Besides all that, LNT practices and woodland ethics have already been
discussed at length on this list. Just look back at the archives, you
will probably find at least several hundred of the near 8000 posts
have been in reference to conservation.
So, I agree with Bill. Perhaps Joe-Self-Righteous aught to give at
least some humans credit for a little intellegence and sensitivity,
or else close off all parks completely because, obviously, humans
just do damage to natural lands. But oh, no, that would jeapardize
the Park Department funding and he may find himself a victim
of downsizing.
Perhaps now is time to come out of the closet and write to our
senators introducing them to letterboxing the nice way before they
hear about from some paranoid park ranger (this is a general
statement and not directed specifically at Mr. Gilbert or any other
individual employed by any federal or state agency).
Thank you
Aili
Concerns about letterboxing effects AN IRATE RESPONSE !
2 messages in this thread |
Started on 2001-07-21
Re:Concerns about letterboxing effects AN IRATE RESPONSE !
From: (defygravity@snet.net) |
Date: 2001-07-21 21:31:27 UTC
Re: [LbNA] Re: Concerns about letterboxing effects AN IRATE RESPONSE !
From: Victoria Stawiarski (viktorie8457@hotmail.com) |
Date: 2001-07-23 11:51:13 UTC-04:00
>Anything that a good letterboxer leaves behind is carefully hidden so
>there
>is no visible trace and no environmaental damage.
How can anyone know this? Have there been any published studies on the
environmental impact of degrading Rubbermaid containers?? ; )
--lb newbie
>From: "Bill&Val/LBCentral"
>Reply-To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
>To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [LbNA] Re: Concerns about letterboxing effects AN IRATE RESPONSE
>!
>Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 03:52:40 -0000
>
>In response to Mr Gilberts comments about letterboxing and
>Geo-Caching, I offer the following. It is truly unfortunate that an
>apparent official of the National Park Service would use his
>office as a "Bully Pulpit" in a blatant attempt to discredit an
>activity simply because it doesn't fit his idea of traditional trail
>use.
>
>From the article -
>"...It is doubtful that existing management plans or regulations for
>any public lands provide for this type of activity. Therefore,
>participation in geocaching or letterboxing could make one subject
>to law enforcement actions regarding unauthorized use of public
>lands. ...."
>
>Does he mean that hiking in the woods was not planned for ? Just
>exactly what should we be charged with.
>
>From the article -
>"...Critical nesting/breeding areas of threatened or endangered
>animals might be disturbed. Fragile plant communities could be
>trampled. If the cache or letterbox is buried, archeological
>resources could be damaged. ..."
>
>
>Apparently this gentleman is under the impression that the
>letterboxing community is comprised of an inordinate amount
>of careless people and idiots who have no concern for the environment.
>
>From the article -
>"... Leaving something behind has always been viewed as "littering."
>Geocaching and letterboxing invite a redefinition of that term and of
>basic trail ethics. Thus, I see them as being at cross-purposes with
>the effort to instill in the public's mind a greater appreciation
>for outdoor use and land stewardship ethics. ..."
>
>Pure Sanctimonious Self Serving Drivel ! Even my dog packs out all
>the garbage that just those plain old hikers leave behind. Anything
>that a good letterboxer leaves behind is carefully hidden so there
>is no visible trace and no environmaental damage. The areas
>are cleaner than when they were first found and the traffic loading
>is minimal since it's not done in major hoards. The support for
>"Orienteering" events having less impact is laughable.
>
>Letterboxing is a hike with a destination in mind - The assumption
>that a predetermined destination can have an impact on the trail
>simply doesn't equate. It seems a shame that many who attain positions
>of notice often use it for personal goals. Perhaps Mr. Gilbert needs
>a crusade. Why don't we work on something more productive. I for
>one find no merit in his comments.
>
>This article made me so mad I could just SPIT !
>
>OK. I'm mad and I vented - You think I'm wrong ? Flame Away !
>
>Bill
>LBCentral
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>there
>is no visible trace and no environmaental damage.
How can anyone know this? Have there been any published studies on the
environmental impact of degrading Rubbermaid containers?? ; )
--lb newbie
>From: "Bill&Val/LBCentral"
>Reply-To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
>To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [LbNA] Re: Concerns about letterboxing effects AN IRATE RESPONSE
>!
>Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 03:52:40 -0000
>
>In response to Mr Gilberts comments about letterboxing and
>Geo-Caching, I offer the following. It is truly unfortunate that an
>apparent official of the National Park Service would use his
>office as a "Bully Pulpit" in a blatant attempt to discredit an
>activity simply because it doesn't fit his idea of traditional trail
>use.
>
>From the article -
>"...It is doubtful that existing management plans or regulations for
>any public lands provide for this type of activity. Therefore,
>participation in geocaching or letterboxing could make one subject
>to law enforcement actions regarding unauthorized use of public
>lands. ...."
>
>Does he mean that hiking in the woods was not planned for ? Just
>exactly what should we be charged with.
>
>From the article -
>"...Critical nesting/breeding areas of threatened or endangered
>animals might be disturbed. Fragile plant communities could be
>trampled. If the cache or letterbox is buried, archeological
>resources could be damaged. ..."
>
>
>Apparently this gentleman is under the impression that the
>letterboxing community is comprised of an inordinate amount
>of careless people and idiots who have no concern for the environment.
>
>From the article -
>"... Leaving something behind has always been viewed as "littering."
>Geocaching and letterboxing invite a redefinition of that term and of
>basic trail ethics. Thus, I see them as being at cross-purposes with
>the effort to instill in the public's mind a greater appreciation
>for outdoor use and land stewardship ethics. ..."
>
>Pure Sanctimonious Self Serving Drivel ! Even my dog packs out all
>the garbage that just those plain old hikers leave behind. Anything
>that a good letterboxer leaves behind is carefully hidden so there
>is no visible trace and no environmaental damage. The areas
>are cleaner than when they were first found and the traffic loading
>is minimal since it's not done in major hoards. The support for
>"Orienteering" events having less impact is laughable.
>
>Letterboxing is a hike with a destination in mind - The assumption
>that a predetermined destination can have an impact on the trail
>simply doesn't equate. It seems a shame that many who attain positions
>of notice often use it for personal goals. Perhaps Mr. Gilbert needs
>a crusade. Why don't we work on something more productive. I for
>one find no merit in his comments.
>
>This article made me so mad I could just SPIT !
>
>OK. I'm mad and I vented - You think I'm wrong ? Flame Away !
>
>Bill
>LBCentral
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp