At 08:50 PM 1/17/2001 +0000, Jay Drew wrote:
>Eric, you're ("they're?") right that letterboxers purposfully leave a
>trace. I think we've got a pretty clear statement on the subject
>at...well now that I surf around I can't find it... I thought it
>might be under the "join" button or on Randy's faq. Webmasters,
>shouldn't that be right up front somewhere?
>
>We've also been called to task in the past for bushwacking off trail.
>Some areas are more sensitive to that than others (the alpine heights
>in the White Mountains in NH come to mind, I'm sure you can think of
>others).
>
>The folks I've met letterboxing (both on and off line) all share a
>glory in the outdoors and have a fine respect for conservation and
>the ideals of limiting our impact. I don't think our small treasures,
>carefully placed, and searched for by enthusiastic conservationists
>have a negative impact on the environment.
I'm in complete agreement with Jay here, while still appreciating Eric's
concerns. I also believe that letterboxers already have a healthy respect
for the conservation of our natural resources. I'll bet that scouting or
hiking and/or orienteering came long before letterboxing for nearly
everyone of us. It goes with the territory, so to speak. We letterboxers
aren't the problem, rather we're part of the solution. We probably care as
much about the places we hike as anyone. How many of us have picked up
litter when we've seen it along the trail? I'll bet that every single
person who reads this has done that.
Eric, as a former scout leader myself, I figured Leave No Trace was subject
to interpretation. Within reason of course. Let's face it, nobody can leave
absolutely no trace. There are footprints or buried waste left behind.
There are leaves and branches moved about. I always felt that Leave No
Trace referred to litter or other by products. A letterbox is not litter. I
also think that your manner of introspection is probably common in all of
us and the sort of trait that makes us the environmentally conscious people
that we are.
Mark (in hoping the rumor of more snow is true CT)
Leave No Trace
5 messages in this thread |
Started on 2001-01-18
Re: Leave No Trace
From: Mark S. Fitton (mfitton@snet.net) |
Date: 2001-01-18 22:20:32 UTC-05:00
Re: Leave No Trace
From: Jay Drew (drewclan@aol.com) |
Date: 2001-01-19 04:22:58 UTC
Mark writes:
>Eric, >>snip<< I also think that your manner of introspection is
>probably common in all of us and the sort of trait that makes us the
>environmentally conscious people that we are.
Thanks for those kind words, Mark! I've met Eric and he is truly an
inspiration both for young scouts and for letterboxing in CT.
Jay
>Eric, >>snip<< I also think that your manner of introspection is
>probably common in all of us and the sort of trait that makes us the
>environmentally conscious people that we are.
Thanks for those kind words, Mark! I've met Eric and he is truly an
inspiration both for young scouts and for letterboxing in CT.
Jay
Re: Leave No Trace
From: gramatrick (dewberrylb@gmail.com) |
Date: 2006-08-15 12:32:14 UTC
This is an interesting dicussion. I like how it's being discussed in
a relatively non-confrontational way, because I believe it's important
to think these issues through.
The LNT guideline that I think conflicts is the one about staying on
the trail. I agree with Clueless who mentioned taking indirect routes
to boxes--no social trails!
It also comes back to one of those ongoing letterboxing
discussions--how far off the trail do you plant? In general, mine are
pretty close to the trail, but I know others take different
approaches. I do think that it's very important to be VERY CLEAR with
our directions when taking someone off-trail. That prevents having to
dig behind every tree and pick up every rock.
Dewberry
--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "Barefoot Lucy"
wrote:
>
> The particular point that everyone struggles most with is "Pack it
in, Pack
> it out", but if you look at the guidelines you quoted under that
objective,
> they all refer to trash, waste, etc.
>
> If I'm caring for my box and ensuring that it doesn't impact
wildlife, and
> if, when I remove it, there is no remaining sign it had been there,
it isn't
> trash.
>
>
> On 8/14/06, Tracy Edwards wrote:
> > Travel and Camp on Durable Surfaces (more details and information)
> >
Concentrate use on existing trails and campsites.
* Walk single file in the middle of the trail, even when wet or
muddy.
* Disperse use to prevent the creation of campsites and trails.
* Leave rocks, plants and other natural objects as you find them.
a relatively non-confrontational way, because I believe it's important
to think these issues through.
The LNT guideline that I think conflicts is the one about staying on
the trail. I agree with Clueless who mentioned taking indirect routes
to boxes--no social trails!
It also comes back to one of those ongoing letterboxing
discussions--how far off the trail do you plant? In general, mine are
pretty close to the trail, but I know others take different
approaches. I do think that it's very important to be VERY CLEAR with
our directions when taking someone off-trail. That prevents having to
dig behind every tree and pick up every rock.
Dewberry
--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "Barefoot Lucy"
>
> The particular point that everyone struggles most with is "Pack it
in, Pack
> it out", but if you look at the guidelines you quoted under that
objective,
> they all refer to trash, waste, etc.
>
> If I'm caring for my box and ensuring that it doesn't impact
wildlife, and
> if, when I remove it, there is no remaining sign it had been there,
it isn't
> trash.
>
>
> On 8/14/06, Tracy Edwards
> > Travel and Camp on Durable Surfaces (more details and information)
> >
Concentrate use on existing trails and campsites.
* Walk single file in the middle of the trail, even when wet or
muddy.
* Disperse use to prevent the creation of campsites and trails.
* Leave rocks, plants and other natural objects as you find them.
Re: Leave No Trace
From: SpringChick (letterbox@comcast.net) |
Date: 2006-08-15 13:16:23 UTC
--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "gramatrick"
wrote:
>
> I do think that it's very important to be
> VERY CLEAR with our directions when taking
> someone off-trail. That prevents having to
> dig behind every tree and pick up every rock.
>
> Dewberry
>
I would agree with the importance of this. I love a good mystery
box (great article Pepe), but leave the mystery to finding the
location or the big picture directionals on the way to the box.
Once a person reaches the actual location of the box, the more
specific the clues as to where one should be finding the box, the
less chance that they will disrupt the environment, trampling a
large area, turning over rocks and logs looking for a box.
We've all been there... we reach the end of the clues and there is
not specific indication as to where the box should be hiding -- we
begin looking under rocks and logs, clearing masses of fallen leaves
away from the edges of fallen trees, all the while wondering just
where is the LNT line -- at what point do we walk away without a box
because to search further would be too disruptive to the area?
On the other hand, clues that are specific at the end as to the
hiding place do not leave a seeker wondering where to look and do
not encourage the type of exhaustive search that could potentially
be damaging to the environment.
Some might feel that to give such specifics of the hiding location
make it too easy or take away from the mystery, but I think there is
still plenty of room for challenge and mystery (if that is your
intent) in your clues, just not at the very end. I've done some
boxes where I had to research and decipher for months to find the
location and then I walked trails seemingly in circles for hours
trying to find the landmarks and places that fit the clues, etc. but
once I got to the spot, the clues were very specific as to exactly
where I would find the box. In my opinion that is the ideal
scenario.
SpringChick
wrote:
>
> I do think that it's very important to be
> VERY CLEAR with our directions when taking
> someone off-trail. That prevents having to
> dig behind every tree and pick up every rock.
>
> Dewberry
>
I would agree with the importance of this. I love a good mystery
box (great article Pepe), but leave the mystery to finding the
location or the big picture directionals on the way to the box.
Once a person reaches the actual location of the box, the more
specific the clues as to where one should be finding the box, the
less chance that they will disrupt the environment, trampling a
large area, turning over rocks and logs looking for a box.
We've all been there... we reach the end of the clues and there is
not specific indication as to where the box should be hiding -- we
begin looking under rocks and logs, clearing masses of fallen leaves
away from the edges of fallen trees, all the while wondering just
where is the LNT line -- at what point do we walk away without a box
because to search further would be too disruptive to the area?
On the other hand, clues that are specific at the end as to the
hiding place do not leave a seeker wondering where to look and do
not encourage the type of exhaustive search that could potentially
be damaging to the environment.
Some might feel that to give such specifics of the hiding location
make it too easy or take away from the mystery, but I think there is
still plenty of room for challenge and mystery (if that is your
intent) in your clues, just not at the very end. I've done some
boxes where I had to research and decipher for months to find the
location and then I walked trails seemingly in circles for hours
trying to find the landmarks and places that fit the clues, etc. but
once I got to the spot, the clues were very specific as to exactly
where I would find the box. In my opinion that is the ideal
scenario.
SpringChick
Re: [LbNA] Re: Leave No Trace
From: (hannahkat@cox.net) |
Date: 2006-08-15 13:05:13 UTC-04:00
I have to agree strongly here...when writing your clues to a box, especially a mystery, it is vital to be specific about the finding spot. You may be very cryptic about getting them to a specific spot, but if you don't include specific detail about landmarks and distance etc once they are AT the spot, you have two distinct problems...
Without detailed instructions about finding the hiding spot, once they are indeed at the right site to find the mystery, they may tear apart the area looking for it . But more importantly, if they have not deciphered the mystery clues correctly and are NOT AT THE RIGHT SITE, then they may tear apart a totally random area looking for it without having any idea they are at the wrong site. Your landmarks at the site are vital. It ensures that, once there, they will be certain of themselves: "yes, I am at the right spot...see, there's the tree with an elbow facing left and a red fence post." or "This is not the right spot, there is nothing here that matches the clues."
There will always be folks that 'tromp around like a rhino' (as I always admonish the summer camp kids), trampling and dismantling etc, but good clues can help alleviate that problem significantly.
Respectfully,
-Kim (Rustypuff)
---- SpringChick wrote:
> --- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "gramatrick"
> wrote:
> >
> > I do think that it's very important to be
> > VERY CLEAR with our directions when taking
> > someone off-trail. That prevents having to
> > dig behind every tree and pick up every rock.
> >
> > Dewberry
> >
>
>
> I would agree with the importance of this. I love a good mystery
> box (great article Pepe), but leave the mystery to finding the
> location or the big picture directionals on the way to the box.
> Once a person reaches the actual location of the box, the more
> specific the clues as to where one should be finding the box, the
> less chance that they will disrupt the environment, trampling a
> large area, turning over rocks and logs looking for a box.
>
> We've all been there... we reach the end of the clues and there is
> not specific indication as to where the box should be hiding -- we
> begin looking under rocks and logs, clearing masses of fallen leaves
> away from the edges of fallen trees, all the while wondering just
> where is the LNT line -- at what point do we walk away without a box
> because to search further would be too disruptive to the area?
>
> On the other hand, clues that are specific at the end as to the
> hiding place do not leave a seeker wondering where to look and do
> not encourage the type of exhaustive search that could potentially
> be damaging to the environment.
>
> Some might feel that to give such specifics of the hiding location
> make it too easy or take away from the mystery, but I think there is
> still plenty of room for challenge and mystery (if that is your
> intent) in your clues, just not at the very end. I've done some
> boxes where I had to research and decipher for months to find the
> location and then I walked trails seemingly in circles for hours
> trying to find the landmarks and places that fit the clues, etc. but
> once I got to the spot, the clues were very specific as to exactly
> where I would find the box. In my opinion that is the ideal
> scenario.
>
> SpringChick
>
>
>
>
>
Without detailed instructions about finding the hiding spot, once they are indeed at the right site to find the mystery, they may tear apart the area looking for it . But more importantly, if they have not deciphered the mystery clues correctly and are NOT AT THE RIGHT SITE, then they may tear apart a totally random area looking for it without having any idea they are at the wrong site. Your landmarks at the site are vital. It ensures that, once there, they will be certain of themselves: "yes, I am at the right spot...see, there's the tree with an elbow facing left and a red fence post." or "This is not the right spot, there is nothing here that matches the clues."
There will always be folks that 'tromp around like a rhino' (as I always admonish the summer camp kids), trampling and dismantling etc, but good clues can help alleviate that problem significantly.
Respectfully,
-Kim (Rustypuff)
---- SpringChick
> --- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "gramatrick"
> wrote:
> >
> > I do think that it's very important to be
> > VERY CLEAR with our directions when taking
> > someone off-trail. That prevents having to
> > dig behind every tree and pick up every rock.
> >
> > Dewberry
> >
>
>
> I would agree with the importance of this. I love a good mystery
> box (great article Pepe), but leave the mystery to finding the
> location or the big picture directionals on the way to the box.
> Once a person reaches the actual location of the box, the more
> specific the clues as to where one should be finding the box, the
> less chance that they will disrupt the environment, trampling a
> large area, turning over rocks and logs looking for a box.
>
> We've all been there... we reach the end of the clues and there is
> not specific indication as to where the box should be hiding -- we
> begin looking under rocks and logs, clearing masses of fallen leaves
> away from the edges of fallen trees, all the while wondering just
> where is the LNT line -- at what point do we walk away without a box
> because to search further would be too disruptive to the area?
>
> On the other hand, clues that are specific at the end as to the
> hiding place do not leave a seeker wondering where to look and do
> not encourage the type of exhaustive search that could potentially
> be damaging to the environment.
>
> Some might feel that to give such specifics of the hiding location
> make it too easy or take away from the mystery, but I think there is
> still plenty of room for challenge and mystery (if that is your
> intent) in your clues, just not at the very end. I've done some
> boxes where I had to research and decipher for months to find the
> location and then I walked trails seemingly in circles for hours
> trying to find the landmarks and places that fit the clues, etc. but
> once I got to the spot, the clues were very specific as to exactly
> where I would find the box. In my opinion that is the ideal
> scenario.
>
> SpringChick
>
>
>
>
>