 9 count down (9 seconds left) on my way back from a workout today. $75 ticket if called on it. Losing no sleep over my indiscretion.

I don't mean to attack anyone, nor question anybody's integrity, but I expect a higher standard when we're talking hunters. As has been discussed at length on other threads, hunters need to uphold their reputations as good people, conservationists, and law abiding citizens especially when it deals with those laws directly related to hunting. Am I taking it too seriously? Not for me. I'm sure you have issues you are passionate about - this is one for me.


All this without addressing that the "law" can be completely arbitrary. What's ok here is not there and the situations are identical. Laws are what they are. Sometimes they really are a moral issue (murder/theft) other times they are attempt to socially engineer and others are just a dissuasion for an activity. It begs the question, if a certain thing is really that important, why isn't it penalized robustly?

My comments above apply here too, but generally speaking, I hear you. Assassinating Hitler might seem justified to some while doing the same to a fmily member seems horrendous. Arbitrary AND situational. I do understand what you're saying. It's still a slippery slope though. As for, "why isn't a particular act punished robustly?"...probably infinite answers for that - don't know how to respond directly.


"I don't cheat the regulations with rationalizations for why it's okay." Yes you do. You just chose to rationalize that other regs in other areas of your life are of lesser import and elevate these regs and therefore your sense of your ethics. Anyone here ever break a gun carry law? National Park? Are they taking a calculated risk with little or no impact on others or are they unethical cheaters?

That's fair - again, I have passion with regards to certain things in life, as I'm sure you do too, and I'm advocating for those things. Think MLK was passionate about racial equality? He was probably more lax on other areas of his life, but he never backed down about creating equality for black people in America - look at the impact he had. Well, keeping Wilderness pristine is a passion of mine, so I'm going to stick up for it.


The regs in question are anti-litter and human impact related. They are not game regs. A person stashing a fuel can is not cheating the other hunters when his camp is located next to the outfitter camp that is eating steaks every night and drinking canned beer. I can pay $750 to have stuff dropped off for me by horse and then picked up. Or I can illegally drop 10 lbs of stuff for myself, use it, then take it home. Laws are crude tools trying to accomplish, sometimes, noble ends. They catch up much activity that is ethical and reasonable but for the presence of the law to begin with.

No ATVs or wheeled vehicles of any kind are game regs either. I would argue that Wilderness laws and game regulations are closely related and dependent upon each other for management of the ecosystem as a whole. I mountain bike race competively, and I guarantee I can ride a trail and have a lot less impact than a horse or mule, but I stay off my bike in wilderness areas anyway - it's not my decision to make, just like I don't think it's our decision to make whether or not we follow caching laws. Whether or not people want to respect laws created for the conservation and preservation of Wilderness areas is completely up to them. I am completely self-determined, yet I grant others the same right - I'm just hoping to alter a perspective or two.

disillusionedpatriot
08-26-2009, 06:00 PM
The purpose of laws are to provide a much needed element of discretion for those who don't come by it naturally.

I think this sums the matter up.

Considering where we are with laws, the number of them, their instrusive reach into every aspect of behavior, and that the courts now rule inelegant adherence upon their enforcers for fear of calls of discriminatory application, I am becoming more disinclined to follow them, and more inclined to follow my own discretion.

I'll take this as a warning, to presume that there are those about who would report some poor hunter on foot and his discovered cache, for the only reason of the literality of the law. This says nothing good about the law nor about the discretion of the complainant.

Kevin B
08-26-2009, 06:13 PM
Westy, you are super bright, from great stock and obviously of high character. We agree more than we don't.

I was not burshing you off as "irrational" i was suggesting that there's only a very thinnest fig leaf to hold if we shout down one aspect of minor law breaking and ignore others. We just aren't left with much high ground even if we believe we hold it. This is especially true if we take no heed to the impact of the rule breaker in preference for focusing on rules rather than outcomes. In this case your advocacy is fantastic. It's one I generally hold. I love these places and don't want them gummed up. But that's where we part company. You have associated the laws designed to protect the wilderness with the wilderness itself. The wilderness may be pure but our laws are inherently flawed and arbitrary. What people actually do in the wilderness is what affects it, not whether or not they run afoul of a given rule. Rule breakers don't ruin the wilderness unless what they did caused(s) harm. 4 Wheelers create damage and it can't be debated. Rule or no rule they create real problems. The way I might cache a few things then take them back leaves my impact and yours the same. I understand and will accept that I could be punished.

There are 12 beating hearts rules in some wilderness here. If there's 13 that camp might leave zero impact and if there were 4 they may leave a scar. The rule has a purpose but rules don't deliver outcomes by themselves. Behavior is more relevant to outcomes, rules attempt to drive behavior but as I said in the prior post, they also catch up perfectly ethical and reasonable behavior. I don't believe I've crossed an ethical line, though I have in fact crossed a rule.

Wilderness may be sacrosanct. Rules and regs, not so much.

elmbow
08-26-2009, 06:34 PM
...... Most of those "hidden" items I've run across appear to have been there, untouched, for years. At that stage, it is not only breaking the Wilderness laws, but remains as unclaimed litter..

Not unclaimed litter Westy, items protected from removal under the auspices of the Antiquities act. Be careful what you're picking up from off the ground in your endeavors to keep our wildernesseseses untarnished, lest some other advokat of the letter of the law file a complaint.

Over a few beers at a bar once't, a long , long, time ago, a chap told me of his habit of "caching" items for the upcoming archery hunts in his favorite wilderness. I was aghast, reflecting inwardly on the evils of contrails, and steeled myself for his forthcoming confessions, wondering if a citizen's arrest was close at hand. Well....his story soon unfolded: It seems he enjoyed the various Castaneadish nuances that the different varieties of the Cannabis flower and El Mescalito produced when smoked in a hand carved, mountain mahogany pipe, so he was wont to save bits of these buds and buttons over the course of a year and enjoy them around a crackling campfire during his wilderness elk hunt evenings. Well, one year, he made the mistake of caching these wondrous little flowers in a container that was, shall we say, less than watertight, and sadder tales are not oft tole, upon arrival into his camp that year, he found them waterlogged and ruined. Was he committing a crime against society by caching these unnatural items in a wilderness area? Perhaps, but the suffering he had endured from this had left him a haggard shell of his former self, so I bought him another round and wandered off to find some members of the fairer ***.....

Westy
08-26-2009, 08:45 PM
You have associated the laws designed to protect the wilderness with the wilderness itself. The wilderness may be pure but our laws are inherently flawed and arbitrary. What people actually do in the wilderness is what affects it, not whether or not they run afoul of a given rule. Rule breakers don't ruin the wilderness unless what they did caused(s) harm. 4 Wheelers create damage and it can't be debated. Rule or no rule they create real problems. The way I might cache a few things then take them back leaves my impact and yours the same. I understand and will accept that I could be punished.

It's not about whether you get punished or not, it's about respecting the rules of a lonely land, both for the land and for others partaking in it. It's a hard thing to argue when it's unlikely anyone would ever get in trouble for caching in a Wilderness. I was always taught that character meant doing the right thing when nobody was looking. Well, you can pretty much do whatever the hell you want in a Wilderness, and nobody is going to see you. I'm certainly not implying you're not a man of character, I don't know you, but you seem very reasonable and your comments are well thought out - I'm just saying.


There are 12 beating hearts rules in some wilderness here. If there's 13 that camp might leave zero impact and if there were 4 they may leave a scar. The rule has a purpose but rules don't deliver outcomes by themselves. Behavior is more relevant to outcomes, rules attempt to drive behavior but as I said in the prior post, they also catch up perfectly ethical and reasonable behavior. I don't believe I've crossed an ethical line, though I have in fact crossed a rule.

You're probably not going to believe me, but I'm much more of a think out of the box, how can we do this better type of guy. Lots of rules are awful, restrictive, and should be changed or deleted - it's why our governmental system is so screwed up, our economy is on the brink of another financial collapse (CRE stuff, but I'll leave that to the Politics Forum), and why beaurecratic organizations run so inefficiently. As a matter of fact, I get in trouble more at work for trying to do things differently and better than I do for anything else. However, when a law is in place to protect something I love (Wilderness), I'm all for it, and will advocate others to support it. I was not part of the creation of the law, nor do I know anything about why it is legal to cache in one area and not another. All I know is when I hunt, I read and follow the regs as I know them so I'm not a poacher; when I venture into wilderness, I read and follow the regs as I know them.


Wilderness may be sacrosanct. Rules and regs, not so much.

I hope you don't run into a game warden with antlers on your back and a cow elk tag in your pocket. After all, what REAL harm could come from taking a bull when you only have a cow tag? Sorry, I can't see a supportive argument here.

Westy
08-26-2009, 08:47 PM
Not unclaimed litter Westy, items protected from removal under the auspices of the Antiquities act. Be careful what you're picking up from off the ground in your endeavors to keep our wildernesseseses untarnished, lest some other advokat of the letter of the law file a complaint.

Haha, well if blue tarps, modern frying pans, cans of beans, tents, modern wheeled carts, etc are protected, then call me a sinner for removing them. If I find a hand-crank telephone attached to a crumbling rustic cabin, I'll leave it be......

Smokepole
08-26-2009, 09:06 PM
Westy, you missed out. You should've asked elmbow what he did with his soggy stash.

You fell for the old "chap in a bar" story??

Kevin B
08-26-2009, 09:22 PM
westy

"I was always taught that character meant doing the right thing when nobody was looking."

Now if you can convince me that every rule that exists by some governing body constitutes what's right you'll have something. The right thing sometimes you get punished for. Other times not. Rules exist outside of intrinsic rights and wrongs. They are the work of flawed men in utterly interest filled and flawed systems. I'll obey most of the time, not because it's right but because the consequence too great. I won't carry concealed without a permit for instance. But I think it's right as rain for any living person to do so.

Buck W
08-26-2009, 09:35 PM
" I was always taught that character meant doing the right thing when nobody was looking."

It pleases me to see that :)



I'm certainly not implying you're not a man of character, I don't know you, but you seem very reasonable and your comments are well thought out

Yep, Kevin B is a stand up guy!

Ksnake
08-26-2009, 10:15 PM
While bushwhacking I have stumbled on some long term caches and I must say I didn't appreciate it. Grates, chairs, food, etc. All kinds of things left by people planning to go back. I don’t like seeing litter of any kind and finding a cache is the same thing. Why? Because every one has a last trip … one day that person will not return, and then it's just trash!

A great case in point. Not a wilderness, but still makes the point. There is a place I fish in Maine. Been going there for 25 years. Very remote. Many old timers leave their row boats there, makes sense while they are alive, but some boats have never moved since I started going there in '84. And 100 years from now, most of those boats will still be there, chained to a tree, with no owners.

evanhill
08-26-2009, 10:50 PM
This is a great discussion.


I was always taught that character meant doing the right thing when nobody was looking.

My old man's a little on the crazy side, but I was always taught that character meant doing the right thing regardless of what man's law says. Because of that, I've never been in any danger of confusing what is right and what is legal. They're two different things altogether. Sometimes they coincide, but that's more the exception than the rule. That's where I stand philosophically.

What I think is interesting about this discussion is that I think in practicality everybody involved would have just about the same reaction to encountering the same things in a wilderness area.

Personally, I've only cached once (in a non-wilderness area) and the whole idea has always left me uneasy because things change, plans change, and I don't want to leave my stuff somewhere unrecovered. Too much time spent reading J. Frank Dobie I guess.

Maybe the only bone of contention is caching, but what about renegade trail maintenance? That's another area of human intrusion, particularly in a wilderness area.

For example, we usually log out some section of trail every spring ahead of the forest service crews. Just happen to the be the first guys up with a saw. This spring it was actually more like July, and it was on a neighboring district's most popular trail. There were only about 5 downed trees to cut, but they weren't step-overs. Probably took an hour all told (not counting traveling time) to cut them all out. I couldn't figure out why the district hadn't sent somebody up some morning to clear it out. I got the official story this weekend. Evidently, the district had deemed that there wasn't enough down to warrant clearing. Well, the detours people were taking had already started to cause erosion problems.

So, clearing the trail without FS blessing might have been illegal. I have no idea. It was certainly against the "management policy" that had been set by the resource managers. By those two standards, we were sullying the sanctity of the wilderness, right?

Smokepole
08-27-2009, 06:55 AM
[SIZE=2]While bushwhacking I have stumbled on some long term caches and I must say I didn't appreciate it. Grates, chairs, food, etc. All kinds of things left by people planning to go back. I don’t like seeing litter of any kind and finding a cache is the same thing. Why? Because every one has a last trip … one day that person will not return, and then it's just trash


I'm not personally against stashing expendables you're going to use on a single trip like extra food, fuel, etc., or small things like grill grates. But I've seen small caches of even expendables left behind and pretty much abandoned. To me, the key is, (since it's wilderness) that the cache needs to be made where no one else can find it and it needs to be removed within a reasonable time frame, not left out there year after year. Leaving big stuff like chairs etc. makes it much more likely that someone else will find your stuff, and leaving stuff for extended periods makes it more likely that it'll be scattered and/or found. I can't count the number of times I've found the ubiquitous visqueen or blue nylon tarps warpped around a tree and shredded by the wind in the backcountry. Mostly I'd guess by people who thought they might come back and never did. That's what I object to--if you cache something, you need to retrieve it, whether you're going to use it or not. If you know there's a chance you won't make it back in to retrieve your stuff, you need to take it out--period. Too many people leave things behind more out of convenience than anything else, and although it pains me to say it, too many of those people are hunters.

Bushcraft
08-27-2009, 07:15 AM
Westy,

<O:p</O:pSo, you think it’s wrong to cache in some wilderness areas because a law says it’s so, but it’s well and fine if no such law exists for other wilderness areas governed by a different NF manager??? Surely you see the problem there!? A litany of driving law examples have already been given that blow any situational moral high ground claim out of the water, so I won’t belabor them further to make my point. BTW, this isn’t a litmus test of one’s character. We all fail the legal/moral/character relativism posed by the various driving examples.

<O:p</O:pAnyway, I had no idea my interest in how others discreetly cache their belongings in the woods would set the stage for such a legal/moral controversy. I presumed pretty much everyone that has ever had to carry a lot of weight around in the backcountry cached things from time to time to ease their in-fill or ex-fill. At least it has led to a lively and interesting presentation of differing views on the matter.

<O:p</O:pBut let’s face the bitter truth shall we…EVERYONE that has left an animal (meat, antlers) or any amount of their gear in the wilderness, for any amount of time, only to return to haul it out in one or more trips has…gasp…cached something in the wilderness, regardless of whether or not it is legally allowed, by definition or duration.

<O:p</O:pYou left it in there.

<O:p</O:pYou left … a trace.

<O:p</O:pYou left your stuff in there where someone else might happen upon it and perhaps be taken aback that someone has sullied their alone-with-nature Disney-esque wilderness escape from reality. The reality being that man is a part of nature and always will be. Man has always had, and always will have, an impact on his natural surroundings. Definitely not all good, and definitely not all bad. With some common sense practices, Man can reduce his impact on the environment and work to improve it as the largely renewable resource that it is.

<O:p</O:pThe law provides a guiding framework that compels good people to get along with one another in a civilized manner that is constructive and productive. When laws are constructive and/or productive, people follow them. When they are not, even the most stalwart citizens “break” them. Why?...because they can discern the difference between the basic tenets of Right and Wrong as it pertains to any given law…the difference being whether or not their intentional actions will have an adverse impact on others that could otherwise be avoided.

<O:p</O:pI applaud your impassioned advocacy of the wilderness and wilderness areas Westy. Like you, I love wild, remote places that only the capable can enjoy as much as anyone. I do not want to see them littered or abused by anyone, especially those buffoons that give hunters and fishermen a bad rap. But, it seems we’ll have to agree to disagree on whether appropriately caching a small amount of material in the woods - as a matter of logistical and/or personal convenience that has no impact on anyone else, is inherently wrong. You think it’s wrong to cache in some wilderness areas and not in others regardless of how well something is cached or hidden. I don’t think it’s wrong so long as it is done very, very discreetly and the material is eventually brought out. And that’s okay. We can agree to disagree.

Allen

Westy
08-27-2009, 08:15 AM
Now if you can convince me that every rule that exists by some governing body constitutes what's right you'll have something.

I would be hypocrytical if I tried. That said, I willingly subscribe to laws intended to protect pristine lands. Just as I willingly subscribe to following game laws.

Ksnake
08-27-2009, 08:19 AM
If you know there's a chance you won't make it back in to retrieve your stuff, you need to take it out--period.


I don’t think it’s wrong so long as it is done very, very discreetly and the material is eventually brought out.

I agree... but....


every one has a last trip … one day that person will not return, and then it's just trash!

mark s
08-27-2009, 08:36 AM
Two comments:

If it is small and no one sees it and a short period, No foul. If someone finds it and removes it, no right to complain.

I always try to leave an area in better shape than when I came, which usually means removing someone else's trash. To me, this would more than compensate for caching a small stash for a short time.

singleshot
08-27-2009, 08:38 AM
Ksnake
If you removed one of these boats that had been sitting there for 20 years, that would be stealing. If you damaged it so no one could use it, that would be vandalism.
Either could get you a visit with the law.

Westy
08-27-2009, 08:48 AM
So, you think it’s wrong to cache in some wilderness areas because a law says it’s so, but it’s well and fine if no such law exists for other wilderness areas governed by a different NF manager???

So, you think it's wrong to shoot a bull elk in a cow only area because some DOW guy says so???? Or how about shoot that legal cow a couple days out of season????? What's the BIG DEAL???? It has no measureable impact - except that you have a higher risk of getting caught.


Surely you see the problem there!? A litany of driving law examples have already been given that blow any situational moral high ground claim out of the water, so I won’t belabor them further to make my point. BTW, this isn’t a litmus test of one’s character. We all fail the legal/moral/character relativism posed by the various driving examples.

I already responded to this. See my comments to Kevin B.

<O:p</O:p
Anyway, I had no idea my interest in how others discreetly cache their belongings in the woods would set the stage for such a legal/moral controversy. I presumed pretty much everyone that has ever had to carry a lot of weight around in the backcountry cached things from time to time to ease their in-fill or ex-fill. At least it has led to a lively and interesting presentation of differing views on the matter.

Surprise! :) And NO, not all of us cache to ease our burden of weight in a pack. I still pose the question about how you plan to get your animals out of that area if a few extra pounds on the way in will be too burdensome. What's the plan?

<O:p</O:p
But let’s face the bitter truth shall we…EVERYONE that has left an animal (meat, antlers) or any amount of their gear in the wilderness, for any amount of time, only to return to haul it out in one or more trips has…gasp…cached something in the wilderness, regardless of whether or not it is legally allowed, by definition or duration.

It's sure lucky that most caching laws have 48 or 72 hour windows where it's okay. Phew!!!

<O:p</O:p
You left it in there.


<O:p</O:pYou left … a trace.

Again, see my comments about being part "of" nature above. Decaying animal life is part of nature - I know, I know, it's hard to believe animals die on their own without our help, but they do occassionally expire all by themselves.

<O:p</O:p
You left your stuff in there where someone else might happen upon it and perhaps be taken aback that someone has sullied their alone-with-nature Disney-esque wilderness escape from reality. The reality being that man is a part of nature and always will be. Man has always had, and always will have, an impact on his natural surroundings. Definitely not all good, and definitely not all bad. With some common sense practices, Man can reduce his impact on the environment and work to improve it as the largely renewable resource that it is.

Yep, that's why conservation laws exist and why I try to follow them.

<O:p</O:p
The law provides a guiding framework that compels good people to get along with one another in a civilized manner that is constructive and productive. When laws are constructive and/or productive, people follow them. When they are not, even the most stalwart citizens “break” them. Why?...because they can discern the difference between the basic tenets of Right and Wrong as it pertains to any given law…the difference being whether or not their intentional actions will have an adverse impact on others that could otherwise be avoided.

Some laws are good both with intent and practicality. Tell me, when you shoot a bear in your Disney-esque spot and don't have an extra ounce of room in your pack, pockets, or hands to carry out that frying pan or fuel canister, are you going to make a 30 mile round trip to go retrieve it??? Just askin'.

<O:p</O:p
Like you, I love wild, remote places that only the capable can enjoy as much as anyone. I do not want to see them littered or abused by anyone, especially those buffoons that give hunters and fishermen a bad rap.

Define those "buffoons" that give hunters and fishermen a bad rap!!! Is it poachers? Is it people who leave gratuitous traces of non-natural product?? They're bending the rules juse like you - only in a different degree or context. "But Westy, it's hidden, small, discreet, etc." Really??? There have now been OVER 700 people who have read this thread - likely hunters and non-hunters. That argument seems pretty silly in this venue, don't you think? Doesn't sound very discreet to me. Who makes the judgement call of who is a buffoon and who isn't? I sure as hell don't agree with most of your perpsectives on this issue - should I be calling you a buffoon, or is that in your sole discretion to make that judgement call?


But, it seems we’ll have to agree to disagree on whether appropriately caching a small amount of material in the woods - as a matter of logistical and/or personal convenience that has no impact on anyone else, is inherently wrong. You think it’s wrong to cache in some wilderness areas and not in others regardless of how well something is cached or hidden. I don’t think it’s wrong so long as it is done very, very discreetly and the material is eventually brought out. And that’s okay. We can agree to disagree.

Normally, I'd say that's fine, but if you don't mind, I'd really like to hear your responses to my above questions before we agree to disagree.

Ksnake
08-27-2009, 09:22 AM
Ksnake
If you removed one of these boats that had been sitting there for 20 years, that would be stealing. If you damaged it so no one could use it, that would be vandalism.
Either could get you a visit with the law.

Exactly. So for 25 years we have had to deal with these eyesores.

sab
08-27-2009, 10:05 AM
Westy:

I've been watching this thread since its inception, and I finally decided I had to put my two cents in. Everyone breaks laws. We have such an onerous code of Federal, State, and Local ordinances that no one is 100% "law-abiding". Some laws are broken intentionally, and others are inadvertently broken. When a law is broken intentionally, it may be done with the belief that the law is wrong or it may be done knowing that the law is right. For this reason, the punishment for breaking each law is different. We have a death penalty in some states for the most heinous crimes, but for minor crimes, the punishment is the proverbial "slap on the wrist". Laws and the consequences for breaking them are set by man, usually based on the collective opinion of the people (in free states, anyway). During every legislative session, there are people opposed to laws, but if the majority is not opposed, they are passed. Therefore, for every law, there will be people who choose to ignore it.

We all have our own moral compasses, and we use them to choose which laws are never to be broken, which laws can circumstantially be broken, and which laws are deemed to be inconsequential and broken without a second thought. Obviously, in the latter two cases, we also weigh two factors in addition to using our moral compass: first, what are the chances of being caught, and second, what are the consequences of being caught? If wilderness caching was punishable by loss of hunting rights, very few people would continue to cache. However, that severe a penalty may be difficult to pass by majority. On the other hand, loss of hunting rights for poaching is generally accepted by the majority, so that is the law of the land, and it does work to limit poaching.

So, yes, we don't kill the wrong s e x animal, and we don't kill out of season because the penalty is not worth it, and the chances of getting caught are high, but that is only because current opinion of the majority deems it that way. I guarantee you that if civilization as we know it broke down for whatever reason, and we were all starving, many of the first laws to be broken would be game laws, and there would be no punishment for it because the majority would have changed their opinion. It's pure and simple - circumstances can and do cause laws to be ignored or changed.

I admire your passion for protecting our wilderness areas. However, your belief that all laws in a wilderness area must be adhered to 100% of the time is one that most people do not share due to human nature. We, as rational beings, will always judge individual laws based on our own morals and circumstances. That is, after all, a gift of living in a free state.

What I'm saying is that you will be a very unhappy person in life if your goal is to convince everyone to go against human nature and stop judging laws, which is what your argument seems to be. As the old saying goes, "you might as well go herd cats"...

Regards,
Scott

snakey2
08-27-2009, 10:10 AM
If (heaven forbid) some of the "no human in the wilderness people" hold enough power to get we mortal men banned from those areas where will we be then? Will "we" obey that law and stay out of a place we revere? I am betting that it will be a law that we will choose to ignore regardless of consequence. Caching (and I mean small unobtrusive leaving of goods for a short period of time, not chairs etc.) is such a small fly in a rather large ointment for me to get too bent about (and I don't do it and never have but would if the situation arose).

sab
08-27-2009, 10:13 AM
Exactly. So for 25 years we have had to deal with these eyesores.

Ksnake:

You do not have to put up with those eyesores. Every state has laws dealing with abandoned property. Usually, you can take over possession by meeting a few conditions and waiting a long enough period of time. At that point, you're free to do what you want with the property. If they bother you that much, look into your state's law and do something about it!

Scott

Bushcraft
08-27-2009, 10:30 AM
So, you think it's wrong to shoot a bull elk in a cow only area because some DOW guy says so???? Or how about shoot that legal cow a couple days out of season????? What's the BIG DEAL???? It has no measureable impact - except that you have a higher risk of getting caught.


I haven't put any words in your mouth. Don't put any in mine. Of course poaching has a measurable adverse impact. The math is pretty simple on that one.


I still pose the question about how you plan to get your animals out of that area if a few extra pounds on the way in will be too burdensome. What's the plan?


My pack loaded out for a 10 day high-buck hunt weighs right at 50 lbs right now, 20 of which is food, another pound is stove fuel. A boned-out muley and his headgear doesn't weigh enough to warrant two trips. In the highly unlikely event that we all tag out (this particular hunt has some of the slimmest odds of success going), we'll just nut up and haul 'em out in one trip, breaking the load down and leap-frogging it through the really steep parts if necessary. Or, the animal can be divvied up among one or more one or more of the guys that didn't tag out. I'm not going to call it simple, because the suck factor will be high, but the concept is straightforward and totally doable given our level of fitness. I haven't lost any ounce of meat to spoilage yet and certainly don't intend to on this trip. The temps at this elevation are usually more than accomodating.


It's sure lucky that most caching laws have 48 or 72 hour windows where it's okay. Phew!!!

So 49 or 73 makes temporary caching unequivocally wrong somehow? Sorry, you are just not making your case all that well if on one hand if you take a holier-than-thou position against caching, but actively practice caching so long as a law says it is okay to temporarily do so.
<O:p</O:p

Again, see my comments about being part "of" nature above. Decaying animal life is part of nature - I know, I know, it's hard to believe animals die on their own without our help, but they do occassionally expire all by themselves.

I wasn't necessarily talking about caching the animal. I was referring to perhaps leaving behind an odd piece of gear you want to keep back in there, say a shelter, sleeping bag or a stove or something that you would use upon your return for the rest of the meat or horns.


Some laws are good both with intent and practicality. Tell me, when you shoot a bear in your Disney-esque spot and don't have an extra ounce of room in your pack, pockets, or hands to carry out that frying pan or fuel canister, are you going to make a 30 mile round trip to go retrieve it??? Just askin'.

I think we can dispense with the pointed sarcasm. I apologize for going down that road. So, to answer your question, unless it is a truly remarkable bear, I'd probably pass it up unless it was much closer to the trailhead. Hauling out the head, hide and meat of bear can be a much bigger more strenuous proposition than a boned-out mule deer for the solo-hunter. But, there's two of us going on each of these scouting trips so it wouldn't be that big of a deal. Yep, we're bringing rifles, but the focus of these 3 and 4 day scouting trips is finding and patterning some large muley's.


Define those "buffoons" that give hunters and fishermen a bad rap!!! Is it poachers? Is it people who leave gratuitous traces of non-natural product?? They're bending the rules juse like you - only in a different degree or context. "But Westy, it's hidden, small, discreet, etc." Really??? There have now been OVER 700 people who have read this thread - likely hunters and non-hunters. That argument seems pretty silly in this venue, don't you think? Doesn't sound very discreet to me. Who makes the judgement call of who is a buffoon and who isn't? I sure as hell don't agree with most of your perpsectives on this issue - should I be calling you a buffoon, or is that in your sole discretion to make that judgement call?

Do we need to have another example of how you bend the rule of law so long as it suits you? And yes, it is all about degree and context. Again, I understand and applaud your advocacy, but you're not in a position to caste stones. The impact of my actions on both the wilderness and people that might visit the area I’ve temporarily and very discreetly stashed some stuff, is so infinitesimally small that NO ONE would ever know about it had I not brought up the topic. The number of people that have read this is irrelevant. What is relevant are the philosphical beliefs expressed with regard to the degree and context of caching and/or bending a caching law. Poaching and littering hyperbole stands in stark contrast to a small, well-cached bag of food or fuel cannisters temporarily cached in the woods.

Like everyone here, I'm not perfect. While I generally hold myself and others to a high standard of following the laws of the places I visit (backcountry or otherwise), I occasionally bend the rules situationally within the context of Right and Wrong, if doing so has zero adverse impact on others. If that makes me out to be some kind of renegade in your mind, so be it. But don't throw stones if you yourself live in the glass house of situational rule-bending when it suits you.

jhuebner
08-27-2009, 10:35 AM
I don't often step into these debates due to the fact that this board is filled with some intellecutal giants...and I mean that with the utmost respect. I am educated almost daily on this board and often feel I have little to offer in return; however, this is one area where I can give you a law enforcement perspective...being mindful this is "my" view.

Kevin B has said it much more eloquently than I can, but laws (rules, reg, etc.) can have unintended, and sometimes, misguided consequences. They are the battleground for competing interest more often than not, and often disquised under the pretense of safety, preservation, morality, etc. That said, most laws in terms of wildlife and wilderness do have good intentions, but they are not void of competing interest either.

A quick example of a misguided intention might be found in Wyoming's law that in order for a non resident to hunt deer or elk in a wilderness area one must hire or be accompanied by an outfitter or guide. Why? My guess is that reasoning is disquised under the pretense of safety, but it was more than likely pushed by political heavyweights from the outfitting business to ensure some level of security with incoming revenue. Is this a necessary law...? Probably not; because the same non resident can go fishing, hiking, etc. unaccompanied, yet he or she is still subject to the same dangers. Now I may be offbase in this assement, but without going to the lawmakers (Wyoming legislature, Fish & Game, etc) we don't know the true intent of the law. That said, you will not catch me breaking this law; consequences are much too high, but in my eyes it is discrimintory towards the DIY hunters and misguided by greedy intentions. I may have digressed here...on to unintended consequences.

From a law enforcement perspective it is my philosphy that we look at the "intent" of the law. Now we can enforce the "letter" of the law and I'd be writting tickets all day long, but does beating the public with the letter of the law accomplish anything? I argue it simply becomes an unnecessary division between law enforcement and the public. So what is the intent of making a law against the cache of equipment? In all likelihood it's to keep those unscrupulous people that would bury their entire camp so as to move to an area quickly and stake it as "mine." It may also be in place to keep items such as game carts, tree stands and the such from littering an otherwise unspoiled wilderness. It has good intentions, but it may unintentionally affect other actions that truly don't impact the concept of wilderness and the equitable distribution of our natural resources. The only way to find out the intent is to go to the source of the rule making.

Here in Texas, the legislature makes the rules, and often times we go to the source (ie, Represenative Smith) who sponsored the bill and ask for clarification on the intent of the bill so as to become unified in our enforcement efforts. Now I may agree or disagree with the intent, but I will enforce the law with scales in hand. Let me explain the scales.

Much of wildlife and environmental laws are subjective in terms of those who are charged to enforce them. Believe me, I wish it was black and white, because I internally struggle with the decision to enforce a given law on a particular person in a given situation. I am forced to judge intentions at that moment and decide if it warrants action or not. We must also decide at the moment if the reason for the infraction of the law falls within the reasonalble or even believable category. It's simply a judgment call.

Given the rules concerning the cache of equipment, I'd seek out the intent and then enforce accordingly. I may or may not agree with the law, but enforcement within the parameters of the intent will take place. Please remember, the officers, game wardens, park rangers, etc. do not impose judgement of guilt or innocence, that is the job of the judicial branch. In this situation, if the intent is to completely ban all forms of equipment cache, then I would take the necessary actions to voice my disagreement and work to have the law changed to match what is reasonable for most. In the interim, I'd weigh consequences with my potential actions and go forward. As the officer enforcing the law, I would have to do my job within the parameters given to me. That may mean writting a ticket if presented with a situation where I see a violation. That said, those who cache a small box...in reality it is darn near an unenforceable law from a law enforcement prospective...something often overlooked by those making the laws. On the other hand, if you're trying to cache larger equipment, (game carts, whole camps, etc.) that is something where law enforcement may be able to impact behavior changes.

If you look at the big picture and break it down, you can begin to see how our laws (especially game laws) become a web of unintended consequences. A law with noble intentions is made, yet someone finds a hole to exploit, so yet another law is made to fill the gap. It's an endless cycle of trying to correct wrongs on both ends of the spectrum.

Just my .02 worth...

Jason

Westy
08-27-2009, 10:44 AM
Scott - thanks for chiming in.


I've been watching this thread since its inception, and I finally decided I had to put my two cents in. Everyone breaks laws. We have such an onerous code of Federal, State, and Local ordinances that no one is 100% "law-abiding". Some laws are broken intentionally, and others are inadvertently broken. When a law is broken intentionally, it may be done with the belief that the law is wrong or it may be done knowing that the law is right. For this reason, the punishment for breaking each law is different. We have a death penalty in some states for the most heinous crimes, but for minor crimes, the punishment is the proverbial "slap on the wrist". Laws and the consequences for breaking them are set by man, usually based on the collective opinion of the people (in free states, anyway). During every legislative session, there are people opposed to laws, but if the majority is not opposed, they are passed. Therefore, for every law, there will be people who choose to ignore it.

Yep, and every insurance company has elevated premiums because a small few commit insurance fraud and indirectly punish for those who play by the rules. I prefer to follow the rules of the Wilderness even if others don't.



We all have our own moral compasses, and we use them to choose which laws are never to be broken, which laws can circumstantially be broken, and which laws are deemed to be inconsequential and broken without a second thought. Obviously, in the latter two cases, we also weigh two factors in addition to using our moral compass: first, what are the chances of being caught, and second, what are the consequences of being caught? If wilderness caching was punishable by loss of hunting rights, very few people would continue to cache. However, that severe a penalty may be difficult to pass by majority. On the other hand, loss of hunting rights for poaching is generally accepted by the majority, so that is the law of the land, and it does work to limit poaching.

Just because a law is not punishable by death does not mean it's not worth following - everybody makes their own decision about what they conform with and what they don't. I'm sincerely surprised I'm the minority on this point.


So, yes, we don't kill the wrong s e x animal, and we don't kill out of season because the penalty is not worth it, and the chances of getting caught are high, but that is only because current opinion of the majority deems it that way. I guarantee you that if civilization as we know it broke down for whatever reason, and we were all starving, many of the first laws to be broken would be game laws, and there would be no punishment for it because the majority would have changed their opinion. It's pure and simple - circumstances can and do cause laws to be ignored or changed.

Well, obviously. Civilization is a thin veneer, but in the interest of, and while that veneer exists, I'll support the guidelines of that compilation of norms to an end which advances or protects things that are important to me - namely, Wilderness.

Seems to me that to those who should be the ones really caring about this issue, the penalties of law need not be considered.


However, your belief that all laws in a wilderness area must be adhered to 100% of the time is one that most people do not share due to human nature. We, as rational beings, will always judge individual laws based on our own morals and circumstances. That is, after all, a gift of living in a free state.

Well, human nature also created an Arian Nation, genecides, racism, prejudices, and a host of other nondesirables. Human nature isn't a good course in many instances - that's a lousy argument. Obviously, you're going to make judgement calls about what's important to you or what's not.


What I'm saying is that you will be a very unhappy person in life if your goal is to convince everyone to go against human nature and stop judging laws, which is what your argument seems to be. As the old saying goes, "you might as well go herd cats"...

Haha, you obviously don't know me. ;) Thanks for trying to predict my attitude and contentment in life though.

Scott, it's called passion for beliefs - what are yours? What are you willing to go toe-to-toe with somebody over? Do you have something like that? Is there something in your life that you would be willing to become vulnerable for? This is one for me. I'm a pretty low-key relaxed guy about 95% of the time, but push my buttons the wrong way or disrespect something that I hold dear, and you will meet an entirely different person at the flip of that switch. I would counter with: You will never know yourself or what it is to truly live if you don't stick up for what you believe in. Freedom lies in being bold - are you free Scott?

Kevin B
08-27-2009, 11:15 AM
Westy, you continue to use un-analogous analogies and false logic to make your point.

If I shoot a cow elk out of season or in the wrong place etc I do harm to my fellow hunter. The DOW doesn't set limits by pulling a number out of a hat. Limits are for the furtherance of herd management. Failure to adhere to regs impacts the management and can destroy hunting opportunity. Game taking outside of the regs impacts herd maintenance. As I said before I judge the person breaking the "rule" by the consequences to themselves and others. Allen leaving items ahead that he in fact returns home leaves zero impact. It breaks a rule but comes without consequence. The impacts other cachers, who don't recover their things, isn't relevant in this specific comparison. By the way, Wilderness rules in my state are not game regs. They are separate. A person caching has not broken any hunting regulation. Let alone become analogous with a poacher. Something you've implied. A better analogy would be someone who fails to leave the proof of *** attached to a quarter that they remove while still bringing evidence of *** out with them. They have broken the rule in some states. They've not killed out of season or done harm to the intent of the game management yet they broke the rule. Rules attempt to prevent negative outcomes, while they catch up outcomes that were and are legitimate.

You've ignored the point that you have a disingenuous position on right and wrong as it pertains to caching. You say caching an inherent wrong, therefore the rule must be followed. Then decide that it's OK to do it where no rule exists. You prove the point that rules don't contain rights and wrongs. If it's wrong it shouldn't be done by anyone, ever, whether permissible or not. When you say it's wrong in one situation and not the other you invalidate your point about the necessity and purity of the rule. If a rule is made tomorrow that all wilderness travelers must collect and remove their feces will the existence of that rule become what's right? I assume you don't pack it out now so will the rule contain moral authority or just governing authority?

You go on to create a straw man to fight by asking how one will get an animal out of area if they had to cache to begin with. No one has said they have to cache to make a hunt possible. It's a non sequitur. Using a cache saves energy. Energy that is well applied to removing an animal. The fact that you have employed an energy saving tool in no way indicates your ability to remove an animal or gear wasn't present to start with. I see people reducing fractions of an ounce from their packs for this very reason. Caching permits for increased quality of camp with a decrease in effort. This may well improve your success hunting, spirits and energy to remove game. Cachers may waste less game having provided for a more efficient and quality back-there existence, retaining more energy to haul out the load. And of course much of the cache may be consumable adding far less weight to return than was cached to begin with. And of course many hunt in groups so that game loads are distributed... and a number of other logical reasons this straw man should be ignored. This also goes now for your insurance fruad analogy. I condemn insurance fraud because it impacts others necessarily, not situationally. A person removing their cache has no such impact.

If more game meat goes home because the hunter has more energy, which outcome is more concerning... that the caching rule was broken or the game wasting rules were? Do you get as much meat to the truck from 10 miles out as you do from a car camp hunt? If not, how do you square that with game wasting law except through a situationally applied ethic on where to draw the gray line?

Outcomes are in fact relevant in evaluating, judging, the actions of others breaking a rule. You are invested more in the rule as it provides you with a sense of integrity and purity than on the outcome the rule exists to produce. I've learned later in life to pay close attention to what I condemn. I chose to consider more than the existence of a rule because invariably I'm casting stones, more often than not, in my glass house.

Edit: wow, who knew s e x was a banned word?

sab
08-27-2009, 11:20 AM
Well, human nature also created an Arian Nation, genecides, racism, prejudices, and a host of other nondesirables. Human nature isn't a good course in many instances - that's a lousy argument.

I'm much more optimistic with regards to human nature than you are. No other species on earth has the reasoning or moral abilities as us. Yes, mankind has committed some horrible atrocities over the years, but we also have the gift of learning from our mistakes. Believe it or not, but were we to be more like the other animals, the world would be much worse off. For instance, in the human world, child killers are despised even by the most vicious criminals, but in the animal world, child killers abound (wolves prefer calves or fawns to adult cattle or deer). As another example, I'll mention game management practices. The big game population is much better off with us managing it than without our help.

So, I'm sorry, but YOU ARE WRONG - human nature does far more good for the world than does evil!


Scott, it's called passion for beliefs - what are yours? What are you willing to go toe-to-toe with somebody over? Do you have something like that? Is there something in your life that you would be willing to become vulnerable for?

I have a passion to stand up to people trying to tell me that their beliefs are superior to mine ;) Although I have never cached a single item, if circumstances deemed it desireable, and my moral compass told me that it wasn't going to cause anyone harm, I wouldn't think twice about breaking a law prohibitting it. And I wouldn't give a hoot about how you felt about it... How's that for passion?


I'm a pretty low-key relaxed guy about 95% of the time, but push my buttons the wrong way or disrespect something that I hold dear, and you will meet an entirely different person at the flip of that switch. I would counter with: You will never know yourself or what it is to truly live if you don't stick up for what you believe in. Freedom lies in being bold - are you free Scott?

Yes, I am free, and if you challenge my freedom to make morally-correct decisions on my own, you'll see "an entirely different person at the flip of that switch", too!

I enjoy debating you, but it's obvious to me that you and I will not ever see eye-to-eye on this issue. I'm just happy that I have the current majority on my side! :D

Regards,
Scott

scothill
08-27-2009, 11:30 AM
I will start by saying that I agree with Westy more then I agree with the rest of most of you. However, I will point out that really three different types of caching are being talked about.

First is the base camp/leaving gear while you carry out critters. I personally don't think this falls under the rules of caching and don't remember them falling under the rules of caching that I enforced back in the day, but that has been a number of years and my memory is hazy. The difference is that you are actively engaged in pursuits that are using those items so they are not considered cached, but in use. The other types of caching fall into the actual category of caching, which is leaving stuff for future visits that is not actively being used. I.e. if you have gone home you are no longer using those items until you visit them again. This is where the 48-72 hr rules come from, because there is always going to be someone who argues that they are still using stuff even though they are a multi-hour drive from the trailhead with a day or two hike in on top of that. So in an effort to deal with that the time limits are instituted. Because people lack discretion it has to be provided.

The other two types of caching being discussed are the levels of caching that are acceptable. One is the full blown camp and the other is a discrete box put somewhere. It seems that most are arguing for the latter and against the former. Because they have discretion. The problem is that most people don't have discretion and they see no difference between the two. The guys on this board are the minority. The result is that joe blow hears the guys on here say caching is fine, and stops listening right there, he doesn't hear the qualifer of small, discrete, hidden, removed after the season etc... so joe blow leaves a full camp up for year after year use. Of course each year he brings in a bit more, until you have a full blown dump laying there. While some might find this as adding to their hunting experience, I think it is just the mark of a lazy slob. So we come down to caching being illegal in most places, because sorry guys most don't exercise discretion so they ruin it for the rest of us.

There is also another group that impacts this and that is the outfitter. I think most would be surprised at how circumscribed the actions and camp setups of outfitters really are. At least in the areas that I worked and enforced them. They have very specific, again in my experience, places they can setup, what they can setup, how long, etc..., and if the Wilderness people are doing their job those things are closely monitored and controlled. I have been involved in citing outfitter camps and dismantling them because they were in violation. I think in one case repeated violations subsequently resulted in the lose of his liscense/permit after a couple of decades of having it. Guess, what his camp was in better shape then alot of cache camps I have been in, but he felt that building semi-permanent (which where de facto permanent) in wilderness areas was alright. The reason that outfitters get to setup the semi permanent camps during season is that they are returning to them on a routine basis and frankly the goal is to minimize impact by localizing it to one area. It also ties them to a geographic area more easily so you don't get clashes between outfitters over who has the right to hunt in a given area. Side note -One season an outfitter put in a "spike camp" (it was spike in name only) on the boundary of another outfitters area. The solution of the second outfitter was to have his wranglers visit the camp of the other outfitter and explain their position with fists and feet to the other outfitters employee. When the FS heard about it charges where pressed and people lost jobs. Although I think the outfitters both weaseled out of losing their permits due to blaming it all on the unsanctioned actions of their employees. Back on track, finally, it insures that the outfitter has a place to bring his paying customers. If he had to pull his camp and put it back in there is a chance that someone else, a non-outfitter, would take his choosen, and in some cases required/sanctioned spot, or all of the spots in a given area period so that he had no place to bring his customers. I personally have mixed feelings about this last one as it means that someone with more money has priority of us poor guys. I understand the reasoning for the last one as the outfitter is paying the FS for the right, but on the other hand screw them just because their hunter has more money doesn't mean he should get the pick of his spots first which is what it amounts to. So the rules for outfitters are different for a reason, but again a lot of folks will look at a outfitters camp and say well they are leaving their camp up from season to season, why can't I do it from year to year?


I have personally cleaned up caches of all types from the small ones to the large ones. I remember one that had three different abandoned 55-gallon drum wood stoves. I know that the first one or two may have been brought in historically by vehicles, but the third one was brought in by stock and most likely the second was as well. When one rusted out it was just abandoned on the trash heap and the next one was brought in. The same went for a lot of their trash and other items. It was a multi-visit, multi-year project to clean this area up. I have also found the small caches that folks are talking about a grill, or small box, here and there. I believe that in most cases the folks doing this did believe they would be back. However, based on the age and condition they clearly had not come back, and even if they did the stuff wouldn't have been in working order. Again I believe the folks on here that say they do come back because I know them personally. I would stress that I think they are in the minority.


I have been invovled in caching both of the outfitter type and the smaller gear type. I have only done the small cache once and that was this last year. The place we deer hunted was covered with roads that where largely closed during the season. Evan and I went in the weekend before and stashed water, cut fire wood, and dug a latrine. To be perfectly frank I wasn't really comfortable with leaving the water. In part because I was afraid my nice containers would be stolen and in part because of my experiences with cleaning up caches. The outfitter type was when I was working for the FS on trailcrews. If we were going to be working in a given area for several periods we would usually set up our camp and leave it in one area. However, in this case the logic was that we didn't waste time setting up and tearing it down so we got more work done in the period of time alloted, or we didn't have to use as many critters to haul gear in which meant time was also saved in that way. For one district it was the whole camp left up as if we where gone for the day. In that case we where working 4-10s so it was easy to loose a 1/2 to whole day on travel and setting up camp, which left just two work days. However, with a set up camp we only lost travel time which meant we where usually working by noon or even earlier thus giving us to extra half days of work. On the other district we worked 8-10s so we usually pulled down camp and stashed it. Leaving everything except personal items meant fewer head of stock to deal with and allowed us to move faster also saving work/time, but the camp was not left up. In both camps bears came around. On the first are camp was thrashed by bears. On the second one just looked things over and then visited us our first night back. The difference was the first camp was very attractive due to bacon grease splatters, food left, etc... by some of my coworkers, and the second didn't have any food left and everything was neat and tidy and the bear didn't find anything of interest. FYI for those who do cache and want to cache beer Old Milwaukies Best seems to be a safe bet. All of the sterno, bug spray, white gas, oil, diesel, ... was gone, but five cans of beer where left untouched. The final point is that we weren't sent back in to clean up our camp, the Wilderness Rangers where and it took them all of one day and part of another to get everything cleaned up. I didn't agree with that decision, but it was above my paygrade.


So as you can see I have been on both sides of the caching and based on my experience I believe that caching should be illegal. I am actually surprised that in some wildernesses it is illegal. I am curious why and where and wonder if it has to do with lack of water or use or other things like that. If some choose to leave a small box then that is their business and up to their discretion. However, if you come back and your stuff is gone or you get caught at it when illegal then don't bitch take responsibility for your actions. The reason I think it should be illegal is that the vast majority of people do not have discretion, and will abuse it and wreck areas. If you do have discretion, then Shut your mouth, boy.

evanhill
08-27-2009, 11:49 AM
The reason I think it should be illegal is that the vast majority of people do not have discretion, and will abuse it and wreck areas. If you do have discretion, then Shut up, Boy.

Leave it to Scot to say outright what I was trying to obliquely hint at, although I think the exact phrase is "Shut your mouth, boy".

Smokepole
08-27-2009, 11:54 AM
I agree... but....


Well, if a guy really intends to retrieve his stuff, and his excuse for not doing it is he dies, personally, I'd cut him some slack.

disillusionedpatriot
08-27-2009, 11:58 AM
The reason I think it should be illegal is that the vast majority of people do not have discretion, and will abuse it and wreck areas. If you do have discretion, then Shut up, Boy.

I suppose this is another case of SSS.

Kevin B
08-27-2009, 12:05 PM
OH NO DIS... is this becoming a wolf thread?

elmbow
08-27-2009, 12:06 PM
Westy, you missed out. You should've asked elmbow what he did with his soggy stash.

You fell for the old "chap in a bar" story??
Was it the "haggard shell" part that gave it away, huh????

sab
08-27-2009, 12:12 PM
The reason I think it should be illegal is that the vast majority of people do not have discretion, and will abuse it and wreck areas.

This reasoning is why we have so many laws that are hard to enforce. The bottom line is that you cannot legislate common sense! Rather than pass a law against all caching, we should shun those who abuse caching, as well as teach new outdoor recreationalists to develop and use discretion and think about the effects of their actions.

Perhaps more importantly, your argument is the exact line of reasoning that the anti-second amendment crowd uses to ban guns. Since bad people with guns have no discretion, let's just make guns illegal so that we don't have to worry about people learning and using discretion.

Laws are oftimes the lazy solution to a problem. It is far easier to just outlaw all guns than it is to teach people right and wrong, but that doesn't make it the correct solution for the problem.

I'm sorry for twisting this somewhat off-topic, but I'm a staunch proponent of less government intrusion into our lives. Don't tread on me!

Scott

elmbow
08-27-2009, 12:31 PM
Ksnake
If you removed one of these boats that had been sitting there for 20 years, that would be stealing. If you damaged it so no one could use it, that would be vandalism.
Either could get you a visit with the law.
And no joking, could quite seriously land you in violation of the antiquities act. Picking up rusty pork and bean cans will.
I cache and I'm proud of it. If the law forbids caching, I'll break the law because I think it's a stupid law and yes, I'm above stupid laws. Someone above posted that they try to leave the landscape a little better than they found it. Now there's a novel idea. And until you find one of my caches (you won't) you can't claim I'm degrading anyone else's experience or the landscape. If I go the way of the earth and don't make that last trip and (gasp!) leave a water bladder for some nimrod to stumble across five years from now, oh boo hoo, I guess I'll take 30 lashes from Lucifer on that one, cuz I spoiled the wilderness. No caching policies can be taken to ad nauseum lengths, just like leave no trace policies can and often are. A little common sense sure goes a long way in this. If a person is so insecure in their own values, that they have to search out internet message boards and "see" what others are doing in this regard, well, whew!

Chainbearer
08-27-2009, 12:32 PM
Squirrels, birds, chipmunks, mice and other species all cache. Dogs bury bones, maybe we need to start ticketing them for their infractions? Perhaps this is a basic instinct associated with survival? Any thoughts?

In the not too distant future maybe an archeologist will happen upon a cache a member on this board stashed away and learn about the way we hunted, our equipment, etc.!

scothill
08-27-2009, 01:15 PM
This reasoning is why we have so many laws that are hard to enforce. The bottom line is that you cannot legislate common sense!

Agreed, but what is the solution to protect our Wilderness? Just let people have at it and do whatever they want? There have been people on here that have clearly argued and stated that it is alright to dump trash in the NF, and other who have argued against the need for Wilderness, and would do away with them? At some point laws have to be made in order to perserve or proscribe things.


Rather than pass a law against all caching, we should shun those who abuse caching, as well as teach new outdoor recreationalists to develop and use discretion and think about the effects of their actions.

I don't disagree, and wish it was this simple, but to throw your words back at you you can't teach common sense. Or at least it is very hard. What are you doing to shun those and teach them and how can others do it?


Perhaps more importantly, your argument is the exact line of reasoning that the anti-second amendment crowd uses to ban guns. Since bad people with guns have no discretion, let's just make guns illegal so that we don't have to worry about people learning and using discretion.

Laws are oftimes the lazy solution to a problem. It is far easier to just outlaw all guns than it is to teach people right and wrong, but that doesn't make it the correct solution for the problem.

I disagree with this, because the reason that people want to make guns illegal has nothing to do with the discretionary use of guns. It has to do with fear, knee jerk reactions, placebos, and CONTROL. I think that you are making a huge leap that is not neccassarilly even there to go from discretion in the use of guns to killing and shooting others. If you had said laws about not brandishing or open carry or things like that I would have given it to you, because those are about discretionary use. Or are you arguing that all that keeps you from shooting someone is discretion? If so I may not understand the word discretion correctly.


I'm sorry for twisting this somewhat off-topic, but I'm a staunch proponent of less government intrusion into our lives. Don't tread on me!

Ummmmm.....okay, yeah that is fine, but what does it have to do with saying that in a given area you can't do X how does that intrude on your life? You have to make the decision to go into the Wilderness. By doing so you taciatlly (sp?) agree with restrictions placed on you by going there. If you don't agree don't go there. Lets put it on another tack. If you go into a restuarant that requires you to wear a coat and tie are you going to scream about don't tread on me, or wear a tie because you know that is part of the requirements? I am guessing you will say that you should be able to go anywhere and do anything you want without being infringed on on public land because it is public in response. (If not sorry for the assumption) Then lets throw out other public properties: jails, county offices, the white house, schools, central park,... should you be able to go all of those places and do what you choose without infringement? Again I am going to assume you will say no, but...and that is my point. As a member of a society, IMHO, you agree to a social compact. That social compact is what allows a society to function without anarchy. In some cases it is based off a moral code, in others off a system of laws, and yet in others it means not pissing off mongo or he will chop off your head and use it as a drinking goblet. In each of those societies there are certain expectations and requirements about how you will live and what you will do. If you choose not to live within those expectations and requirements then you have a couple of choices, break those laws and hope the man never catches up with, especially if mongo is thirst, or leave the society. I guess there is a final choice, and that is to work to change the society either through legal means or illegal means like the revolutionary founders did. I will start by pointing out that based on my understanding they exhausted the legal means first and then went to war in some cases very reluctantly.

I to am all for less infringement on us by the government, and I am all for less government intrusion into our lives. However, I think that there needs to be some basic laws in place in order to ensure the smooth running of a society and to protect certain things worth protecting. In my opinion the Wilderness areas and NFs are some of those things. Others on here disagree, which is fine with me that is their right which I strongly believe that it should be. However, I am damn glad that the NFs and Wildernesses are protected from those type of folks, otherwise we wouldn't have them. ;) At one point the people appointed to run this country by THE PEOPLE decided that THE PEOPLE wanted the NFs and Wildernesses perserved and set out to do it. What we got are a set of requriements and restrictions about how you will use those areas, and more importantly how all people will use those areas. I personally don't go to certain areas if I don't like the restrictions (Yellowstone springs to mind as well as other national parks, although I might start now I can carry there). In others I "Just shut my mouth, Boy". You see I make choices about my actions, but expect to also take responsibility for them. As a result, I am in control on what those infringements are, not the government. If you want to cache and use a chainsaw, or other things don't go into the Wilderness it is that simple do them where they are allowed.

There are reasons for those restrictions in the wilderness. Lack of government intrusion and freedom doesn't mean that you are free to intrude on others and/or have more freedom then others. It means that everyone is free and has the right to a lack of intrusion by not just the government, but others in that society. The easiest place to see this is in freedom of religion. I have the right to worship the way I want as do you, but I don't have the right to force you to worship the way I do or you me. I wouldn't go into the Mormon Tabernacle and demand to go in, mainly because I don't want the dannities to come for me like they did Jim Bridger, but because I identify they have the right to their beliefs and privacy. Now I understand this is not a government restriction, but it was an easy illustration of my point, and to Westy (I hope I am not speaking out of turn here or putting words in his mouth) the Wilderness areas are his tabarnacle. To him they are sacred places that shouldn't be sullied, but rather perserved. I would submit that there are a huge number of people out there that believe as he does, which is why the restrictions and regulations where put in place to ensure that those memembers of THE PEOPLE have that right and a place to exercise it. I don't think it is government intrusion to say that in this place here are the requirement to safe guard this area. Now don't get excited everyone, I am not saying that in every case the government does the right thing or that they are as alturistic and have the interests of THE PEOPLE in their hearts and minds like that. I actually believe sadly that the exact opposite is the case, but that is another disscussion.

I hear all to often today people start decrying anything they don't agree with as goverment intrusion and shouting Don't Tread on Me! Well guess what in some of those cases the government is making sure that you Don't Tread on someone else. That is part of their job as a government, and based on my reading of the Consitution their most important job whether it be a foregin power or some segment of THE PEOPLE on another. Unfortunately at some point the government decided that their most import job was to get rich and stay in power, and to do that they usually take away rights, power, tell THE PEOPLE what they should believe and generally use the old Roman tactic of divide and conquer and guess what it is working. We are on here aruging about whether or not caching is legit, instead of focusing on how they are screwing us in some many ways it is not funny. We are divided and they like it. It only makes it better for them when we do that. Now I am on off topic.

Simply put, IMHO, some intrusion and restrictions are required in order to protect the rights of everyone. To think otherwise is, again in my opinion, either niave (sp?) or flat out stupid. It is up to us THE PEOPLE, to decide what those instursions and restrictions are through our elected representatives (and yes our representatives have largely failed us). In this case, caching, I agree to those intrusions based on my personal experience and the wish to have those areas preserved. In fact, I see that preservation as being important enough that intrusions are required for their preservation.

sab
08-27-2009, 04:31 PM
Agreed, but what is the solution to protect our Wilderness? What are you doing to shun those and teach them and how can others do it?

First, education is obviously needed. This education needs to come from parents, peers, youth groups, hunter safety programs, etc. Obviously, education will not convince everyone to do the right thing, but it will do a lot to help the situation. As far as laws or rules go, they must be written so as not to make criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens. With regards to caches, instead of a blanket prohibition, how about some leniency? For instance, how about specifying either prohibited or allowable items, quantities, and locations? How about allowing caches within a single hunting, hiking, or other season? There are plenty of ways to write the rules so that reasonable caching is allowed. By reasonable, I mean caching that will have no impact on anyone else's use of the wilderness. And, I'm sorry but merely being offended by the fact that someone chooses to cache is not an impact. Those people need to get over it!


I disagree with this, because the reason that people want to make guns illegal has nothing to do with the discretionary use of guns. It has to do with fear, knee jerk reactions, placebos, and CONTROL. I think that you are making a huge leap that is not neccassarilly even there to go from discretion in the use of guns to killing and shooting others. If you had said laws about not brandishing or open carry or things like that I would have given it to you, because those are about discretionary use. Or are you arguing that all that keeps you from shooting someone is discretion? If so I may not understand the word discretion correctly.

Merriam-Webster defines discretion as the "ability to make responsible decisions". People who shoot other people in an offensive action clearly have not made responsible decisions, and thus have not used discretion in making the choice to pull the trigger. The simple solution to preventing those people from pulling the trigger is to remove the gun from the equation by making it illegal to possess a gun. However, to do so destroys my right, as a responsible person, to possess a gun for whatever reason I feel the need to possess one. In the same vein, saying that all caching is prohibited makes it illegal for someone to cache a small sack of food way off the beaten path during an August scouting trip for a September hunt. This use of a cache has absolutely no impact on anyone else's use of the wilderness. Again, to those who are merely offended that someone would cache - get over it. I'm offended that you are offended, but I'm not going to whine and bitch about it (except this one time to make my point :)


Ummmmm.....okay, yeah that is fine, but what does it have to do with saying that in a given area you can't do X how does that intrude on your life? You have to make the decision to go into the Wilderness. By doing so you taciatlly (sp?) agree with restrictions placed on you by going there. If you don't agree don't go there. Lets put it on another tack. If you go into a restuarant that requires you to wear a coat and tie are you going to scream about don't tread on me, or wear a tie because you know that is part of the requirements? I am guessing you will say that you should be able to go anywhere and do anything you want without being infringed on on public land because it is public in response. (If not sorry for the assumption) Then lets throw out other public properties: jails, county offices, the white house, schools, central park,... should you be able to go all of those places and do what you choose without infringement? Again I am going to assume you will say no, but...and that is my point. As a member of a society, IMHO, you agree to a social compact. That social compact is what allows a society to function without anarchy. In some cases it is based off a moral code, in others off a system of laws, and yet in others it means not pissing off mongo or he will chop off your head and use it as a drinking goblet. In each of those societies there are certain expectations and requirements about how you will live and what you will do. If you choose not to live within those expectations and requirements then you have a couple of choices, break those laws and hope the man never catches up with, especially if mongo is thirst, or leave the society. I guess there is a final choice, and that is to work to change the society either through legal means or illegal means like the revolutionary founders did. I will start by pointing out that based on my understanding they exhausted the legal means first and then went to war in some cases very reluctantly.

You mention three situations on three different types of property, which cannot be compared:

1. Public wilderness areas where everyone has the right to responsibly use it for recreational purposes.
2. A restaurant, presumably on private property, where the owner has a right to restrict the general public's use.
3. Public service facilities where the government has the right to restrict usage.

My argument would be that on public NF or wilderness land, I have the right to responsibly enjoy the use of the land for recreational purposes, and that includes caching that does not infringe upon others' use of the land. Again, merely offending another is not an infringement. If we apply that standard, all our freedoms go out the window. On the other hand, if I leave a folding chair off the side of a marked trail, I've clearly impacted others' use of the wilderness. In a private restaurant, I don't even have the right to be there unless it is granted by the owner. In a public service facility, I have the right to be there in order to interface with the service provider in the normal course of business.


I to am all for less infringement on us by the government, and I am all for less government intrusion into our lives. However, I think that there needs to be some basic laws in place in order to ensure the smooth running of a society and to protect certain things worth protecting. In my opinion the Wilderness areas and NFs are some of those things. Others on here disagree, which is fine with me that is their right which I strongly believe that it should be. However, I am damn glad that the NFs and Wildernesses are protected from those type of folks, otherwise we wouldn't have them. ;)

I don't think your wish for less government intrusion is as strong as mine. In fact, we're not even in the same ballpark if you think that a blanket ban on caching is "a basic law in place in order to ensure the smooth running of a society and to protect certain things worth protecting." It is an easy, simple law to pass, but it is anything but basic when it hurts good people in order to attempt to correct the behavior of bad people.


At one point the people appointed to run this country by THE PEOPLE decided that THE PEOPLE wanted the NFs and Wildernesses perserved and set out to do it. What we got are a set of requriements and restrictions about how you will use those areas, and more importantly how all people will use those areas.

Our elected officials did not make the no-cache rule. They (the legislative branch) authorized the Department of the Interior (the executive branch) to make rules regarding the use of the wilderness areas. Within the executive branch, this authority has trickled down to the area managers. These area managers have personal feelings that influence their rule-making. Therefore, the actual rules are not the will of THE PEOPLE, they are the will of whomever is authorized to make the rules. That is why the rule is inconsistently applied. There is a process for getting the rules changed, but for a little rule like caching, it's just easier to break it and take your chances, as well as pay the consequences. Again, I haven't cached, but if I decided to do so against the rules, I would do so in a manner that was no-impact and very unlikely to be detected, and if I did somehow get caught, I'd pay the fine and move on, as opposed to whining and complaining.


I personally don't go to certain areas if I don't like the restrictions (Yellowstone springs to mind as well as other national parks, although I might start now I can carry there). In others I "Just shut my mouth, Boy". You see I make choices about my actions, but expect to also take responsibility for them. As a result, I am in control on what those infringements are, not the government. If you want to cache and use a chainsaw, or other things don't go into the Wilderness it is that simple do them where they are allowed.

I may be misunderstanding you, but you seem to be contradicting yourself here. You say, "You see I make choices about my actions, but expect to also take responsibility for them. As a result, I am in control on what those infringements are, not the government." This leads me to believe that you do make rational choices to break rules. However, you also say "If you want to cache and use a chainsaw, or other things don't go into the Wilderness it is that simple do them where they are allowed." Again, I may have misunderstood, but aren't you saying that you do choose to break rules, but I better not choose to break the caching rule? Why is it okay for you to break rules, but not me?


There are reasons for those restrictions in the wilderness. Lack of government intrusion and freedom doesn't mean that you are free to intrude on others and/or have more freedom then others. It means that everyone is free and has the right to a lack of intrusion by not just the government, but others in that society.

Yes, and I don't appreciate your intrusion on my rights to enjoy the wilderness by choosing to responsibly cache in a manner that has absolutely no impact on your use of the wilderness. It's a two-way street!


I hear all to often today people start decrying anything they don't agree with as goverment intrusion and shouting Don't Tread on Me! Well guess what in some of those cases the government is making sure that you Don't Tread on someone else. That is part of their job as a government, and based on my reading of the Consitution their most important job whether it be a foregin power or some segment of THE PEOPLE on another.

Don't tread on me is universal, meaning that each person has the right not to be tread upon. Obviously, I don't want to be tread upon, but, as a responsible citizen, I also try my best to be avoid purposely treading on others. You know - "live and let live"!


Simply put, IMHO, some intrusion and restrictions are required in order to protect the rights of everyone. To think otherwise is, again in my opinion, either niave (sp?) or flat out stupid. It is up to us THE PEOPLE, to decide what those instursions and restrictions are through our elected representatives (and yes our representatives have largely failed us). In this case, caching, I agree to those intrusions based on my personal experience and the wish to have those areas preserved. In fact, I see that preservation as being important enough that intrusions are required for their preservation.

And that is where we disagree. ;)

Regards,
Scott

scothill
08-27-2009, 05:20 PM
First, education is obviously needed. This education needs to come from parents, peers, youth groups, hunter safety programs, etc. Obviously, education will not convince everyone to do the right thing, but it will do a lot to help the situation. As far as laws or rules go, they must be written so as not to make criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens. With regards to caches, instead of a blanket prohibition, how about some leniency? For instance, how about specifying either prohibited or allowable items, quantities, and locations? How about allowing caches within a single hunting, hiking, or other season? There are plenty of ways to write the rules so that reasonable caching is allowed. By reasonable, I mean caching that will have no impact on anyone else's use of the wilderness. And, I'm sorry but merely being offended by the fact that someone chooses to cache is not an impact. Those people need to get over it!



Merriam-Webster defines discretion as the "ability to make responsible decisions". People who shoot other people in an offensive action clearly have not made responsible decisions, and thus have not used discretion in making the choice to pull the trigger. The simple solution to preventing those people from pulling the trigger is to remove the gun from the equation by making it illegal to possess a gun. However, to do so destroys my right, as a responsible person, to possess a gun for whatever reason I feel the need to possess one. In the same vein, saying that all caching is prohibited makes it illegal for someone to cache a small sack of food way off the beaten path during an August scouting trip for a September hunt. This use of a cache has absolutely no impact on anyone else's use of the wilderness. Again, to those who are merely offended that someone would cache - get over it. I'm offended that you are offended, but I'm not going to whine and bitch about it (except this one time to make my point :)



You mention three situations on three different types of property, which cannot be compared:

1. Public wilderness areas where everyone has the right to responsibly use it for recreational purposes.
2. A restaurant, presumably on private property, where the owner has a right to restrict the general public's use.
3. Public service facilities where the government has the right to restrict usage.

My argument would be that on public NF or wilderness land, I have the right to responsibly enjoy the use of the land for recreational purposes, and that includes caching that does not infringe upon others' use of the land. Again, merely offending another is not an infringement. If we apply that standard, all our freedoms go out the window. On the other hand, if I leave a folding chair off the side of a marked trail, I've clearly impacted others' use of the wilderness. In a private restaurant, I don't even have the right to be there unless it is granted by the owner. In a public service facility, I have the right to be there in order to interface with the service provider in the normal course of business.



I don't think your wish for less government intrusion is as strong as mine. In fact, we're not even in the same ballpark if you think that a blanket ban on caching is "a basic law in place in order to ensure the smooth running of a society and to protect certain things worth protecting." It is an easy, simple law to pass, but it is anything but basic when it hurts good people in order to attempt to correct the behavior of bad people.



Our elected officials did not make the no-cache rule. They (the legislative branch) authorized the Department of the Interior (the executive branch) to make rules regarding the use of the wilderness areas. Within the executive branch, this authority has trickled down to the area managers. These area managers have personal feelings that influence their rule-making. Therefore, the actual rules are not the will of THE PEOPLE, they are the will of whomever is authorized to make the rules. That is why the rule is inconsistently applied. There is a process for getting the rules changed, but for a little rule like caching, it's just easier to break it and take your chances, as well as pay the consequences. Again, I haven't cached, but if I decided to do so against the rules, I would do so in a manner that was no-impact and very unlikely to be detected, and if I did somehow get caught, I'd pay the fine and move on, as opposed to whining and complaining.



I may be misunderstanding you, but you seem to be contradicting yourself here. You say, "You see I make choices about my actions, but expect to also take responsibility for them. As a result, I am in control on what those infringements are, not the government." This leads me to believe that you do make rational choices to break rules. However, you also say "If you want to cache and use a chainsaw, or other things don't go into the Wilderness it is that simple do them where they are allowed." Again, I may have misunderstood, but aren't you saying that you do choose to break rules, but I better not choose to break the caching rule? Why is it okay for you to break rules, but not me?



Yes, and I don't appreciate your intrusion on my rights to enjoy the wilderness by choosing to responsibly cache in a manner that has absolutely no impact on your use of the wilderness. It's a two-way street!



Don't tread on me is universal, meaning that each person has the right not to be tread upon. Obviously, I don't want to be tread upon, but, as a responsible citizen, I also try my best to be avoid purposely treading on others. You know - "live and let live"!



And that is where we disagree. ;)

Regards,
Scott

I just re-read my post and I can see where you drew some of your conclusions from and areas I may not have been clear. I was also going off the assumption that you where arguing with your don't tread on me that you shouldn't have any restrictions on your use of the wilderness. It seems that is not the case after your last post. Rather your are saying that as long as you are not infringing on others enjoyment of the wilderness you shouldn't be infringed on. On that we agree and I will come back to it.

But let me clear up, Yup, I break rules/laws I don't agree with, and I am prepared to accept the consequences of those actions. I also never said you couldn't break the no cache rule. At least it was never my intention to say that. My intention was to say that I agree with the no-cache rule, why I agree with it, and why I disagree with you on the subject of caching, not that you didn't have the right to break the law. I am not going to say anyone doesn't have the right to break the rules and I do. That would make me either pretty arrogant or pretty stupid or both, and I hope I am neither ;). I will say it straight up if you choose to cache have at it, I just urge anyone to be aware if what you are doing is illegal in your area and then what are the consequences and whether or not you are prepared to pay them. That to me is just common sense. I wasn't discussing whether or not someone had the right to break the law I was discussing on whether or not caching is good or bad and whether the blanket law should be in place or was even necassary.

I will try one last time as it seems I am not communicating clearly. The issue is that caching, in my experience and view, is not a simple little thing, and non-intrusive like people on here keep saying. Are there folks who can cache so I don't find it sure, and are those people on here sure. I have no doubt that most here could hide stuff so I could never find it, but we aren't talking about just us we are talking about everyone out there. I would argue that the vast majority of people simply can't/won't do it. Heck, most folks have trouble packing out or burying their scat so how do you expect them to be able to cache in a manner that no one finds it. I find piles of toilet paper and scat to be way more offensive then a cache and a lot easier to hide, yet people can't seem to get it done. I think you are talking about an impossible ideal. Thus my agreement for outright bans not just because I don't like it, or maybe I should say area specific bans based off of local factors which seems to be the case now given the different laws in different wildernesses. Different places are different and should be managed differently thus what is right in one area is not in another. To me that is a fairly simple concept to grasp. Just as restricitions on shooting cows/does in certain areas and bulls in others is a simple concept for me to understand. I believe that laws are made to address the lowest common denomiator, which does not include the majority of this board. Whether or not that is the way it should be is another discussion. However, it strikes me as the way it is. I would love if we could just use common sense and do away with a lot of laws. However, common sense doesn't actually seem to be very common to me at all. So we have to protect against and deal with the lowst denominator not the highest.

Also you recommended a more specific law that outlines who, what, when, where, how, etc.... How is that less intrusive? In a way I can see it being more intrusive like the float trips to the Grand Canyon, where based on what I am told, you have to have an inspection of gear prior to the float trip. To me that smacks of more government intrusion through oversite and enforcement, and not to mention more expensive and personally I find taxes and user fees intrusive as hell.

As to the gun issues and discretion, if you see shooting someone as just not making a responsible decision I have to agree with you, but for some reason I think it is a bit more then that, but I don't want to go off on to far a tangent.

Finally, isn't all of the power supposed to lay in the hands of THE PEOPLE according to the Consitution? I mean we can go back and forth about who had the final say on this and that, but in theory don't the PEOPLE elect both President and Congress/Senate who then appoint, manage, and directly or indirectly control the rest in government? I may be fuzzy on things, but I didn't realize that the area managers weren't responsible to their ultimate bosses the PEOPLE through their various chains of command. Every government building I have been in has pictures of the power structure going up. Unfortunately I have never seen a picture of THE PEOPLE to remind them who they really work for, but again another discussion as is whether not things are working.

I hope that clears things up a bit.

Ksnake
08-27-2009, 07:08 PM
Well, if a guy really intends to retrieve his stuff, and his excuse for not doing it is he dies, personally, I'd cut him some slack.

How nice of you to pick the one slant that makes my point seem like I am heartless. Very nice.

Everyone has intentions. And dying isnt the only reason someone may not return. Yes that is one reason. But can you think of one or two, or fifty more reasons on your own? Or do you need us to make you a list for you?

Smokepole
08-27-2009, 09:07 PM
How nice of you to pick the one slant that makes my point seem like I am heartless. Very nice.....

Everyone has intentions. And dying isnt the only reason someone may not return. Yes that is one reason. But can you think of one or two, or fifty more reasons on your own? Or do you need us to make you a list for you?

I'm not sure what your issue is but I think I already covered all the other possibilities:


If you know there's a chance you won't make it back in to retrieve your stuff, you need to take it out--period

So, sure, go ahead and write up your list, and then roll it up, and then, well, you know what to do next.

Here's my "list:"

1) I'm getting old, One of these days I won't be able to make it back in here, what should I do with this stuff?


If you know there's a chance you won't make it back in to retrieve your stuff, you need to take it out--period

2) An elk tag costs $450, I might not be able to afford one next year, what should I do with this stuff?


If you know there's a chance you won't make it back in to retrieve your stuff, you need to take it out--period

3) There's a chance I might hunt somewhere else next year, what should I do with this stuff?


If you know there's a chance you won't make it back in to retrieve your stuff, you need to take it out--period

4) I can be a lazy SOB, I might not have the gumption to come back and haul this stuff out, what should I do?


If you know there's a chance you won't make it back in to retrieve your stuff, you need to take it out--period

Ed C
08-27-2009, 09:34 PM
So, sure, go ahead and write up your list, and then roll it up, and then, well, you know what to do next.

Ahhh what? Cach it? Geocach it maybe:D

Smokepole
08-27-2009, 09:36 PM
Ahh, ed, you're taking what I said out of context again..........

sab
08-27-2009, 09:47 PM
Scot:

I think we agree on far more points than we disagree. I'll address just two more points in this, my last post of the day:


Also you recommended a more specific law that outlines who, what, when, where, how, etc.... How is that less intrusive?

How is it less intrusive? Think about this. The current anti-caching law is very restrictive. Essentially, there is no provision whatsoever for caching from one weekend to the next. Not even for the most insignificant of caches in the most remote location. With a more specific law, at least some caching would be allowed. Written properly, it would allow responsible caching that would have no impact on others' use of the wilderness. It is less intrusive because it would allow SOME caching, rather than banning it all.

I deal with the executive branch of the government daily in my job, and I am constantly picking apart ordinances trying to determine how to comply. Most of the ordinances I deal with are written very poorly. In fact, I can't think of a single chapter of code I've ever read that made me say "that is really well drafted". To me, there is nothing more intrusive than a poorly written law because it gives the executive branch too much power due to interpretation of the law. If it is so important to write an ordinance to control something, the appropriate amount of time should be spent drafting the ordinance so as to address the issue properly. That's the crux of my argument - that legislators are always looking for the quick fix so that they can say they did something, but it leaves a huge mess for those of us who have to deal with it every day, and it infringes on our rights because it gives too much interpretive power to the executive branch (this interpretive power is why you've only recently been able to carry concealed in NPs). The only way to fix these poorly-drafted ordinances is either through lobbying the legislative branch to amend the ordinance, or through the judicial system. Both ways take lots of time and money to get a change. I am getting way off on a tangent, so I'll end this point now. As you can probably tell, I'm not a fan of blanket bans on much of anything because it is an absolute, and there are very few absolutes in life (death and taxes are the common ones cited).


Finally, isn't all of the power supposed to lay in the hands of THE PEOPLE according to the Consitution? I mean we can go back and forth about who had the final say on this and that, but in theory don't the PEOPLE elect both President and Congress/Senate who then appoint, manage, and directly or indirectly control the rest in government? I may be fuzzy on things, but I didn't realize that the area managers weren't responsible to their ultimate bosses the PEOPLE through their various chains of command. Every government building I have been in has pictures of the power structure going up. Unfortunately I have never seen a picture of THE PEOPLE to remind them who they really work for, but again another discussion as is whether not things are working.

On the surface, you are correct. But it doesn't quite work the way you've outlined above. There is absolutely no chain of command between the area managers and our elected officials. If you remember your civics lessons, there are three branches of government (executive, legislative, and judicial), and, as designed by the founders of our great republic, there is no authoritative connection between the three branches. They function independently, which is not to say that they don't influence each other. A Senator cannot order an area manager to do anything. He or she can work to pass a law that forces the area manager to do something, but the area manager is free to interpret the laws however he or she sees fit. It is then up to the judicial branch to determine whether or not the area manager's interpretation fell within the spirit of the law.

Basically, my argument is that blanket bans make a mess of things because they oversimplify solutions and intrude too much on our lives. Our government either needs to write better, more specific laws considering the needs of ALL stakeholders, or stay the hell out of our lives. That pretty much sums up my philosophy; hence, my "don't tread on me" statement.

I hope this clears up my side of the argument, and I hope that no one takes offense to the way I present my argument. I'm not an advocate for destroying our wilderness areas. I just think our government needs to do a better job when trying to legislate for the least common denominator because those of us that care need to be allowed the chance to make our own responsible decisions without breaking laws...

Good night,
Scott

Ed C
08-28-2009, 07:04 AM
This is my take on it. No need for a 1000 word essay.
Caching and littering are wrong legally and morally, unless it is done by Bushcraft, Kevin B, evanhill, or disillusionedpatriot.


http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n230/doright_2006/2.jpg



This is where they belong!

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n230/doright_2006/0905081347.jpg

Westy rocks!

Vernon
08-28-2009, 07:48 AM
I've held back in commenting on this topic largely because caching is a non-issue here in the East and also because what needs to be said has been said. I general I agree with what sab is saying. I do need to make one correction that I've had to make in the past and one that I would think that people talking about wilderness would be aware of. It deals with the following quote:


Our elected officials did not make the no-cache rule. They (the legislative branch) authorized the Department of the Interior (the executive branch) to make rules regarding the use of the wilderness areas. Within the executive branch, this authority has trickled down to the area managers.

Does anyone see the problem with this quote from sab? The majority of wilderness areas are on National Forest property (however the NPS has more wilderness acres). The USFS is under the Dept of Agriculture, not Interior. I'm sure that everyone here is talking about FS wilderness areas. Just a little note to make sure we keep things straight.

Smokepole
08-28-2009, 08:02 AM
Vernon, long time no hear, what wilderness area will you be hunting this year?

I miss my old stomping grounds back there, one of these years.......

elmbow
08-28-2009, 08:05 AM
This is my take on it. No need for a 1000 word essay.
Caching and littering are wrong legally and morally, unless it is done by Bushcraft, Kevin B, evanhill, or disillusionedpatriot.


http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n230/doright_2006/2.jpg



This is where they belong!

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n230/doright_2006/0905081347.jpg

Westy rocks!

Personally, when I'm walking down the wilderness trail and I have to sidestep a pile of mule ****, my wilderness sensibilites, not to mention my nose, are offended. Isn't that a form of "caching"? How about owners of stock animals bury that stuff in shallow cat holes?

Westy
08-28-2009, 08:14 AM
Haven't had time to catch up on the thread, so I'm sure I have some responding to do, but I thought I'd pose a question since I don't think I'm getting my point across correctly.

What if a full camp is left deep in Wilderness? I'll paint the picture:

An area I hunt and hike frequently is a 3 hour, head down, haulin a$$ walk-in for me. Others I have talked to take 5-9 hours to get in. (I can average just over 4 miles an hour on an average trail.) It's four and a half miles in - looks easy on a map, but it is difficult travel. There is no way you could get horses or mules in here - maybe goats, but I think that would even be a stretch. There is now a cache just below treeline that basically has a full camp in it - including shelter, consumables, and non-consumables (this is modern gear). I hope whoever stashed the stuff thought they were "doing it right," but a bear has now gotten into the stuff. Now, I'm thinking, I bust my butt to find these remote places, follow the letter of the law, and now people are cheating the remoteness by caching a FULL camp up here.

Results: Someone now has a base camp that has been there at least half the summer (that I know of). They could hunt, fish, or camp out of it at will without having to carry any type of weight in. There is heavier use in the area because of it, and now the bears are getting used to human scent, and learning that man-made nylon containers contain food. Now, I sleep in a bivy sack - to a bear, I imagine it would look an awful lot like the container being used to store the camp. I can tell you something else, I'm going to be a lot more nervous about bears checking me out if I have an elk down in the dark or anytime I sleep in that basin hunting solo.

Now, this is Wilderness with a caching law restricted to a few days. The basin is tight, small, and teeming with game. I fear for the health and wildness of such a place when that kind of stuff exists up there.

I didn't want to bring my situation into it, because it doesn't necessarily apply to the grander discussion, but I feel like I couldn't get across my disconcertion clearly enough with my other comments. So, candidly and sincerely, is this type of thing still acceptable to you guys? If so, why? In this area, I know it has an impact.

Also, how would you suggest I address the situation?

Thanks guys. I really appreciate the candor and vigor of discussion - hope nobody ever takes my comments personally. I just really love wilderness and the type of hunting Kifaru promotes, and I'll do whatever I can to stick up for it.

CCH
08-28-2009, 08:33 AM
I doubt a bear will go for you Westy, too much bone, some tough meat and no fat. ;)

Seriously, I think that illustrates your concerns pretty well.

Ed C
08-28-2009, 08:34 AM
Personally, when I'm walking down the wilderness trail and I have to sidestep a pile of mule ****, my wilderness sensibilites, not to mention my nose, are offended.

Geeeez elmbow it's amazing that you have any sensibilities left....congratulations!:D

Ksnake
08-28-2009, 09:02 AM
I'm not sure what your issue is but I think I already covered all the other possibilities:



So, sure, go ahead and write up your list, and then roll it up, and then, well, you know what to do next.

Here's my "list:"

1) I'm getting old, One of these days I won't be able to make it back in here, what should I do with this stuff?



2) An elk tag costs $450, I might not be able to afford one next year, what should I do with this stuff?



3) There's a chance I might hunt somewhere else next year, what should I do with this stuff?



4) I can be a lazy SOB, I might not have the gumption to come back and haul this stuff out, what should I do?

You're seeing the world through rose colored glasses if you think everyone will "take it out--period" when something comes up after they've cached something. You can stand on your soapbox all day long if you want. But I don't have that much faith in human nature. I've met too many people that would rather say, ahhh F-it, I going all the way back in there for that. Sure there are a few that will do so. But the majority wont. And some cant (sick, injury, relocation, etc - go ahead and tell these guys to schlep up there and get it out!)

This is why the law allows for short term caching (to minimize litter) which I am fine with, and why I am against long term caching.

Eventually every short term cacher will probably leave something in the woods. And every long term cacher probably already has.

Ed C
08-28-2009, 09:16 AM
Before this thread turned south......very philosophical which turned it humours. This was the original question

how do you securely cache the material?

Well how do you? Bushcraft?


I haven't done it in years. We use to get 5 gallon tins that potato chips came in. They had tight fitting lids and would fit in an
REI cruiser [external frame backpack]. Bury it in the rocks or stash it under a dead tree.

disclaimer: I never actually did this. I just heard of some guys doing it.

snakey2
08-28-2009, 09:31 AM
Hey Ed you don't need to cache you have Miss Dolly. How is she? She might be a fan of caching cause you always overload her, you meany!

disillusionedpatriot
08-28-2009, 09:43 AM
Haven't had time to catch up on the thread, so I'm sure I have some responding to do, but I thought I'd pose a question since I don't think I'm getting my point across correctly.

What if a full camp is left deep in Wilderness? I'll paint the picture:

An area I hunt and hike frequently is a 3 hour, head down, haulin a$$ walk-in for me. Others I have talked to take 5-9 hours to get in. (I can average just over 4 miles an hour on an average trail.) It's four and a half miles in - looks easy on a map, but it is difficult travel. There is no way you could get horses or mules in here - maybe goats, but I think that would even be a stretch. There is now a cache just below treeline that basically has a full camp in it - including shelter, consumables, and non-consumables (this is modern gear). I hope whoever stashed the stuff thought they were "doing it right," but a bear has now gotten into the stuff. Now, I'm thinking, I bust my butt to find these remote places, follow the letter of the law, and now people are cheating the remoteness by caching a FULL camp up here.

Results: Someone now has a base camp that has been there at least half the summer (that I know of). They could hunt, fish, or camp out of it at will without having to carry any type of weight in. There is heavier use in the area because of it, and now the bears are getting used to human scent, and learning that man-made nylon containers contain food. Now, I sleep in a bivy sack - to a bear, I imagine it would look an awful lot like the container being used to store the camp. I can tell you something else, I'm going to be a lot more nervous about bears checking me out if I have an elk down in the dark or anytime I sleep in that basin hunting solo.

Now, this is Wilderness with a caching law restricted to a few days. The basin is tight, small, and teeming with game. I fear for the health and wildness of such a place when that kind of stuff exists up there.

I didn't want to bring my situation into it, because it doesn't necessarily apply to the grander discussion, but I feel like I couldn't get across my disconcertion clearly enough with my other comments. So, candidly and sincerely, is this type of thing still acceptable to you guys? If so, why? In this area, I know it has an impact.

Also, how would you suggest I address the situation?

Thanks guys. I really appreciate the candor and vigor of discussion - hope nobody ever takes my comments personally. I just really love wilderness and the type of hunting Kifaru promotes, and I'll do whatever I can to stick up for it.

I'd probably burn it and leave a note at the permit sign-in board stating that.

sab
08-28-2009, 09:52 AM
I've held back in commenting on this topic largely because caching is a non-issue here in the East and also because what needs to be said has been said. I general I agree with what sab is saying. I do need to make one correction that I've had to make in the past and one that I would think that people talking about wilderness would be aware of. It deals with the following quote:



Does anyone see the problem with this quote from sab? The majority of wilderness areas are on National Forest property (however the NPS has more wilderness acres). The USFS is under the Dept of Agriculture, not Interior. I'm sure that everyone here is talking about FS wilderness areas. Just a little note to make sure we keep things straight.

Mea culpa, the BLM and NP are Interior, and I assumed the FS was, too. That's just another example of the problems of big government - can't even keep track of all the entities. Nonetheless, it seems to me to be a trivial point that should not confuse the issue we're discussing.

Scott

sab
08-28-2009, 10:08 AM
Westy:

With your situation, that cache is clearly not no-impact. Even though we differ in our opinions, that's a no-brainer. I'm not sure I'd personally touch anything, as I don't keep up to date on property laws everywhere, and you could be violating property law by touching it. Not all states are the same, but here in Texas, a person's property is valued nearly as high as a human life. We can use deadly force to defend our property without criminal repercussion (although civil repercussion is another matter).

However, if it were me, I'd mark the spot in my GPS, take photos, and then report it to the District Office. Who knows, you may even be able to legally claim the property. You mentioned it was all modern equipment, so it's probably worth something. At least you'd be compensated for the impact on your use of the Wilderness...

Scott

Ed C
08-28-2009, 10:12 AM
Nonetheless, it seems to me to be a trivial point that should not confuse the issue we're discussing.

Scott


RIGHT Please try to stay on track Scott! This is the issue we are discussing.

So...question...does anyone else cache the occasional item for an upcoming wilderness hunt? And, what do you typically cache and how do you securely cache the material? <!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
__________________



Not the other crap we haven't discussed this yet.

sab
08-28-2009, 10:14 AM
I'd probably burn it and leave a note at the permit sign-in board stating that.

Sorry, DIP, but that's the last thing I'd do. First, there's the property issue I mentioned above. But more importantly to me, burning a bunch of modern gear, probably made of all kinds of plastic materials, and then leaving a mess of half-burned debris, arguably has a bigger impact on the wilderness than the original cache did.

In my mind, the right thing to do is to report it to the authorities and let them deal with it within the confines of the law.

Scott

disillusionedpatriot
08-28-2009, 10:21 AM
And, what do you typically cache and how do you securely cache the material?

Cheap hatchet - hanging from nails on tree. If that handle rots, don't care.

Old shovel - in case there's a fire or a fire gets a way, and to dig a privy. Nail, hanging on tree.

Big honking wax decorator candle, liberated from the injustice of decorating a living room - under some pieces of trail maintenance weed barrier the FS left behind years ago. Emergency fire starter.

Other stuff - I happen to know a certain lake in the Wm. O. Douglas where a decade ago another hunter left his sheepherder stove wrapped up in a tarp. Probably gone by now, who knows.

sab
08-28-2009, 10:22 AM
RIGHT Please try to stay on track Scott! This is the issue we are discussing.



Not the other crap we haven't discussed this yet.

Ed, this discussion is what it is. I, and others, have already answered Bushcraft's original question. I've stated more than once that I do not cache. We're now letting the discussion steer itself. Isn't that how these things usually go, especially when they get into several pages in length?

Scott

elmbow
08-28-2009, 10:25 AM
Geeeez elmbow it's amazing that you have any sensibilities left....congratulations!:D

Well, I don't have much sense, that's evident by how long I've followed this goofy thread, (oops).

Things that bother me: Blue poly tarps, yellow poly ropes, human dung left open to casual observation, candy bar wrappers, plastic six pac holders, chuckleheads who destroy fire rings in their frenzy to leave no trace, garbage left in firerings, plastic bottles, glass bottles, garbage, (and I mean garbage, i.e. someone's refuse).

What doesn't bother me: game poles in trees, hasty corrals, straw from old camp sites, horse s h i t or cow s h i t or elk s h i t, or beaver s h i t, I was just pulling your leg in previous post Ed, (you knew that, right?) other folks' discretely placed caches, tree stands, antiquey stuff, (decades old boats, for ex.), brown poly tarps, sisal rope, nails in trees, (even if they cause it long term grief), (is there a shortage of trees in the forest????).

Question for the "purists". If you stumble on an old timey mining setup as you ramble your favorite wilderness, and the tailing pile has about 30 years worth of the old geezer's garbage in it, how much do you haul out, (assuming it wasn't against the law to remove it.) and how much are you negatively impacted? What's the difference between the old pile and someone else's new pile?

Ed C
08-28-2009, 10:30 AM
Cheap hatchet - hanging from nails on tree. If that handle rots, don't care.

Old shovel - in case there's a fire or a fire gets a way, and to dig a privy. Nail, hanging on tree.

Big honking wax decorator candle, liberated from the injustice of decorating a living room - under some pieces of trail maintenance weed barrier the FS left behind years ago. Emergency fire starter.

Other stuff - I happen to know a certain lake in the Wm. O. Douglas where a decade ago another hunter left his sheepherder stove wrapped up in a tarp. Probably gone by now, who knows.

:D:D:D:D Thankyou

Ed C
08-28-2009, 10:32 AM
Question for the "purists". If you stumble on an old timey mining setup as you ramble your favorite wilderness, and the tailing pile has about 30 years worth of the old geezer's garbage in it, how much do you haul out, (assuming it wasn't against the law to remove it.) and how much are you negatively impacted? What's the difference between the old pile and someone else's new pile?

Depends on if I have a pan and some water. He might have missed some gold.

Smokepole
08-28-2009, 10:37 AM
[SIZE=2]You're seeing the world through rose colored glasses if you think everyone will "take it out--period" when something comes up after they've cached something. You can stand on your soapbox all day long if you want.

WTF are you talking about, soap box and rose colored glasses??

If you'd make the effort to read my posts before getting on your own soap box and telling me where I'm wrong, you'd see that I'm not viewing the backcountry through rose-colored lenses, and don't have much faith that people will haul their stuff out, and furthermore that we seem to agree on the basics. My statement below that people need to "take their stuff out--period" is not what I think they will do, it's what I think they should do, is your opinion on that different?:



....I've seen small caches of even expendables left behind and pretty much abandoned. ..... I can't count the number of times I've found the ubiquitous visqueen or blue nylon tarps warpped around a tree and shredded by the wind in the backcountry. Mostly I'd guess by people who thought they might come back and never did. That's what I object to--if you cache something, you need to retrieve it, whether you're going to use it or not. If you know there's a chance you won't make it back in to retrieve your stuff, you need to take it out--period.

Ksnake
08-28-2009, 12:07 PM
My statement below that people need to "take their stuff out--period" is not what I think they will do, it's what I think they should do, is your opinion on that different?:

Nope, I agree 100% Thanks for clarifying.

Smokepole
08-28-2009, 01:46 PM
You're welcome, and good luck on your hunt this year.

Timberline
08-28-2009, 04:07 PM
I do occasionally cache things while summer scouting for later hunting-season use. Have for years. Almost always it’s been small, heavy things, like nails, cast iron frying pan (for proper treatment of brook trout), small assortment of canned goods, stove fuel, etc. Such caches are small, sealed against undue moisture and then buried, not just surface hidden. I do that for two reasons. First, I want it to still be there when I need it. And second, I really don’t want anyone else to have to put up with an eyesore surface cache. I’ve never had one of my caches discovered.

Big, eyesore blue-tarp-wrapped surface caches do bother me a bit when they needlessly clutter up the landscape. And I’m occasionally tempted to smear such glaring caches with peanut butter (from by small buried cache) and thereby let the bruins deliver the message. I’ve never actually done that, but I’ve sure been tempted a time or two.

Woods Walker
08-28-2009, 04:34 PM
Squirrels do it so…. Just sayin…..

singleshot
08-28-2009, 05:20 PM
I have to admit a couple of years ago Smokepole did sit on a chair that I had
cached for a late season elk hunt. The good part is that after I left he carried
out the 8 man, large stove, axe and chair in addition to his own stuff.
Tough Guy.

Ksnake
08-28-2009, 05:27 PM
Squirrels do it so…. Just sayin…..

What squirrels cache is buried, biodegradable, and what doesn’t get eaten, contributes to forest re-growth. Unused human caching is none of the above.

Woods Walker
08-28-2009, 05:43 PM
Still are the woods covered in this stuff up to our knees? I don’t know but somehow my silly meter is tagging the red zone here.

Ksnake
08-28-2009, 05:44 PM
I have to admit a couple of years ago Smokepole did sit on a chair that I had
cached for a late season elk hunt. The good part is that after I left he carried
out the 8 man, large stove, axe and chair in addition to his own stuff.
Tough Guy.

Good to know. If you guys ever want to help me haul a few of these up the hill and out of the woods let me know. These pics don't even show half of what is there.

Woods Walker
08-28-2009, 05:48 PM
What the? That looks like Katrina hit those woods.

Edit. This is going to sound crazy but guessing the critters would like the extra habitat. Butt ugly though.

Ksnake
08-28-2009, 06:02 PM
Still are the woods covered in this stuff up to our knees? I don’t know but somehow my silly meter is tagging the red zone here.

No worries, your humor did not go unnoticed :D

Woods Walker
08-28-2009, 06:08 PM
Funny thing about tossing stuff in the woods is there can be unexpected consequences. My Uncle told me a story about hikers being told to toss their packs if confronted by a bear. Soon the bears learned to mug people. Can’t verify squat but the story is entraining around a campfire.

Edit.

Speaking of squirrels can anyone imagine a critter more ferocious than an imaginary 200 lb red?

Woods Walker
08-28-2009, 06:12 PM
No worries, your humor did not go unnoticed :D

:) yea. Off topic for sure but seen some nice carp the other day.

Smokepole
08-28-2009, 07:31 PM
I have to admit a couple of years ago Smokepole did sit on a chair that I had cached for a late season elk hunt. .

If I'd known you cached it instead of carrying it in, I never would have graced that chair with my butt.

Songdog
08-28-2009, 08:07 PM
Squirrels do it so…. Just sayin…..

...yeah, but that's only cause the squirrels can't read the regs ;)

Ermine
08-28-2009, 09:06 PM
I personally dont think you should cache. If everyone and their brother went out and cached things there would be crap everywhere. I know they dont but as more and more people do it. I am of the opinion that you carry in whats on your back and you carry the same crap back out. Thats like stashing my entire pack because the return trip will be lighter because I dont have to carry a heavy pack back in.

elmbow
08-28-2009, 10:02 PM
...... Thats like stashing my entire pack because the return trip will be lighter because I dont have to carry a heavy pack back in.
WTF??????

Come hunt a dry Great basin range with me once, where its 6000 ft. elevation and 2 miles of bushwacking between you and any water you'll need for an extended stay and then tell me you're not going to carry a couple of 3 gallon bladders up the week before your hunt and stash 'em? This thread is nuts.

scothill
08-29-2009, 01:56 PM
WTF??????

Come hunt a dry Great basin range with me once, where its 6000 ft. elevation and 2 miles of bushwacking between you and any water you'll need for an extended stay and then tell me you're not going to carry a couple of 3 gallon bladders up the week before your hunt and stash 'em? This thread is nuts.


Actually, that is one case where I have no issues with caching

Woods Walker
08-29-2009, 08:02 PM
...yeah, but that's only cause the squirrels can't read the regs ;)

Says who? Never underestimate a squirrel.

Jefferson Herb
09-01-2009, 11:02 AM
I can't believe I followed this thread so long,I must say it's been interesting.
1 Open cash /camp: I would probably see what is of use and move it somewhere else,after all they gave up possession by leaving it open and abandoned. [ this not to include those packing out game with intent to return within legal or ethical time frame.
2 hidden cachs : out of sight out of mind
3 If I were to cach,it would be things of use for survival at a later date.Maybe to include hand tools for building a shelter if needed;[I distrust most govt agencies these days.] and keep it protected and hidden off the beaten path.
4 Any Item ie bench hitchin post etc,built w/o nails,using only old skills,such as dovetails would be non offensive to find at an overlook along side a trail.Same with a corral or natural spring development w/rock and no man made materials from town.
In other words,as you would expect to find it 100 yrs ago. [I'm not including trash]
5 Tin Cans: Yrs ago in scouts,where we would return to,we cut both ends out of tin cans,burned them in the fire;and buried them after flattening.1 yr later there was almost nothing but iron rust,and if not marked exactly;would have never been found.
6 It's no wonder we're being forced to do away with lead ammunition.
7 Maybe we should get approval from pita to return to goat skin bags.
I had a qt of gas left

Ksnake
09-03-2009, 05:56 PM
5 Tin Cans: Yrs ago in scouts,where we would return to,we cut both ends out of tin cans,burned them in the fire;and buried them after flattening.1 yr later there was almost nothing but iron rust,and if not marked exactly;would have never been found.


I'm surprised a Scout Master endorsed this. Our SM made us take everything out with us. And at the end of a trip, we even had to police the area for litter. The idea was to leave the place better than when we arrived.

And for what it's worth, I have found buried can piles while hunting or fishing. When they rust, they crush easier. And when you step on the hole where they were buried, the cans collapse and your foot sinks into the hole with a crunching sound. Makes me wonder who camped there, and what good times they had...not! Just thought it was lazy people who didn't want to carry out their trash even though they carried it in full. Never would have suspected a scout troop!

David in OR
09-03-2009, 06:36 PM
Says who? Never underestimate a squirrel.

http://mentalfloss.cachefly.net/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/450_rocky.jpg

Westy
06-29-2010, 02:28 PM
Can't wait to see if there's a cache up there again this summer.

I hope the guys who put it there last year will nut up, be law-abiding wilderness travelers, and carry their gear in and out on their own two legs.

charles
06-30-2010, 12:48 AM
I really dont have an opinion one way or the other on cacheing things, but I do believe it is just plain wrong to remove or tamper with things that dont belong to you on public property. If it bothers you, report it to the proper authorities. You could cause yourself or someone else serious problems by messing with things that dont belong to you.

ExtremeBison
06-30-2010, 11:24 AM
Caching happens alot up here. Trappers, outfitters, prospectors, miners, and so on, all keep caches of some form or another. It's a means of survival. The rules up here is leave them alone as someone is relying on the cache when they return.

As for the land is very vast here caching needs to be done. It's a way of life.

I got a draw for a dall sheep this year, my plans or to spend a couple of preseason days stashing and stocking a couple of spike camps. Even food drops out of my buddies super cub, may be a order. Locations on gps of course. Then once the season is over I will return and pick up my gear on snow machine. This will allow me to hunt the area to full potential and have well stocked spike camps. I will be in there late season so it could very cold and lots of snow is possible.

This not only make for a comfortable hunt. But a safe and rewarding hunt. Conditions could get real bad and having options of dropping off and retreating to to were I stashed a sealed blue river barrel with a 4man tipi and stove, with a little pre-cut wood, dry socks, and extra gear, can make a difference. If I tag out I may have to hike out to one of these camps then shuttle meat from there out as a pick up from a aircraft so late in the season probally will be impossible. All caches will a day walk from the nearest trail.

I think caches or ethical as long as the don't interfer on nature and or removed when your done. Legal or not I would still utilize caches.

Thats my 1oz

Take-a-knee
06-30-2010, 12:44 PM
I think caches or ethical as long as the don't interfer on nature and or removed when your done. Legal or not I would still utilize caches.

Thats my 1oz

I agree. Some laws are too stupid to obey. Leaving lawn chairs isn't caching, that's called littering. If I leave it, you won't find it.

BrooklynBen
06-30-2010, 12:46 PM
The purpose of laws are to provide a much needed element of discretion for those who don't come by it naturally.

Man's responsibility as a steward notwithstanding, he is a part OF nature, not apart from it. When I travel the backcountry, I see evidence that the elk and deer has been there, where they've slept, etc. I'm not philosophically opposed to seeing the evidence that man has been somewhere as well.

Is it an unwanted intrusion when a natural spring has been improved (to every animal's benefit) with some rockwork? Is it an unwanted intrusion when a high country lake has been stocked with a trout species that didn't manage to get there on its own hook prior to de-glaciation? Is it an unwanted intrusion when some firewood has been split and left in the crook of a tree for future use? How is this different than a squirrel's abandoned nut cache? I would submit that these are all examples of good and wise stewardship.

Stewardship is the key though. You have to use your discretion and ask yourself if your actions improve, degrade, or have no impact on your trust lands. Failing discretion, follow the regulations. I think you nailed it here in the very beginning.

It seems to me the discussion here has split between those who hold that the mature and responsible discretion of the individual is ethical vs. those who hold that any divergence from the law's complete prohibition encourages a slippery slope toward wilderness caching anarchy.

I would only suggest that even though the laws regarding indecent exposure have no territorial limits (baring private property), it's widely accepted that everyone who spends time in the wilderness eventually has to expose themselves in order to answer the 'call of nature' and deposit small caches into the ground. ;) Interestingly enough, I've yet to hear of an anarchy of nudity running wild in some wilderness area as a result of these legal transgressions. On the other hand; if some immature individual decides that because of this, they have "the right" to pull their pants down and relieve themselves on the shoulder of a busy hgwy that cuts through a wilderness area, well.... they should rightfully have to post some serious bail money.

As Evenhill so eloquently and simply stated it; "Failing discretion, follow the regulations."

P.S. If someone knows of a wilderness area where the there's an epidemic of the "fairer s3x" running around refusing to wear clothing, I think this is important information that many of the members of the forum here would like to know. ;)

evanhill
06-30-2010, 01:06 PM
Interestingly enough, I've yet to hear of an anarchy of nudity running wild in some wilderness area as a result of these legal transgressions.

I don't know... from what I hear things got a little rugged in the Black Ridge Canyons wilderness area in Colorado earlier this spring. Just what I heard. Thankfully I wasn't there to verify it myself.

CCH
07-05-2010, 01:36 PM
I don't know... from what I hear things got a little rugged in the Black Ridge Canyons wilderness area in Colorado earlier this spring. Just what I heard. Thankfully I wasn't there to verify it myself.

Obsess much? :D

You're just trying to get over that picture of you in twenty years posted on the kilt thread. The LAST one. ;)

Jim N
07-05-2010, 02:58 PM
I'll make an observation for what it's worth. Back in the '60's when I first began to seriously make use of wilderness, it was not at all uncommon to come on piles of trash, caches & other debris left by folks who may or may not be slobs but were certainly from another era. Piles of tin cans & bottles were common around off-trail elk camps in the Oregon wilderness areas where I came of age.

I have always made it a policy to clean up my own mess and, if time and situation allows, to clean up a bit of the other guys also. Seemingly there are a lot of others with the same mindset because I seldom run into trash in any significant quantity anymore. The backwoods, wilderness or not, seems for the most part to be treated with respect by the non-motorized crowd. Introduce diesel or gasoline & the equation seems to change in a hurry.

David in OR
07-05-2010, 04:00 PM
I've seen ginormous piles of cans and bottles and other types of refuse at horse camps in the Wallowa high country, which did piss me off. I think if you've actually walked in with your schit on your back, you're less likely to leave a mess because you've suffered a little to enjoy the place--only natural but a bit paradoxical, still, given that if a quad/horse/mule/goat carried it in for you, it could just as easily carry it out.

That said, I'm not at all puritanical about discreet caching. I like seeing old meat poles in the woods. Evan concisely summed up my attitude about "humans" and "nature" and rules.

Pointshoot
07-13-2010, 01:05 AM
Originally Posted by evanhill
The purpose of laws are to provide a much needed element of discretion for those who don't come by it naturally.


I think this sums the matter up.

Considering where we are with laws, the number of them, their instrusive reach into every aspect of behavior, and that the courts now rule inelegant adherence upon their enforcers for fear of calls of discriminatory application, I am becoming more disinclined to follow them, and more inclined to follow my own discretion.

I'll take this as a warning, to presume that there are those about who would report some poor hunter on foot and his discovered cache, for the only reason of the literality of the law. This says nothing good about the law nor about the discretion of the complainant.

I think both of you guys said it well. - - Have we become a nation of mindless drones with no judgment ? Little Kindergartner Johnny goes to school with his GI Joe with the itty-bitty tiny toy plastic gun - - and they practically lock the school down and call SWAT with their 'no tolerance policy rules'. Johnny is going to have a little 'vacation' from school for a few days because the 'adults' are fools. Have we lost the ability to THINK ?

IMO As long as an item temporarily stored in the woods is well enough hidden that its highly unlikely to be found by anyone not knowing its there, I would think you'd be o.k. Outta sight, outta mind. - - Make sure you mark the location with a GPS. Absolutely pledge that you'll recover the item and remove it as soon as possible (no later than the end of the season). Heck, you can even give the co-ordinates to a good hunting buddy or two and have them pledge to retrieve the item if youre not able to do so for some unforeseen reason. - - Don't create the kind of conditions that you wouldn't want to find if you arrived at your own favorite backcountry hunt location or camp. Slob hunters leave a lotta crap out in the woods. (Though at lower elevations and on main roads & trails - - much less so off road and into rougher country.) I think most of the people on this forum know the difference between crap and something which is discrete and harmless to the environment. - - -

Westy
07-13-2010, 10:08 PM
The purpose of laws are to provide a much needed element of discretion for those who don't come by it naturally.

Absolutely agree, but for those who don't come by it naturally, thank goodness for the Wilderness laws that are there to protect said Wilderness. Just like the thread that is on Patrick's Blog about how Sawtooth won an award for his work in the proposed Brown's Canyon Wilderness and illegal OHV/ATV abuse on the public lands in Grape Creek, Brown's Canyon and Badger Creek (http://kifaruforums.net/showthread.php?t=18714). The guys who were in violation would probably make a lot of arguments about how they weren't the problem [it was everybody else], when all they really needed was Sawtooth to speak up and point out the error of their ways - they probably didn't like Sawtooth for it, but it needed to be said. I also like how Patrick sent photos and video of the violators and coordinated with the authorities - great coordination! Congratulations again on that award Paul - you're an inspiration for the Wilderness Cache discussion.



I think most of the people on this forum know the difference between crap and something which is discrete and harmless to the environment. - - -

For sure - most here do. For the others, laws (posted at most Wildreness boundaries) are a great place to start.