> I think that he has a point, as one could clearly see
> a path worn to the letterbox, so some damage had
> obviously occured to that part of 'the habitat'. As I
> find more boxes I'm wondering if we need to be more
> aware of the habitat and perhaps place them closer to
> the trail?

Limit the impact by removing it after a set number of visitors
or days. There are ways to limit the visitors, and/or limit the
time. Don't allow any impact. If you are unsure, ask a local
expert. (As an aside, I believe the geocachers actually do this;
negative comments about them notwithstanding as addressed later).
The unit itself will eventually go away one way or the other, so
I have never considered that impact.

> I think the NPS policy about letterboxing and geocaching is based in
> part on their objections to disturbing habitat/trampling new
> trails/fears of "digging", etc. but also a blanket policy against
> litter in the parks.

The cited reason by NPS is a policy about leaving abandoned property
in parks. They may be against off-trail activity, but the fact that
they tolerate confluence hunting indicates (at least to me) that
the physical object is the overriding factor. (Some parks have local
regulations against off-trail activity, and they will cite you for
whatever activity you are doing off-trail; this is another kettle of fish
altogether.)

> But among other things, it suggests that they lump
> letterboxers & geocachers together in the same heap.

As well they should.

> If we letterboxers start getting linked to that sort of sub-idiotic
> behavior [by a geocacher], our days are numbered. Also, some state
> parks & other jurisdictions will likely take their cue from whatever
> the NPS does, so it's a potential headache for all of us.

> Geocachers need to begin a serious effort to police themselves, & we
> all need to keep a close eye on developments with the NPS.

> (which they discovered while investigating those hole-digging geocachers,
> it seems)

First, lets kill the "us vs them" right now. I am aware of letterboxers
who have ripped thru stone walls in CT looking for letterboxes with no
thought of replacing the stones to keep the wall in its original state,
or any thought of the history buffs who enjoy that those walls remain intact
(and yeah, it sounds weird, but archaeologists study them, and letterboxing
sounds weird to many as well, imagine that ...).

The point being there are more geocachers and geocaches than lbers and
lbs, hence you here more stories about them. There are bad apples in both
hobbies.

So, I don't think the answer is distancing letterboxers from geocachers,
but realising they are in the same boat. Land managers will see the two
in the same boat, anyway, IMO. The fact of the matter is that there
are entities who have a financial interest in making sure geocaching
succeeds and goes mainstream, and IHMO they are farther along in "policing
themselves" than letterboxers may be.

It might make sense to see what they may be doing right rather than assume
they are doing things wrong. I haven't been involved much with geocaching
in the past six months or so, but when I was, I was aware that they were
doing more "policing" than letterboxers were. Not to pass judgement one way
or another on the appropriateness of their policing; just to make the point
that IMO some of these comments are off-base in the grand scheme of things,
and some of the things they were doing addressed some of the points in this
thread.

LBers may think land manager's rules are bogus, and it is the case that
clearcutting is legal in places where letterboxing isn't, and someone may
be about to chime in with the pointless arguments that 'its my tax dollars,
its my land, and i know what i'm doing', but IMO the only long term answer
is making these activities legitimate in the eyes of the land managers. I
don't know how to do that, but I don't think bashing geocachers is the right
answer. I vote for admitting that letterboxers do the same thing, and seeing
if that helps somehow ... since _almost_ everyone involved in these things
wants stratospheric growth, it may make sense to grow together.

(sorry for the length -- of course, you didn't have to read it :-))

Cheers