Mule Ears

The problem with the gradual deterioration in cache quality is that the culture of geocaching is changing with it. I won't even try to solve the chicken-and-egg issue of what's cause and what's effect, but the trend is the same either way. And there are practical, negative consequences for the traditional hike-in-the-woods cacher. In my area, we've already seen cachers attacking new placements with needs-archived notes challenging the cache owner's assertion of adequate permission and the reviewer's approval. The target caches are not iffy placements on commercial property (most of which would be denied approval if 'adequate permission' were strictly applied); they're strenuous backcountry hikes. Now that fewer of us, percentagewise, are hikers, there's little outcry against this sort of nonsense. I suppose that many activities start out adventurous and edgy and then, as their popularity grows, sink to the lowest common denominator. But I've really enjoyed this one and stuck with it longer than the others; it'll be sad to see it slip under. Still a few good years left, though, if I have anything to say about it.

It's based on an old quote that's lately attributed to Bill Clinton: "Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel." No ink here, just bits. Listen, I'm with you that this is and should be a FUN activity. For me, however, the fun is enhanced by the simplicity of the rules. Find the cache, sign the book, log online. No lawyers, loopholes, favoritism, bailouts or insider trading. Introducing a lot of exceptions just invites real-world chaos into the game. Don't want it, don't need it.

I should know better than to get into a forum discussion with a man who buys his bits by the barrel, but a couple of inconsistencies in Rockin Roddy's posts deserve a response. One response Roddy, you wrote: That's what I was referring to when I said that the owner allowing the online log to stand was a gift--'no scribbles in the logbook.' In your reply, you clarify: So you did sign the log, just with an improvised instrument in an illegible-but-identifiable way. I explicitly said in my post (#29) that I recognize such logs as legit. I'm not deleting logs on the basis of bad penmanship. Getting back to the prior post, you assert: ..but then in your response to me, you say that you'd skip logging my caches online and enter a false log on an inactive cache to balance the books: That doesn't square with the 'not a numbers hound' assertion. I would think you'd just 'ignore' the cache to take if off your to-do list. What I'm trying to illustrate is how complicated things get when you start lawyering this simple game. Sign the book, log online. No rationalizations or workarounds required. Sorry to have chopped up your posts like that; I copied and pasted them without modification from #20 and #30 of this thread.

It doesn't happen often, but when I find that an online log isn't backed up by an entry in the logbook, I delete the online log. The cacher whose log is deleted gets a notification when the online log is deleted. If they want to appeal the issue, my email address is right there on my profile page. I don't email in advance; it doesn't make any sense to me. The most plausible reasons or excuses are going to come from the scammers anyway. The only reasons that would sway me would be if the logbook were missing or inaccessible in some way that was not the finder's fault. Even in those cases, I'd expect the finder to leave some identifiable trace of their visit or to take a picture. Understand that I'm talking about backcountry caches that require some effort to get to, and entitle legit finders to bragging rights. I don't have many drive-by caches, so clarity on this issue is easy to come by. As far as lame caches go, I don't give a rat's patootie if somebody wants to claim that they have lifted every lamppost skirt in Cochise County. Regarding showing up for FTF without a pencil--the owner that allows such a log to stand is giving a gift to the finder. And probably making enemies of the FTF also-rans.

I haven't tried them, but I have seen "Injinji Tetrasoks" at Summithut in Tucson. They look like they'd work with the Vibram FFs, provided you have a little slack in the toe pockets to allow for the additional layer of fabric. Personally, I regard the avoidance of socks as a major benefit of hiking barefoot or in sandals/V-FFs. Our desert grasses create hitchhiker seeds with barbs that attach to socks and itch like crazy. Bare ankles are immune.

I'm a water buffalo. I carry minimal gear that I have prepackaged into small pouches that I can throw into my pack or hang from my belt. But I carry lots of water--up to two gallons during the hot months. And some V8 or Endurolyte tabs for salt replacement.

I agree with the observations made by the author of that article, but I should point out that he's reviewing a specialized version of the V-FF, the "Flow." This model has a neoprene upper and is meant to be worn in cold water as a wetsuit for your feet. The other V-FF models are warmer than sandals, but not nearly as warm as the "Flow."

Congrats on the successful sandal outing! Regarding the Vibram FFs, you have to pick your battles. The uppers are not tough, and the soles can be punctured by goatheads, mesquite thorns, etc. Unless your feet are fully battle-hardened, they are best for on-trail hiking and relatively smooth rock-scrambling. That pic of me in the Dragoon mountains illustrates ideal terrain. If you plan to use 'em in sand washes, get the "KSO" model, which adds some coverage over the top of your foot to 'Keep Stuff Out.' When I plan a hike that covers some suitable terrain, I toss the V-FFs into my pack (adding, what, 10 ounces?). I wear sandals for most of the trip, then switch to the V-FFs when they'd be most effective. I used that approach on GC14EMP in order to tackle a combination of trail hiking, wet/dry canyoneering and climbing.

It's OK, if there's nothing on TV....

My rule of thumb is to do the minimum necessary to keep the cache up and operational, and never to alter the owner's original intent. Repairs like adding a couple of log sheets, replacing plastic bags, adding a pencil, or duct-taping a deteriorating container don't require a second thought. If the container is totally shot and I have a replacement, I'll swap it out but leave the original in place, inside, or nearby (in case there's some sentimental value I'm unaware of). Other than that, I get permission from the owner. As an owner, I've been ticked off (mildly) by a few unnecessary repairs: - One of my adopted caches is a little hard to find, and several searchers have decided that it was missing. They placed new caches as a favor to me. I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt, but whether or not they had ulterior motives doesn't make it any less of a pain in the rump to search out and remove the dupli-caches. - I recently did maintenance on a frequently visited cache of mine and found that someone had dropped in a new logbook. I was surprised, because there was no prior note saying 'logbook almost full.' That's because it wasn't: the Samaritan didn't notice that the backs of all the pages were still blank. - Some of my mountaintop caches are tin boxes, painted to be rustproof and set up as log-only caches. In Arizona, these guys last a long time if they are carefully sited in a well-drained crevice. One finder improved on my setup by putting my tin inside an off-brand plastic container. Once the plastic lid went, my box would end up sitting in a puddle of water rusting away. Made a special trip to reverse the "improvement."

I'm addicted to the comfort and quiet of the hardtop, so that's not an option. But I did learn the secret-knock procedure for reprogramming the electronic locks. Now when I open one door, all three unlock. Greatly improves my chances. (After the trauma of busting the window on my then-brand-new vehicle, I also open the window, and usually turn off the engine and take the key with me.)

Ugh. Here's my tale, from December '06, a month after I took delivery of a new Jeep Wrangler with electronic door locks:

Heh, no, but I have one of his books on my "Survival" shelf. Entertaining stuff. The foot gloves are Vibram FiveFingers.

Well, it's much easier here in southern Arizona, where we have gently rolling hills covered with velvety soft green grass Example from a recent cache-placement mission: I'd have agreed with you a couple of years ago, when I wore desert combat boots on hikes and scrambles. And I will grant that if you just jump into sandals and undertake a tough hike you're asking for trouble. But with time and patience you can strengthen your feet to near indestructibility. There are significant benefits: improved knee comfort, reduced susceptibility to ankle sprains, better agility and balance, elimination of moisture-related foot rot, reduced fatigue... and in my case the curing of a very stubborn case of plantar fasciitis, which was what got me started on the barefoot thing in the first place. I tried all the standard treatments until I hit on the idea of walking barefoot in sand as a way of stretching and soothing the soles of my feet. That led to running barefoot, hiking barefoot and in sandals, etc. The main downside is obvious--there are all kinds of sharp objects in the environment that would just love to puncture or lacerate your feet. But in a very short time you develop a sixth sense that prevents most injuries. It's not for everyone, but feet can be retrained to do their evolutionarily defined job without a lot of highly engineered support and padding.

I've used the original Witz boxes for a couple of caches: GCNJ14 and GCJGB3. These caches have been out in the Arizona desert for nearly four years and are still in perfect shape. The one on top of Sheepshead Dome has survived extreme heat and cold without a problem. Pretty good for 6-7 bucks. I see that for an extra dollar they'll even sell you a pre-camouflaged box:

I'll second the recommendation for Teva Terra-Fi sandals. Their thick, cushiony soles make 'em particularly good for folks who are new to hiking in sandals.

No socks. Socks would be slippery against the sandal footbed, and they'd retain sweat and stickers. Most of the benefit of sandals lies in allowing air circulation that dries and cools your sweaty feet. Start with short hikes on easy trails and work up from there. Probably the best way to get started is to strap a pair of sandals to your pack; when your feet start to feel hot and sweaty, switch out of your boots or shoes and into the sandals for awhile.

You mean like this? Saw one the other day with just a pair of legs and boots sticking out. Slow hiker, I guess. Didn't think it was worth wasting a spot on the memory card, though.

You can be reasonably comfortable at high levels of exertion in the heat if you take care of your crotch, head and feet. Here's what works for me: -Undershorts: Long (9" inseam) boxerjock-style compression shorts, like this Underarmour example. You want the long inseam so that the leg cuff stays put below the bulge of the quads. The short-inseam models can creep up. If you're unsure whether you're going to like these, you can test the concept by purchasing some cheapies made by Champion Athletic at a department store. They're very light and not as structured as the UA models, but prevent chafing and heat/sweat buildup. Heat in this area is no joke; instructors in survival school suggested, in all seriousness, opening your fly if necessary for ventilation. Not recommended on popular hiking trails, in parks or near schools... -Pants: 5.11 Tactical Pants in nylon canvas. Unfortunately, they seem to be phasing out the nylon in favor of lightweight cotton/poly. Those are more comfortable in the heat, but less thorn-resistant for bushwhacking. Both types dry quickly. Cotton, not recommended. -Shirt: Cheap 50/50 cotton/poly T-shirts are my usual favorites, but you may be onto something with the idea of wearing a lightweight longsleeve shirt. If you can avoid wearing suncreen, you'll get more cooling benefit from sweating, according to a study I read somewhere. Since this tracks my experience, I believe it. -Hat: Lightweight ballcap with a surrounding neck cape (think "Foreign Legion"). The neck cape should wrap around to partially shade your ears. I understand the benefits of large-brimmed hats, but never had much success with them myself. They tend to be heavy, susceptible to sailing off in strong winds, and impossible to manage in tight brush. -Shoes/Boots/Socks: If you've gotta wear boots or shoes (I rarely do anymore), wear something like Smartwool socks (and possibly liners) to wick sweat. Injuries due to hiking with sweaty feet and cotton socks are gruesome and take a long time to heal. Nowadays I just wear sandals, but it has taken some time to get my feet into that kind of shape. -Cotton Bandanas: Carry several to use for sweat management, ad-hoc shade, emergency headgear and firstaid.

Regardless of the comparative coarseness of other online groups, amianda's point is well-taken. The discussion here is frequently argument-for-argument's sake, with nasty debating tactics taking the place of real discussion. Deliberate misunderstanding, selective quoting, reductio ad absurdum, holier-than-thou posturing and hair-trigger offense-taking are pretty standard techniques of many of the most active forum posters. That said, there are some truly nice, really fun, obviously talented people who post here. It's just a miracle that they get a word in edgewise. I read and/or participate in a number of other forums, and my observation is that this one is about middle-of-the-pack for friendliness/usefulness. Forums that are centered around purely online activities seem to be worse; those that are set up to discuss offline activities (climbing, hiking, fitness, biking) are better. I don't really factor in the prevalence of banned words; mountain-bike groups contain a lot of raunchy language but very little vitriol. This forum has no potty words but a considerable amount of trolling and seething. My two cents.

It's far from perfect, but I just print out GEOCACHE in bold, inch-high letters on a sheet of paper, laminate the paper in plastic, then cut out the letters freehand with a fresh single-edge razor blade (leaving the occasional gap to support isolated shapes like the center of the letter O). One such handmade stencil lasts a long time. Dried paint can usually be removed by flexing the plastic--the paint flakes off.

Me, too. We're in complete agreement. Suppose the caches were offered instead to an equally responsible cacher who had found them. you wouldn't object to that adoption, I'm guessing. That's the weird situation that cropped up here--sort of a dog-in-the-manger scenario.

I recently did this. A local legand asked me to adopt a handful of his caches, and I was both honored and delighted to accept. I found some of them prior to this, but I still haven't found the others. When I do, I reckon I'll log them as finds, since I'll certainly be finding them. Pre-adoptive find is better, but soon after is fine, too. My side-point was only that an adoptive owner ought to have visited his adoptees so as to be knowledgeable enough to answer questions, perform maintenance, etc. This was the nut of an issue that arose locally wherein some old, backcountry caches came up for adoption. A cacher who had never visited some of these caches nonetheless wanted to adopt them and rely on others to do maintenance, etc.

Yep. It's actually a combination of cache-rehide-migration and fading memory over time. For example, I just did maintenance on my Sheepshead cache while placing a new cache nearby. Went right to the spot where I left the Sheepshead cache five years ago, and found nothing. Argh. Thought I'd misremembered the location. Decided to check the nearby summit-register cairn, and found the cache some distance away lying in a shallow pit in the granite. Some climber-muggles had signed the log and left the cache out, I guess. No harm done this time, but on other occasions I've had a real search on my hands... I agree that logging your own cache is a faux-pas, but don't get too exercised about it. Heck, I guess I've even done it, in that I've adopted some caches that I previously found. To my mind, it'd be worse to adopt a cache I hadn't previously found.

Logging a find on your own cache(s) isn't the worst thing. I've come close to logging a DNF on my own cache(s) during maintenance visits. That'd be worse.